Part 1
 http://arcticbeacon.com/movies/The_Wall-…
Part 1
***
Part 2
 http://arcticbeacon.com/movies/The_Wall-…
Part 2

Alamo Ministry Seeks Federal Injunction to Release Children

By Greg Szymanski, JD
June 15, 2009

The Feds are always trying to pull a few rats out of a barrel, fishing for people to lie about their friends and even relatives for a few bucks or a couple of tickets to the Caribbean.

Such is the case when the ‘bad side of the boys in blue’ are trying to frame somebody for something they didn’t do.

And so it appears to be the same old story in the flimsy case being brought against The Alamo Ministry.

Last September, the Arkansas ministry was raided in “storm trooper” like fashion with high powered rifles being pointed at innocent children and mothers nursing babies.

The crime: being associated with a Bible-believing church who just happens to have a pastor not afraid in calling the Pope the Antichrist.

The result: more than 35 children were taken from their parents by Arkansas authorities and still have not been returned.

Eight months have passed and the children remain in foster care even though no solid evidence of child abuse has been found.

Further, the state has put at least three parents in jail for trying to talk about the case to the media and, according to former members of the ministry, the Feds have been intimidating and harassing people, even offering favors, in order to manufacture evidence against the ministry.

In response, the parents recently hired veteran civil rights attorney Phillip Kuhn to represent their interests. Kuhn recently spoke on my radio show, The Investigative Journal, saying he has never seen in 40 years of practice a more egregious constitutional violation of the Establishment Clause protections of freedom of religion.(For the full hour interview see The Investigative Journal audio archives.)

In order to get immediate relief, Kuhn has taken the case into federal court asking for an injunction to get the children released. The following is a transcript of the injunction and it is well worth reading since if can happen to the people at the Alamo Ministry, it can easily happen to you:

Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief to Defendants’

Brief in Opposition for Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiff, Tony Alamo Christian Ministries, is hereinafter referred to as “The Church”; the individual Plaintiffs Bert Krantz and Greg Seago are hereinafter referred to as “Krantz” and “Seago” respectively; and the Defendants are hereinafter referred to as “Defendants.”

I

Summary of Argument

Defendants misapply the doctrine of Younger to the church by asking this court hold it to mean they must intervene into the state cases of another party. Further, the Younger doctrine doesn’t apply to plaintiffs Krantz and Seago in that the relief they seek is prospective and such relief could not be achieved through the favorable disposition of the pending state case. The church has articulated irreparable harm in the form of ultimate shutdown if the injunction is not granted.

Plaintiffs Krantz and Seago come to this court with clean hands in asking the court to enjoin the requirements imposed on them by Defendants (and enumerated in their brief) to sever ties with the church, and in seeking an injunction barring future removals or investigations based solely on association.

The request for a preliminary injunction is carefully drafted to preserve the status quo and protect both parties with the least restriction to each until the matter can be fully adjudicated.

II

Introduction

In a broad brush stroke of general condemnation, the Defendants have painted a very bleak picture of the Church. The Defendants spoke of prior cases involving the Church and Tony Alamo. The Plaintiffs assume the purpose was to prejudice the Court. The Plaintiffs will not respond to these allegations until the evidentiary hearing. The Plaintiffs will trust the reputation of the Court for fairness and its sense of relevancy.

The primary issue in this case is not what occurred to prompt the action of the Defendants, but rather how those actions are carried out to the detriment of the church. The questions presented to this Court by the Plaintiff’s are:

1. Is it permissible for the Defendants to require church parents to leave the church housing and church employment as a condition of obtaining custody of their children?
2. Is it permissible for the Defendants to search for and take custody of children of church parents simply because the parents have some sort of association with the Church?
3. Is it permissible for the Defendants to threaten and to take into custody new born babies of church parents at the moment of birth, when they are not in danger?
4. Is it permissible for the Defendants to vaccinate children in foster care over the religious objections of the church parents?
5. Is it permissible for the Defendants to institute policies that teach the children in foster care that their prior religious training was untruthful and that their parents mislead them in order to mainstream the children to the Defendants’ views of the world?

Many of the allegations in the Defendants’ Answer and Brief are evidentiary disputes that will be addressed at the hearing of this case. However, the Plaintiffs wish to address some of the main issues raised by the Defendants in their Brief and Answer.

III

Younger Abstention Doctrine as Applied to the Church

In order for the Younger abstention doctrine to apply, plaintiffs must be given opportunity to present their federal claims in state court. National City Lines, Inc. v. LLC Corp., 687 F.2d 1122 (C.A.8.MO, 1982). The church is not a party to the state case and therefore has no opportunity to raise its Constitutional claims.

Younger does not require plaintiffs to intervene into the state case of another party – rather it says that if the plaintiffs have a state case pending in which they can raise their Constitutional claims, the federal court should abstain. Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1971). Defendants are asking this court to expand the doctrine of Younger to require the plaintiffs to intervene into another party’s state case. In the history of Younger and its progeny, no court has ever required a federal plaintiff to intervene into another party’s state case.

Further, Defendants incorrectly assert that the church would have standing to intervene into the pending state case. Defendants rely on Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a), which states:

(a) Intervention of Right. Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when a statute of this state confers an unconditional right to intervene; or (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and he is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties.

ARCP 24(a)

The subject or “transaction” of the state case is the welfare of children, not the persecution and harassment of the church. The church does not have an interest in the welfare of those specific children (although its members love and care deeply about what happens to all of its members, including the children); its interest is in protecting itself from diminishment and ultimate disbandment as a result of the harassing actions of the state. Caselaw interpreting this statute, as outlined below, makes it more than clear that the church would have no standing to intervene into the state case.

Three requirements must be met for intervention as matter of right: (1) recognized interest in subject matter of primary litigation, (2) interest that might be impaired by disposition of suit, and (3) interest not adequately represented by existing parties.

Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 24(a). Matson, Inc. v. Lamb & Associates Packaging, Inc., , 947 S.W.2d 324, 328 Ark. 705. 1997

The Church has no legal interest in the welfare of children.The Church is alleging that repeated child abuse investigations and pre-hearing removals constitute harassment against the Church. The disposition of the state case will not have an impact on future investigations or pre-hearing removals.

A sufficient interest on part of applicant seeking to intervene as of right is not conclusive; if disposition would in no way affect applicant’s ability as a practical matter to protect its interest, intervention is denied.

Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 24(a). UHS of Arkansas, Inc. v. City of Sherwood, 1988, 296 Ark. 97, 752 S.W.2d 36.

The basis of the Church’s federal claim is that the defendants’ investigations, amongst other things, constitute a pattern of harassment. The child abuse investigations solely on the basis of association with this Church create a state of terror and fear that is causing the church to lose membership. The disposition of a state dependency case has no bearing on that, and as such, intervention would be denied.

To intervene as a matter of right an applicant must show that he has a recognized interest in subject matter of the primary litigation, that his interest might be impaired by disposition of the suit, and that his interest is not adequately represented by existing parties. (emphasis added)

Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 24(a)(2). Billabong Products, Inc. v. Orange City Bank, 1983, 278 Ark. 206, 644 S.W.2d 594

Even if the harassment of the church was a legitimate interest for the purposes of intervention, it is not a recognized interest in that there is no prior caselaw establishing this right.

Generally, if one seeking intervention will be left with his right to pursue his own independent remedy against the parties, regardless of outcome of the pending case, then he has no interest that needs protecting by intervention of right. (emphasis added)

Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 24(a)(2). Billabong Products, Inc. v. Orange City Bank, , 278 Ark. 206, 644 S.W.2d 594. 1983

The Church has a remedy on their own to pursue the Constitutional deprivations at the hands of the state through federal court. Since they have another remedy available, they would not be permitted to intervene into the state case. There is no interest that can only be protected through intervention in the state case (as required above). Further, the disposition of the state case doesn’t impair the Church’s ability to protect its interests because they can still go to federal court.

The Defendants urge this Court to refrain from exercising federal, subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the principals expressed in the case of Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 [1971] The Supreme Court held in Younger that federal courts as a rule should abstain from exercising jurisdiction when asked to enjoin pending State proceedings. This doctrine of federal abstention reflects the public policy that frowns upon federal intervention in State business based upon the principals of comity and federalism. See, Ronwin v. Durham, 818 F. 2d 675, 677 [CA. 8, 1987] [citing Younger]

The Younger Abstention Doctrine is not, however, an absolute prohibition against federal intervention in State proceedings. The courts have recognized that certain circumstances create an exception to the Younger general rule. There are certain principals and guarantees inherent within a constitutional democracy that are of a superior value over the general considerations of comity and federalism. The courts have recognized that in certain cases the federal courts have a duty to vindicate and protect federally guaranteed rights and this duty must prevail over the policy against federal intervention of State proceedings. This is especially true in the area of First Amendment guarantees of religious expression, free association and privacy liberties. Federal courts will act despite the Younger doctrine when a State proceeding threatens a party with “great and immediate irreparable injury.” Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479, 485-87, 85 S. Ct. 1116, 1120-21, 14 L. Ed.2d 22 [1965]; Collins v. County of Kendall, 807 F. 2d 95 [CA. 7, 1986]; Rowe v. Griffin, 676 F. 2d 524 [CA. 11, 1982]; Lewellen v. Raff, et al., 843 F. 2d 1103 [CA. 8, 1988]

The injury threatened is both great and immediate when “defense of the State’s criminal prosecution will not assure adequate vindication of constitutional rights.” Dombrowski, 380 U. S. at 485, 85 S. Ct. at 1120. In Heimbach v. Village of Lyons, 597 F. 2d 344, 347 [CA. 2, 1979], the State criminal prosecution was found to unduly chill First Amendment rights so that the Younger prohibition did not apply. A prosecution brought to discourage First Amendment rights will justify federal intervention despite Younger even if the prosecution would be successful. Fitzgerald v. Peek, 636 F. 2d 943, 945 [CA. 5, 1981]

In short, the Church has no legitimate forum to protect its First Amendment claims other than federal court.

Standing is a strong requirement for anyone seeking the remedy of intervention. See, American Civil Liberty Union of Arkansas, Inc. v. State, 5 S. W. 3d 418 [1999]. It is strange that the Defendants in this case are contesting the standing of the Church to bring this action and at the same time are requiring the Church to intervene in the State dependency action. The Defendant’s cannot have it both ways.

IV

Younger Abstention Doctrine as Applied to Krantz and Seago

Although Krantz and Seago have a state case pending, they are not able to raise their federal claims through the state case. Krantz and Seago assert that the defendants are acting in excess of the state court orders by requiring them to leave their church and change their religious views, vaccinating their children contrary to Arkansas law, and instituting a “deprogramming” plan aimed at driving a wedge between parent and child. These harms are irreparable – and cannot be compensated by a monetary award.

Additionally, as will be explained in further detail later in this brief, the defendants are requiring plaintiffs Krantz and Seago to forego their state appellate remedies and agree with the department that membership in their church constitutes abuse before they may regain custody of their children. While asserting that plaintiffs can raise their claims in state court, they openly state that if they do, they cannot regain custody of their children.1

Further plaintiffs Krantz and Seago seek to enjoin the future pre-hearing removal of their children. A favorable disposition of the state case would not prevent the state from carrying out it’s routine practice of removing children without court orders2, nor would it prevent them from instituting yet another investigation, or series of investigations, motivated by association with their church.

If defendants are not enjoined from future harassment of Krantz and Seago because of their association with the church and their beliefs,; they are free to remove their children without a court order in the future and to haul them to state court repeatedly with essentially the same allegations. By the defendants’ own admission in their brief, Krantz and Seago will not be considered to have “corrected the abusive environment” unless they sever all ties with the church.3

V

the defendants’ unconstitutional policies and practices

Defendants, while asserting that they have no routine policy or practice of violating Constitutional rights, confirm such policy in their Brief in Opposition as follows:

1. “Moreover, in these cases, as in every other child maltreatment case, the parents are required to acknowledge that the adjudicated abuse and neglect occurred, and how it occurred, to ensure they are equipped to protect their children from similar maltreatment in the future.”4

2. “In the vast majority of cases where children are brought into the foster care system, the 72-hour hold is the initiating action by the Department.”5

3. “Parents committed to reunification with their children are frequently required to take drastic steps to overhaul their lives, and they are frequently required to choose to give up certain constitutionally protected interests – such as free association, family unity, property, or even liberty – and to place the best interests of their children as paramount.”6

4. Defendants recognize that the individual plaintiffs are not required to acquiesce to the state court’s findings of fact, and may appeal from the same. However, they are not permitted to regain custody of their children while resisting court orders and refusing to participate in the case plan, as long as those court orders upon which the case plan is based are valid.”7

The above statements whole-heartedly prove a routine policy and practice of violating parents’ Constitutional rights with flagrant disregard. They openly hold custody of a child over parents’ heads as a means of coercing them into foregoing certain rights and to deter the use of the state court appeals process. They state, without any hesitation whatsoever, that if a parent chooses to appeal, they may not regain custody of their child during the pendency of that appeal, knowing this process could take up to a year or longer. This position is in direct contrast to federal and state law. Reunification is supposed to be based upon the current safety of the child to return home; not upon an unconditional agreement with the department’s findings. Battishill v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Services, (Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2004, Ark.App.,2004), B.H. v. Arkanasas Dept. of Human Services, (Not Reported in S.W.2d, 1998, Ark.App.,1998). It is feasible and proper for children to be returned home under safe conditions even while parents continue to deny abuse and make proper use of the state court appeals system.

As in the cases of Krantz and Seago, both have signed agreements with Defendant’s stating that they will not allow their children to be married underage nor to be disciplined by other church members in any fashion. At the same time, they properly deny that this has ever occurred, and have appealed the state court findings. Although Krantz and Seago have availed themselves of every available state remedy; the Defendants mercilessly hold the custody of their children over their heads because they have appealed and refuse to admit an untruth.

Defendants further admit that pre-hearing removals are done in the “vast majority” of the cases. This policy and practice flies in the face of parents’ Constitutionally protected familial interests in association with their children. It is well established that any removal of a child without a court order should only be done in exigent circumstances. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388 (1982). Exigent circumstances are present only when delaying to seek a court order would cause irreparable harm. Hurlman v. Rice, 927 F.2d 74 (2nd Cir. 1991), Good v. Dauphin County Social Servies, 891 F.2d 1087 (3rd Cir. 1989), Wallis v. Spencer, 196 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 1999). However, Defendant’s spell out their flagrant disregard for this requirement and openly state they frequently remove children without court orders; and in fact, seem to convey surprise that anyone would object to this practice.

Perhaps most shocking about the Defendants’ routine policy and practice is their statement that parents are “frequently required” by the Department “to give up constitutionally protected rights” in order to prove that they are suitable parents! Rather than looking towards ways of ensuring safety while respecting rights, they require parents to give up those rights as proof that they will be good parents. Specifically, Defendants openly require these plaintiffs to give up their Constitutionally protected right to raise their children they way they see fit and within the religion they have chosen for themselves and their children. They can only prove that they are good parents by giving up that “family unity” and choosing a more appropriate church that meets the department’s approval.

Further, they state that they “frequently require” parents to give up these rights – thus proving the policy and practice of routinely violating civil rights.

VI

Standing of Church and Irreparable Harm

Defendants interestingly assert that the Church would have standing to intervene in the state case; then take a position of direct contrast by asserting that they do not have standing to pursue an injunction. All that is required to show standing of the church is the showing of an injury to itself if the injunction is not granted. Heartland Academy Community Church v. Waddle, 335 F.3d 684 (C.A.8.Mo 2003).

The church is diminished due to the harassment by the state. Defendants admit over and over throughout their brief that they do require parents to sever ties with the church in order to regain custody of their children. They openly require parents to agree with the state court findings and require them to separate themselves from the church under the guise of “correcting the abusive environment.” That the defendants are requiring parents to separate themselves from the church is undisputed. They go so far as to justify the withholding of Bible verses from their children in foster care by saying they are damaging to the child. This is a clear indication of defendants’ expectation that parents leave the church before regaining custody of their children. If parents remained in the church, the same Bible would be used for sermons and teachings, and verses would be distributed orally or in writing to the children. The defendants maintain that portions of the Bible are abusive – thus only by leaving the church could parents prove to Defendant’s that their children will be safe in the future.

The defendants’ illegal position that portions of the Bible are abusive puts parents in the position of choosing between their children and the church. Parents could choose their children and leave the church even though this goes against their strong beliefs. Thus the church is diminished and suffers loss of not only current members but future members. A parent would be hard pressed to join this church if it meant they would be immediately subject to a child abuse investigation and possible loss of their children. Such a substantial loss of membership will result in the ultimate shutdown of the church which is the state’s true goal.

Defendants take the position that harm to the church must be monetary and since the works of the church are all voluntary, there is no loss. That would mean that no non-profit organization could ever show irreparable harm by the illegal actions of the state because they don’t generate a profit; and the state would have free reign to trample their Constitutional rights. To the contrary, monetary loss alone does not constitute irreparable harm because irreparable means that the harm cannot be compensated with money damages. Corning Sav. and Loan Ass’n v. Federal Home Loan Bank Bd., 562 F.Supp. 279 (E.D.Ark.W.Div. 1983), Potter v. City of Tontitown, 264 S.W.3d 473 (Ark. 2007).

The defendants argue that the church has no right to the donations and charities of others; however the church has a right to associate and then seek members and contributions. The state’s actions in removing children from all parents in the church prevents the church from keeping its current members and from seeking new members, thereby effecting its opportunities to seek contributions.

The Church has standing of their own capacity to protect their own interests as well as representative standing to represent the interest of their members. In the case of Heartland Academy Community Church v. Waddle, 335 F. 3d 684 [CA. 8, 2003] the court found the Church had standing due to the immediate shutdown of the facility with the allegation that the relief sought would prevent the harm identified.

VI

Standing of Krantz and Seago – Clean Hands

Krantz and Seago have both appealed the state court findings. “Doctrine of unclean hands applies only when plaintiff is guilty of improper conduct in matter as to which plaintiff seeks relief.” In re Rushing, 161 B.R. 984, (E.D.Ark 1993). They shouldn’t be considered guilty of the conduct until those appeals have been heard. The state’s presumption of their guilt and requiring them to admit the same is the nature of this injunctive request.

Defense of unclean hands does not apply where plaintiff’s misconduct is not directly related to the merits of the controversy between parties. Saxon v. Blann, 968 F.2d 676 (C.A.8 Ark. 1992). The issue before the federal court is the harassment of the church, not the adjudication of abuse or neglect. The injunction in no way seeks to bar defendants from protecting children; it seeks to keep them from forcing parents to leave their church in order to regain custody of their children. Thus, even if Krantz and Seago had abused their children, they still come to this court with clean hands in asking this court to enjoin the state from forcing them to sever all ties with the church. The infringement of the plaintiffs’ first amendment rights is a separate issue from the matter of abuse or neglect.

Krantz and Seago have previously alleged irreparable harm that cannot be undone with monetary damages, through the vaccination of their children contrary to their wishes and Arkansas law, the driving of a wedge between them and their children with a “deprogramming” plan, and the requirement that they not only leave the Alamo church, but that they change many of their fundamentally held religious views, including admitting that portions of the Bible are abusive.

VII

Existence of State Court Orders

Defendants ask that Plaintiffs avail themselves of the state court system to undo any wrongs, even to the point of asking the church to intervene into the cases of other parties. However, they object to availing themselves of the state court system by petitioning the court to remove conditions in the case plan that are illegal or violate civil rights. Vaccinating children against the parents’ religious beliefs is illegal under Arkansas law (see Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction). Using the defendants own arguments; if the court has ordered Defendant’s to carry out illegal functions, then they should avail themselves of the state court process to remove those conditions so as not to expose themselves to liability.

While the defendants argue that the state court found Krantz and Seago guilty of medical neglect for not vaccinating their children, the court did not order Defendants to have them vaccinated. Defendants have taken (and continue to take) this action on their own, without any court order to do so and in violation of Arkansas law. If Defendants were unclear about the order, they could file a Motion to Clarify whether the Court intended for to them to vaccinate children contrary to Arkansas law; a Motion to Reconsider if the court did mean this; and they could seek an extraordinary writ through the Arkansas appellate court if that Motion was denied. Simply stated, Defendant’s have plenty of state remedies available to avoid executing an illegal order (presuming the state court ordered them to have children vaccinated, which it does not). This argument applies equally to the “deprogramming” plan and requirement to sever ties with the church. Defendants surmise what they take the court order to mean, but failed to seek clarification of those orders. The state court order does not require or allow Defendants to impose their own religion or absence of religion on the children, nor does the order require the parents to sever ties with the church in order to prove they’ve corrected the “abusive environment.” These conditions and acts have been taken by Defendants alone without any order to do so.

The defendants have caused and continue to cause the deprivation of civil rights to both parents and children. They point to a court order to justify their illegal actions, yet have taken no action to correct that order.

VIII

Status Quo

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. v. U.S., 350 F.Supp. 539 (W.D.Ark. 1972). The injunction would accomplish this by forbidding Defendants from removing or keeping children on the basis of association with the Church. Further, the injunction is carefully crafted to protect the state’s interest in children by simply requiring that they first show the risk of abuse to that specific child and support it with evidence; the standards already required by federal and state law.

The state is free to investigate child abuse and protect children; they would simply be required to do this in a manner that complies with the Constitution, federal and state laws. The state would not be free under the injunction to remove children solely on the basis of association with the church, nor would they be free to compel parents to change their religious views and leave the church, nor to vaccinate their children illegally, nor to drive a wedge between the children and their parents over religion.

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to protect and preserve the rights of all the litigants, with the least injury to each, until the controversies between them can be tried and finally decided.

Denver & R.G.R. Co. v. U.S., 124 F. 156 (C.A.8. 1903)

The careful crafting of the injunction request protects both the plaintiffs and defendants. Defendants are able to remove children if the criteria in the injunction are met (the legally required criteria for removing children). They would be enjoined from carrying out their policy and practice of requiring parents to leave this church (as articulated in their own words in the response brief). Both parties are protected.

IX

Tony Alamo’s Statements of Opinion

The Defendants use statements made by Tony Alamo as proof of the risk of harm to all children in the church. Americans can hold any set of beliefs no matter how controversial; what they can’t do is break the law. For example, there is a whole class of people that support the legalization of marijuana and take measures to try to change the law. As long as they aren’t distributing or using the drug, this belief cannot be held against them.

The First Amendment protects against the prosecution of thought crime. U.S. v. Balsys, 524 U.S. 666, 118 S.Ct. 2218 (1998). Similarly, the holding of a thought or belief cannot be used as the basis of removing children. Another act of furtherance of the belief is required. However Defendant’s makes no showing of these additional acts, and simply state that because the viewpoint is there, a child may be abused at some future date as a result of those views.

Tony Alamo may or may not hold a belief that girls should marry after puberty. His beliefs are constitutionally protected and irrelevant. The defendants make some unproven allegations that Alamo may practice his beliefs illegally. However, they fail to make any allegation neither that Krantz nor Seago have married an underage girl nor that they plan to allow the marriage of their daughters before they are of age. To the contrary, Seago has already forbidden the marriage of his daughter at age fourteen when she sought his permission to marry.8 And the Krantz daughters don’t fall into the “target age” as alleged by the department.

The Defendants openly claim that because Tony Alamo espouses and teaches certain beliefs, then all child members of the congregation are at some future risk of abuse based on these beliefs. This is an error in legal logic.

X

Conclusion

Plaintiffs should not have to choose between their children or their church. The individual Plaintiffs have chosen to practice Christianity on a full time basis as God has commanded them to do. The defendant’s practices interfere with this choice.

The request for injunction is designed to preserve the Plaintiff’s rights of free association in order to give voice to their religious views. The First Amendment right of religious expression is a hollow promise without the corollary right of association. They have confused association with guilt. The Defendants simply do not have the right to decide for the Plaintiffs what is appropriate in the practice of their religion. The question is: Why is association with the Church deemed abusive to children since the individual plaintiffs have already promised they would not let their children be disciplined by the Church nor would they consent to the underage marriage of their daughters. In addition, many parents now being sought by the Defendants have never participated in church discipline procedures directed against their children nor have they participated in any underage marriages of females. So, why are they being so relentlessly pursued? The answer is simple. They are part of the Church. Why can’t they return to the Church? It is because their children will be taken into immediate custody and they would have to endure the pervasive trauma of being accused of being unfit parents because they have chosen to associate with the Church.

There can be only one reason for the Defendants’ insistence that the Plaintiffs sever their ties with the church and that is to attack the credibility of the church even though the Defendants admitted in their answer to the complaint that the church was not a cult. This is a different position than they have taken prior to this action in the state court, wherein they defined the church with language like cult, sect, commune and compound.

The Plaintiffs are now faced with the untenable choice between their children or their church. Such a draconian, schizophrenic alternative could never be accepted by the rational mind of man. The frail spirit of man could never survive such an assault by the lawfully constituted authorities. So, now they come to this Court as the only available forum to not only restore their God given individual liberties, but to meet the full measure of their spiritual journey.

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray that their request for a Preliminary Injunction be granted and that a hearing on the motion be held at a date and time deemed appropriate by the Court.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________________

Phillip E. Kuhn, Esq.

Virgin Mary Land Tour Co. Opening For Business Soon

The truth behind Washington D.C. and Rome soon to be revealed to millions of tourists

By Greg Szymanski, JD
June 12, 2009

The last we heard of freedom fighter, Slats Grobnik, he was busy building a replica of the Roman Coliseum in a Kansas corn field.

“I am happy to announce the project is completed and now all we need are the gladiators,” said Grobnik from an undisclosed location. “I plan to turn the tables on the Vatican controlled New World Order, using these rulers of evil as the real live gladiators, not the common people.”

For those wanting to take a tour of the replica Coliseum, built to hold 150,000 people, Grobnik said he will announce the grand opening in conjunction with a new tour travel agency and tour company he is starting, called “Welcome to Virgin Mary Land Tours”.

“Due to national security reasons and a nosy NSA, FBI and CIA, who are actually controlled by foreign interests to destroy America, I have kept the location of my replica Coliseum well-hidden and camouflaged,” added Grobnik, who said he learned these covert tactics during two stints in Vietnam. “When I open my tour company, which will provide guided tours of Virgin Mary Land, better known as Washington D.C., I will also open the Coliseum for New World Order gladiator events.”

Grobnik has been working on the now completed Coliseum project for the past 5 years and now has added his Washington travel and tour company based on the ideas researched by Australian researcher, Frank O’Collins.

O’Collins recently put together a graphic outline of a guided tour of Virgin Mary Land, aka Washington D.C., and Grobnik now wants to make a business out of it.

“I checked out the competition tour companies offering guided tours of the Vatican and the monuments of Washington D.C. and all of them are quite profitable,” said Grobnik. “The only problem is none of the companies are telling the truth and giving people a false impression of the true nature and significance behind both Washington D.C. and the Vatican.

“As far as I know I will be the first company out there offering “Truth Tours” about what all the monuments really mean. It should be educational, profitable and I am looking forward to enlightening people about Virgin Mary Land. Once I get this company off the ground, we plan to bring our truth tours to Rome and then London, two big New World Order satanic playgrounds.”

Although Grobnik said he has many other tour stops on his Virgin Mary Land agenda, here is a graphic image of the first eight stops as illustrated and presented by researcher Frank O’Collins, the inspiration behind Grobnik’s new company:

Grobnik said one thing holding up the start of the company is raising enough money for bullet proof tour buses as he fears for the safety of his passengers, knowing the Vatican and Jesuit-led New World Order operatives play for keeps and are experts in firearms and explosives besides their daily routine of sprinkling holy water and passing out bread wafers to their loyal cult followers.

Note: Click on graphics to enlarge

U.S. Catholic Charities Linked to Child Experimentation

By Greg Szymanski, JD
June 8, 2009

The Vatican has been linked to wholesale child abuse in Ireland.

In Canada, it is behind the genocide of Native Canadian children in the Residential School system and the torture, abuse and murder of what has come to be known as the Duplessis Orphans.

During World War II, the Vatican was tied to the hip with Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini, orchestrating the killing of more than 50 million.

In Croatia, links to the Vatican run deep. Hard facts show its connection to the Ustashi fascists and the slaughter of more than 800,000 Serbs, Romas and Jews.

Where does it all end? Of course, not now, not ever and not here in America.

And to show how asleep at the wheel the American press and the mainstream population remain, this story appeared in an overseas paper five years ago, linking Catholic Charities to illegal drug experimentation on children.

Here is the story and how it appeared in London’s Observer:

Orphans and babies as young as three months old have been used as guinea pigs in potentially dangerous medical experiments sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, an Observer investigation has revealed.
British drug giant GlaxoSmithKline is embroiled in the scandal. The firm sponsored experiments on the children from Incarnation Children’s Centre, a New York care home that specialises in treating HIV sufferers and is run by Catholic charities.
The children had either been infected with HIV or born to HIV-positive mothers. Their parents were dead, untraceable or deemed unfit to look after them.
According to documents obtained by The Observer, Glaxo has sponsored at least four medical trials since 1995 using Hispanic and black children at Incarnation. The documents give details of all clinical trials in the US and reveal the experiments sponsored by Glaxo were designed to test the ’safety and tolerance’ of Aids medications, some of which have potentially dangerous side effects. Glaxo manufactures a number of drugs designed to treat HIV, including AZT.
Normally trials on children would require parental consent but, as the infants are in care, New York’s authorities hold that role.
The city health department has launched an investigation into claims that more than 100 children at Incarnation were used in 36 experiments – at least four co-sponsored by Glaxo. Some of these trials were designed to test the ‘toxicity’ of Aids medications. One involved giving children as young as four a high-dosage cocktail of seven drugs at one time. Another looked at the reaction in six-month-old babies to a double dose of measles vaccine.
Most experiments were funded by federal agencies like the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Until now Glaxo’s role had not emerged.
In 1997 an experiment co-sponsored by Glaxo used children from Incarnation to ‘obtain tolerance, safety and pharmacokinetic’ data for Herpes drugs. In a more recent experiment, the children were used to test AZT. A third experiment sponsored by Glaxo and US drug firm Pfizer investigated the ‘long-term safety’ of anti-bacterial drugs on three-month-old babies.
The medical establishment has defended the trials arguing they enabled these children to obtain state-of-the-art therapy they would otherwise not have received for potentially fatal illnesses.
However, health campaigners argue there is a difference between providing the latest drugs and experimentation. They claim many of the experiments were ‘phase 1 trials’ – among the most risky – and that HIV tests for babies were not a reliable indicator of actual infection and therefore toxic drugs could have been given to healthy infants. HIV drugs are similar to those used in chemotherapy and can have serious side-effects.
Vera Sharav, president of the Alliance for Human Research Protection, said the children had been treated like ‘laboratory animals’.
‘These are some of the most vulnerable individuals in the country and there appears to be a policy of giving drug firms access to them,’ she said. ‘Throughout the history of medical research we have seen prisoners abused, the mentally ill abused and now poor kids in a care home.’
Sharav has urged the US Food and Drug Administration to investigate and has demanded full disclosure of all adverse effects suffered by the children, including deaths. Brooklyn Democrat councillor Bill de Blasio is also demanding that New York’s Administration for Children’s Services, which approved the trials, reveal who gave consent and on what grounds.
Glaxo has confirmed it provided funds for some of the experiments but denied any improper action. A spokeswoman said: ‘These studies were implemented by the US Aids Clinical Trial Group, a clinical research network paid for by the National Institutes of Health. Glaxo’s involvement in such studies would have been to provide study drugs or funding but we would have no interactions with the patients.
‘Generally speaking, clinical research is carefully regulated in the US and it would be the responsibility of the appropriate authorities to ensure all subjects in a clinical trial provided appropriate, informed consent to conform with all local laws and regulations regarding legal authority in the case of minors.’
The Incarnation trials were run by Columbia University Medical Centre doctors. Columbia spokeswoman Annie Bayne said there had been no clinical trials at Incarnation since 2000 and that consent for the children was provided by the Administration for Children’s Services, which uses a panel of doctors and lawyers to determine whether the benefits of a trial for each child outweighs the risks. ‘There are many safeguards in the system. HIV is eventually a fatal disease, but drug therapy has lengthened life significantly,’ said Bayne.
A spokesman for Incarnation said: ‘The purpose of the trials was to test the efficacy of HIV medication … These trials were based on scientific evidence of their potential value in the treatment of HIV-infected children.’

It’s No ‘Polish’ Joke

By Greg Szymanski, JD
June 6, 2009

For most Americans, their knowledge of Poland’s history and its significance to the U.S. funded Nazi/Vatican regime is limited to the number of Polish jokes they can remember.

That’s right Wall Street funded the Nazi movement while Pope Pius XII and his band of black robed Jesuits fueled the fires of genocide, their main goal being to kill off as many Jews and Orthodox Christians as possible.

So why was Poland the first country on the Vatican/Nazi hit list?

Well, for starters, Poland was once the home of the largest Jewish population in the world, amounting to approximately 3 million. After the Vatican and Jesuits orchestrated World War II, primarily with U.S. money, now it is estimated 20,000 Jews live in Poland.

Here is some more Wikipedia information for history deprived Americans adding to their limited knowledge of how many Poles it takes to screw on a light bulb:

The history of the Jews in Poland dates back over a millennium.[1] Poland was home to the largest and most significant Jewish community in Europe and served as the center for Jewish culture, ranging from a long period of religious tolerance and prosperity among the country’s Jewish population, to its nearly complete genocidal destruction by Nazi Germany in the 20th century during the German occupation of Poland and the Holocaust.

From the founding of the Kingdom of Poland (1025–1569) through the early years of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth created in 1569, Poland was one of the most tolerant countries in Europe.[2] Known as paradisus Iudaeorum (Latin for Jewish paradise) it became unique shelter for persecuted and expelled European Jewish communities and a home to one of the world’s largest and most vibrant Jewish communities. According to some sources, about three-quarters of all Jews lived in Poland by the middle of the 16th century.[3][4][5] With the weakening of the Commonwealth and growing religious strife (due to the Protestant Reformation and Catholic Counter-Reformation), Poland’s traditional tolerance[6] began to wane from the 17th century onward.[7] After the partitions of Poland in 1795 and the destruction of Poland as a sovereign state, Polish Jews were subject to the laws of the partitioning powers, primarily the increasingly anti-Semitic Russian Empire,[8] but also Austro-Hungary and Kingdom of Prussia (later known as the German Empire). Still, as Poland regained independence in the aftermath of World War I, it was the center of the European Jewish world with one of world’s largest Jewish communities of over 3 million. Anti-Semitism, however, both political establishment and from the general population, common throughout contemporary Europe, was a growing problem.[9]

At the start of World War II, Poland was partitioned between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union (see: Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact). The war resulted in the death of one-fifth of the Polish population, with 90% or about 3 million of the Polish Jewry killed along with approximately 3 million non-Jewish Poles.[10] Although the genocide occurred largely in German occupied Poland there was little Polish collaboration with the Germans, who made almost no attempt to set up a collaborationist government in Poland,[11][12][13] and rejected overtures by Polish fascists and anti-semites.[14] Collaboration by individual Poles with the Nazis has been described as being less than that in other European countries.[15][16] The attitude of non-Jewish Poles ranged from extreme cases of participation in massacres through extortion,[17] indifference to Jews’ plight to risking of one’s live to save Jews.[18]

In the postwar period, many of the approximately 200,000 Polish Jewish survivors chose to emigrate from the communist People’s Republic of Poland to the nascent State of Israel and North or South America. Their departure was hastened by the destruction of most Jewish institutions, post-war pogroms and the hostility of the communist party to both religion and private enterprise. Most of the remaining Jews left Poland in the late 1960s as the result of the Soviet state-sponsored anti-Semitic campaign. After the fall of the communist regime in Poland in 1989, the situation of Polish Jews became normalized and those who were Polish citizens before World War II were allowed to renew Polish citizenship. Religious institutions were revived, largely through the activities of Jewish foundations from the United States. The contemporary Polish Jewish community is estimated to have approximately 20,000 members,[19] though the actual number of Jews, including those who are not actively connected to Judaism or Jewish culture, may be several times larger.

The number of Jews in Poland on September 1 1939 amounted to about 3,474,000 people.[35]

One hundred thirty thousand soldiers of Jewish descent served in Polish Army at the outbreak of the Second World War[67], thus being among the first to launch armed resistance against the Nazi Germany.[36] It is estimated that during the entirety of World War II as many as 32,216 Jewish soldiers and officers died and 61,000 were taken prisoner by the Germans; the majority did not survive. The soldiers and non-commissioned officers who were released ultimately found themselves in the ghettos and labor camps and suffered the same fate as other Jewish civilians.

In 1939 Jews constituted 30 percent of Warsaw’s population.[68] With the coming of the war, Jewish and Polish citizens of Warsaw jointly defended the city, putting their differences aside.[68]

Polish Jews later served in almost all Polish formations during the entire World War II, many were killed or wounded and very many were decorated for their combat skills and exceptional service. Jews fought with the Polish Armed Forces in the West, in the Soviet formed Polish People’s Army as well as in several underground organizations and as part of Polish partisan units or Jewish partisan formations.

From the Middle Ages until the Holocaust, Jews comprised a significant part of the Polish population. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, known as a “Jewish paradise” for its religious tolerance, attracted numerous Jews who fled persecution from other European countries, even though, at times, discrimination against Jews surfaced as it did elsewhere in Europe. Poland was a major spiritual and cultural center for Ashkenazi Jewry, and Polish Jews made major contributions to Polish cultural, economic, and political life. At the start of the Second World War, Poland had the largest Jewish population in the world (over 3 million[3]), the vast majority of whom were killed by the Nazis in the Holocaust during the German occupation of Poland, particularly through the implementation of the “Final Solution” mass extermination program. Only 369,000 (11%) survived. After massive postwar emigration, the current Polish Jewish population stands at somewhere between 8,000 and 20,000.

Editor’s Note: The concordat signed by the Vatican with the Nazis and Hitler has never been rescinded and still exists today. Here are some more tidbits about the Vatican complicity with the Nazis and how Hitler should be called Fr. Adolph Hitler, SJ.

No. 1:”I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits”, said Hitler… “Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic Church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party… I am going to let you in on a secret… I am founding an Order… In my “Burgs” of the Order, we will raise up a youth which will make the world tremble… Hitler then stopped, saying that he couldn’t say any more..” Hermann Rauschning, former national-socialist chief of the government of Dantzig: “Hitler m’a dit”, (Ed. Co-operation, Paris 1939, pp.266, 267, 273 ss).

No. 2: “Adolf Hitler, son of the Catholic Church, died while defending Christianity. It is therefore understandable that words cannot be found to lament over his death, when so many were found to exalt his life. Over his mortal remains stands his victorious moral figure. With the palm of the martyr, God gives Hitler the laurels of Victory”. -Spanish dictator (Francisco Franco, Knight of the Order of Christ) published on the 3rd of May 1945, the day of Hitler’s death. (”Reforme”, 21st of July 1945.)

No. 3: ‘Mein Kampf written by Jesuit Father Staempfle. The Fuhrer had come to power, thanks to the votes of the Catholic Zentrum, only five years before, but most of the objectives cynically revealed in ‘Mein Kampf were already realized; this book, an insolent challenge to the western democracies, was written by the Jesuit Father Staempfle and signed by Hitler. For�as so many ignore the fact�it was the Society of Jesus which perfected the famous Pan-German programme as laid out in this book, and the Fuhrer endorsed it. The Secret History of the Jesuits Page 138

No. 4: On 30 January 1933 Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor. On 23 March 1933 his government was given legislative powers through the Enabling Act and was passed by all Reichstag except the Social Democrats and Communists (whose deputies had already been arrested). Hitler had obtained the votes of the Centre Party, led by Prelate Ludwig Kaas, by issuing oral guarantees of the party’s continued existence and the autonomy of the Church and her educational institutions. He also promised good relations with the Holy See, which some interpret as a hint on a future concordat.

In April, he sent his vice chancellor Franz von Papen, a Catholic nobleman and former member of the Centre Party, to Rome to offer negotiations about a Reichskonkordat. On behalf of Cardinal Pacelli, Ludwig Kaas, the out-going chairman of the Centre Party, negotiated the draft of the terms with Papen. The concordat was finally signed, by Pacelli for the Vatican and von Papen for Germany, on 20th July. One of Hitler’s key conditions for agreeing to the concordat, in violation to earlier promises, had been the dissolution of the Centre Party, which occurred on July 6.

The Reichskonkordat was ratified on September 10, 1933. In the Concordat, the German government achieved a complete proscription of all clerical interference in the political field (articles 16 and 32). It also ensured the bishops’ loyalty to the state by an oath and required all priests to be Germans and subject to German superiors. Restrictions were also placed on the Catholic organisations.

No.5: Another well informed person, the mainspring of the pact between the Holy See and Berlin and the pope’s secret chamberlain, Franz von Papen, was even more explicit: “The Third Reich is the first world power which not only acknowledges but also puts into practice the high principles of the papacy”. (Robert d’Harcourt of the French Academy: “Franz von Papen, l’homme a tout faire” L’Aube, 3rd of October 1946).

No. 6: “Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler and most members of the party’s “old guard” were Catholics”, wrote M. Frederic Hoffet. “It was not by accident that, because of its chiefs’ religion, the National-socialist government was the most Catholic Germany ever had… This kinship between National-socialism and Catholicism is most striking if we study closely the propaganda methods and the interior organisation of the party. On that subject, nothing is more instructive than Joseph Goebbel’s works. He had been brought up in a Jesuit college and was a seminarist before devoting himself to literature and politics… Every page, every line of his writings recall the teaching of his masters; so he stresses obedience… the contempt for truth… “Some lies are as useful as bread!” he proclaimed by virtue of a moral relativism extracted from Ignatius of Loyola’s writings…” Frederic Hoffet: “L’lmperialisme protestant” (Flammarion, Paris 1948, pp.172 ss).

Shortly before signing the Reichskonkordat, Germany signed similar agreements with the major Protestant churches in Germany.

The Manufacture of Shakespeare

By Greg Szymanski, JD
June 4, 2009

We’ve seen in past articles research showing how the Jesuits and Vatican manufactured Mozart and fraudulently created a musical idol.

Other research has shown how the Vatican likes to make saints out of common thugs and propagandists like Ignatius Loyola.

Further, we have seen how Francis of Assisi was not all he was cracked up to be as there was another side of him conveniently edited out by Vatican historians.

And now researcher Frank O’Collins presents his third article in a three part series, this one entitled ‘The Manufacture of Shakespeare’.

Here is what O’Collins has to say:

The Manufacture of William Shakespeare

Shakespeare is either loved, or feared by most students of English. Such is the symbolic richness, the complex intrigue; the genius of the works attributed to playwright William Shakespeare born 1564—died 1616.

It is generally accepted that the masterly works attributed to “Shakespeare” of 36 plays, 154 sonnets and 2 narratives represent the most important body of literary work in the history of the English language and English culture. Within the some 884,000 words contained in approximately 34,896 lines almost all the key legal words and even many key legal precedents (taken from Shakespeare and Latinized to sound pre-16th Century) can be sourced from this unmatched intellectual brilliance –a brilliance no less impressive than Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle and Virgil.

Given the sheer diversity of historic events, people and foreign locations –including detailed knowledge of formal legal procedures, words and formalities greater even than Thomas Aquinas—it is no wonder that many books and articles have been written attributing the plays and sonnets of Shakespeare to others such as Francis Bacon or a team of Jesuits or by Christopher Marlow. However, none of these speculations have wide acceptance in academic and popular culture—in spite of significant circumstantial evidence to support various claims.

The reason why most people still believe William Shakespeare alone wrote arguably the greatest body of intellectual work for 2,000 years is that there remains little evidence to explain such a motive. For example, it is historic fact that England was at public war against the Vatican and Roman Cult. The Jesuits were to be arrested and executed on discovery—so to claim that a team of brilliant Jesuit scholars are the source seems contrary to our known understanding of the time.

Similarly, the various “conspiracies” against Shakespeare being the author fail to explain why he was picked for such immortal glory and not some other person of greater note—like Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, or Francis Bacon himself. But most importantly, most conspiracies fail to explain the fundamental question why? Why go to all the trouble of creating the greatest master works of English literature? For what purpose?

The fact that through Shakespeare we are given a complete cultural framework and full set of legal terms and precedents such as Person, Vessel, Declaration, Disclosure, Decree, Certificate, Lawyer, Merchant, Law, Crown, Justice—all of which are used by our modern legal system today is unfortunately overlooked. More importantly, the fact that this complete modern legal system did not formally exist in a body of work prior to Shakespeare is never mentioned in modern history books.

It in 1623 that the first full folio of the works of “Shakespeare” were published under James I and that England was finally recognized under international law and Charter to hold possession of key parts of North America (excluding Mexico) under the newly formed English “Crown Corporation” in competition to the Aragon “Crown Corporation” of Spain.

The Crown Corporation still exists today and is in fact the final arbiter, the final court and judge of the legal system under which you probably exist today. The fact that the Crown Corporation could not have existed in law and function without the works of William Shakespeare has never been fully explored until now.

The purpose of this article is to reveal clearly, once and for all that William Shakespeare is a Myth—created by the Jesuits and Vatican to help implement a new deal to end the war with its ancient trading partner England, through the creation of the Crown Corporation under Holy Charter—the laws and precedents brilliantly embedded in seemingly harmless plays and sonnets.

That far from just being a cultural gem in English history, the Works of Shakespeare represent a cornerstone in the way the modern world continues to be held under the control of the Holy See, the Vatican through the tricky use of words.

Who was William Shakespeare?

William Shakespeare was born in Stratford-upon-Avon to local merchant and tanner John Shakespeare and Mary Arden. While the house on Henry St at Stratford-upon-Avon was the home of John Shakespeare at the end of his life, there is no evidence the family held the property until the sudden family financial windfall through their son William around 1598/99.

It is without doubt that the Shakespeares were ardent Catholics. Although the family had lost its great status, it remained one of the single most influential names in English Catholic history thanks to the of William Sheakespear whose name was Nicholas Sheakespear or Pope Adrian IV (1154-1164)–the only English Pope in history. To hide the connection, the name of Pope Adrian is frequently misquoted as Breakspear instead of Sheakspear.

It is generally believed that William was educated at the King Edward VI School in Stratford-upon-Avon from the age of 9 to 14. However, no documentary evidence exists to support this theory, including the questionable date of 1553 for the school–with limited archeological evidence from the site supporting the school being established in the 17th Century –well after the death of William Shakespeare and backdated to the claim of it being founded by King Edward VI ” a few days before his death”.

In contrast, the only evidence of handwriting by William Shakespeare testifies to an inability to spell his own name–an anomoly that has never been properly explained and normally not discussed by academics.

At 18, William married Anne Hathaway in 1582. After the birth of his twin sons in 1585, there exists no historic references nor evidence of William Shakespeare until 1594 when –at the age of 30– William Shakespeare is mentioned not as a playright, nor a proprietor, but an actor.

In 1594, the Lord Chamberlain’s Men–a playing company–was first formed under Lord Chamberlain Henry Carey, 1st Baron Hunsdon and official in charge of court entertainments. It was to this company that William Shakespeare first gained the attention of nobles as an actor earning the typical actors salary of three to five pounds a year.

On the death of Henry Carey in 1596, his son George Carey, 2nd Baron Hunsdon became its new patron and changed the name to Lord Hunsdon’s Men until March 1597 when it reverted to the name Lord Chamberlain’s Men–coinciding with the appointment of George Carey as Lord Chamberlain.

Contrary to historic revisionism, there is no hard and credible physical evidence to suggest any play allegedly written by William Shakespeare was performed, or existed prior to 1598–when Shakespeare was 34.

Then in 1598, a number of fortunate events occured virtually overrnight for William Shakespeare–the first being him becoming the major shareholder in the largest Elizabethan Theatre ever created–the Globe.

At the time, only two official play theatres existed in Elizabethan England–the Red Lion founded in 1567 at Whitechapel by William Sylvester and John Reynolds with a capacity of a few hundred patrons for a cost of around £400 (US $1.8 million in 1990 dollars)–and The Theatre founded in 1576 by Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester and managed by James Burbage at Shoreditch, London with a capacity for 1,200 at a cost of £700 (US $3.2 million in 1990 dollars).

Contrary to the many myths that continue today concerning the origin of The Globe Theatre, undeniable archeological evidence and historical accounts testify to a permanent, purpose built three storey state-of-the-art theatre approximately 100 to 120 feet in diameter, circular (20 sided polygon) with an astounding capacity of just over 3,000 patrons. Based on the architectural design, layout and quality workmanship, the cost alone for this project could not possibly have been less than £3,000 (US $13.5 million in 1990 dollars)–an impossible sum for any private building without some significant wealthy noble benefactor.

Most controversially, it appears that the historic claims that James Burbage and his brother Cuthbert Burbage were major shareholders is an absurd lie, with William Shakespeare in fact being the major owner. The Burbages were merely the managers of The Theatre — home to a rival playgroup The Leicester’s Men and contracted to the 1st Earl. That the Lord Chamberlain’s Men ever conducted a play at The Theatre is highly unlikely.

How Shakespeare went from earning a few pounds a year as an actor to one of the wealthiest of the merchant class in England overnight has never been properly explained. Nor has it ever been credibly explained how a man of limited education came to possess intimate knowledge of Papal laws, Italy, Venice, Europe, law in general, advanced medicine, advanced science, politics, and history, including an unheralded knowledge of the English language, Italian, French and especially Latin.

After the death of Elizabeth I in 1603, the company was awarded a Royal letters patent by the new Catholic King James I–subsequently changing its name to the King’s Men.

By 1606, William Shakespeare spent more and more time away from London, rarely visiting his growing list of properties and investments–spending more time at Stratford–Upon-Avon. As a result, historians are traditionally forced to concede that Shakespeare could not physically have written as prodigiously during this period. From 1613, it is agreed that Shakespeare did not write any plays on his own–dying in 1616.

Shakespeare and the creation of a whole new legal language

William Shakespeare is credited with writing 37 plays, 154 sonnets and 2 narrative poems from no earlier than 1598 to no later than 1613–the first folio of “his” works being published in 1623.

Of the works attributed to Shakespeare–comprising of some 884,000 words contained in 34,896 lines and spoken by 1,211 characters–33% were histories of immense and unprecedented historical research, 32% were comedies, 29% were tragedies, 4% were poems and 2% were sonnets.

If Shakespeare truly was the author, then he had to have handwritten every last word–as typewriters did not exist. To put this massive undertaking into perspective–if Shakespeare made not one single mistake on any page, nor re-wrote a single line of dialogue, nor scene, then he would have to had written a minimum of one page per day for fifteen years (1598-1613) to complete this body of work. Given, no author in history has written even half as much without making mistakes, Shakespeare then must have written well over 15,000 hand written pages –yet not one single page has ever been found–an unbelievable and unprecedented anomaly that defies all logic.

Yet what is rarely discussed by scholars is the incredible fact that the works attributed to Shakespeare contain no less than 28,829 unique word forms–of which over 2,500 were new words to the English language for the first time (The Oxford English Dictionary attributes only around 2,000 new words to Shakespeare). These were not weird and strange words, but incredibly over 1,700 of our most common words today, including such fundamental legal words as accused, addiction, assassination, bandit, bar, case, contract, courtship, crown, employer, investments, law, bond, lawyer, majestic, negotiate, secure, submit, understand.

Again to put this in perspective, King James or Authorized Version of the Holy Bible, published in 1611 makes use of a mere 8,000 words; the playright Christopher Marlowe used around 7,000; the poet John Milton 6,000, Charles Dickens 8,000.

It appears that Shakespeare went out of his way to create new and unusual words. Given the plays were supposed to be aimed at commercial venture, it would have been a huge commercial risk to introduce so many new words to a paying audience — and must have alienated 99% of them given they could not possibly have understood what they were hearing. So how could The Globe and the plays of Shakespeare possibly have been a financial success? The answer is simply, that from the time of James I, the Crown (of England) treated Shakespeare as if it were an extension of its own legal statutes–required reading for all judges, lawyers and men involved in trade. Why? Because it was common knowledge up until the 20th Century that Shakespeare remained the most comprehensive reference of legal statutes and procedures for English and common law for nearly 400 years.

The real College of Shakespeare

Few may have heard of the College of English in Rome —originally formed by Englishman Nicholas Sheakspear (Pope Adrian IV) in the middle of the 12th Century to manipulate and take control of the language of Anglaisé first formed by the Franks under Charles Martel, his son Pepin the Short and later Charlemagne. By the 16th Century, the college had become nothing more than a hospice—a boarding house for priests and students. However, the religious persecutions of Elizabeth I of England changed all that forever.

By the 1578, the “college” had become the refuge for over many dozens of the best and brightest English Catholic minds ever in one place in history—all because Elizabeth refused to permit Catholics to hold senior academic positions and Catholic priests, especially Jesuits were to be arrested and executed.

Sensing an opportunity, Jesuit Superior General Everard de Marcour (1572-1580) petitioned Pope Gregory XIII (1572-1585) to reconstitute the College of English, which he did under Papal Charter (Bull) on 23 April 1579, appointing Jesuit Fr. Alphonsus Agazzari S.J. as its rector. Thus, the first education institution in Rome of the Jesuits was in fact the English College- a body of Jesuits, dedicated to helping regain England back into the control of the Papacy.

The problem at first was what to do with such a valuable of at least 75 talented Jesuits skilled in all manner of knowledge from advanced science, mathematics, languages, politics, poetry and law. Initially, the plan would almost certainly have been to train more Jesuit coadjucators for the dangerous mission into Elizabethan England.

But the death of Jesuit legend Edmund Campion S.J. in 1581 along with several other leading Jesuits (including Thomas Cottam S.J. in 1582) halted that plan by the new Superior General Claudius Acquiviva S.J. (1581 – 1615). Instead, a far more devious and brilliant plan was hatched—to wrest control of England back by stealth, using the very plays and culture that Elizabeth and her Protestant nobles as the vehicle.

Thus was born the plan to use plays and sonnets as the vehicle to create new words and a legal apparatus that itself would restore the Holy See as supreme. Assisted by the scholars of the College of Abbreviators in Rome–the most prodigious legal word creators in history –the Jesuit College of English set about writing all kinds of plays and sonnets and embedding within them the legal framework of the Vatican.

By 1594, the first works were ready and began to be shipped to England, using trusted Jesuits such as Robert Southwell, S.J. , Robert Persons, S.J. and Francis Page, S.J. The success of early plays written by the Jesuits encouraged the college to become more ambitious with their plans—hence The Globe and William Shakespeare as proprietor.

The death of Elizabeth I and the arrival of Catholic James I to the throne of England, made the process only slightly easier as it remained a public capital offence to be a Jesuit priest in England.

While the Vatican Archives are almost certainly the final resting place of however many of the thousands of manuscript pages of plays and sonnets written at the Jesuit College of English survived. But we will probably never see a single page in our lifetime.

This begs the final question—could the 10 year absence of William Shakespeare from 1585 to 1594 be accounted for him also being a student at the Jesuit College of English in Rome? Certainly, there is no evidence that he once denied himself as the author the works displaying his name—in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Such discipline to a “greater mission” has always been a hallmark of the Jesuits in the war of Counter-Reformation. Could it be that Shakespeare himself was a Jesuit? Whatever the truth of this, the Jesuits succeeded and much of the western world remains unwitting subjects of the Holy See thanks to the works of William Shakespeare.

Welcome to Virgin Mary Land

By Greg Szymanski, JD
June 3, 2009

Never in the history of mankind have so many been deceived by so few in this land of make-believe we call America.

Whether it be politics, finances or religion, it’s all presented to the people cock-eyed backwards.

In other words, what is black is white and what’s good is bad.

Universities name after killers; villians revered as heroes.

The land of the free and home of the brave should be renamed “Slave Ship America.”

In fact, while we’re at it, Washington D.C. should be renamed “Virgin Mary Land.”

And with that in mind, researcher Frank O’Collins presents his second of three articles on that very subject.

Here is what O’Collins has to say:

Welcome to Virgin Mary Land—Home of the Vatican-Jesuit New World Order

Virgin Mary Land is not the name of an unholy Vatican Jesuit “theme park”—although it shares many of the characteristics of one, including—a giant satanic pentagram, a giant swastika, giant letters that spell IHS even a massive monument to Ba’al Moloch (Lucifer). Instead, it is a very real place—presently the most important real estate for the Vatican-Jesuit led New World Order on the planet—located in the United States and hidden in plain sight.

So where is this place that houses so many symbols of Satanism and black magic? You know it as the combined states of Virginia and MaryLand—including the former lands now known as the District of Columbia. The purpose of this article is explain how and why this land has always been legally owned by the Holy See, otherwise known as the Vatican and the Roman Cult—and why significant proof exists that this is the present center of the Vatican Jesuit New World Order.

Hiding the obvious –even to truth seekers –in plain sight

A hallmark of the Jesuits is their perverse sense of intellectual humour against those who think they are smarter. It is why the Jesuits derived great pleasure from the success of their forgery of the Scottish Rites of Freemasonry by Fr. Michelangelo Tamburini S.J. at the Collège de Clermont in Paris and given to exiled devout Catholic King James II in December 1688 to implement.

To this day, there are many hundreds of thousands of truth seekers that are “told” and believe it is the Freemasons behind the New World Order, while many Masons still believe they belong to an essentially anti-Vatican organization.

The same can be said for the latest crop of crude Jesuit disinformation agents that continue to dominate the Truth Movement with such astounding claims of satanic worship at a place called the “Bohemian Grove” to a giant owl called Moloch.

Of course, anyone who has spent five minutes studying ancient history or reading the Bible knows that Moloch was never represented by an Owl, but by a bull —as in “Ba’al Moloch”—as well as the symbol of the obelisk ‘obelisk’ literally means ‘Baal’s shaft’ or ‘Baal’s organ of reproduction’.

The same can be said for the deliberate promotion of behalf of the Jesuits of the mysterious place called “Bohemian Grove”. In fact the name Bohemian Grove is arguably the most sacred and revered site for the Jesuit Order in the United States and it is not on the West Coast, but the East Coast in “MaryLand”!

While the Catholic school at Newtown established in 1677 is credited as the 1st Jesuit school in America (closing some decades later), there is no evidence that the school was recognized as an official Jesuit institution—nor did a dedicated Jesuit Church exist at this point.

Instead, it appears the 1st verifiable American Jesuit School permitted to be founded was in 1745 by Fr Thomas Pulton S.J. as the Bohemia Academy on the ground of Bohemia Manor—a Jesuit owned property founded in 1704 by Fr Thomas Mansell S.J.

Apart from being the 1st Jesuit school in America—that educated many of the students of the influential families supporting the secessionist movement including Charles Carroll—the only Catholic to sign the declaration of independence and his cousin John Carroll—the 1st Catholic Bishop of the United States—it was also the sight of the 1st Jesuit Church in North America—The Bohemian Grove.

In 1704 there existed at a time a ban on Catholics in “Mary Land” from building a permanent church. Instead, the Jesuits built an open air “church” midst an old grove of trees on the property known as “the Bohemian Grove”.

In just this one example, we see the utter contempt of the present Jesuit disinformation agents trying to destroy the Truth Movement—towards their own audiences of tens of thousands who gullibly believe they represent the truth against the New World Order.

Ignoring then any further Jesuit propaganda designed to shift focus on the Illuminati and New World Order towards anti Semitic hatred and ridiculous forgeries, let us look at the clear evidence that further proves that Virgin Mary Land remains firmly in control of the Vatican Jesuit led New World Order.

The “Virgin” Companies of James I

The events surrounding the foundation of the first permanent English colonies under the reign of King James I in North America are full of intrigue.

James Charles Stuart was born in 1566 –the Catholic son of devout Catholic monarch Mary, Queen of Scots and her second husband (also her 1st cousin) Henry Stuart, Duke of Albany also known by his Scottish Parliamentary title “Lord Darnley”. While James was forcibly taken from his mother as an infant and brought up by Protestants, there is strong evidence that remained privately Catholic, not least the fact that in 1584 he took Jesuit William Weston S.J. as his confessor for 19 years and had himself re-baptized a Catholic before his death in 1625.

Indeed, the events that unfolded during the first three years of his reign as King have all the hallmarks of a brilliant Jesuit plot. When James ascended the throne, he demanded the Parliament recognize a new sovereign entity known as the “Union of Crowns” or more simple “the Union”—that the Crowns of Ireland, Scotland and England be merged as one, under one set of laws (embedded in the plays of Shakespeare) and one parliament. The Protestant nobles rejected his request and some continued to plot for the overthrow of the King.

Originally Parliament was set to open in 1604, but was delayed until 1605 at which time the Jesuits swung into action a false plan to kill all the major Protestant nobles in one foul act through the destruction of Parliament. The plan was to sacrifice several Catholic nobles as stooges involved in the plot and for it to be uncovered just before its execution–rallying the nobles behind James and his goal of the “Union of Crowns”.

The plan worked with one exception. Sir Robert Cecil predictably “foiled” the Gunpowder Plot and several Catholic nobles were found and brutally executed. But Jesuit Provincial General Fr. Henry Garnet S.J. was also implicated and executed.

Upon the execution of the Jesuit Provincial by King James, enough Protestants nobles had the “proof” they wanted, and dropped their objection to the “Union of Crowns”. Thus in 1605 King James proclaimed himself “King of Great Britain”.

Most importantly, because so senior a Jesuit was implicated in the alleged plot to “kill the King”, expert lawyer Camillo Borghese Pope Paul V (1605-1621) –guided by Jesuit Superior General Claudio Acquaviva S.J.– sent an official apology as a Letters Patent to the King –recognizing him as King of Great Britain (hence the Union of Crowns Corporation) and assuring him that neither the Papacy, nor the Jesuits approved of the action of Fr. Henry Garnet S.J. and his Catholic co-conspirators. Sadly, the Letters Patent is said to be lost–the first historic official and international legal document recognizing the Union of Crowns as a legitimate corporate entity.

In April 1606, James granted the Royal Charter of the Virginia Company of London (also known also as the “London Company” and simply “the Company”) for the purpose of establishing colonial settlements in North America from the 34th parallel (Cape Fear) north to the 41st parallel (in Long Island sound).

In the same year (1606), King James also granted the Royal Charter of the Virginia Company of Plymouth (also known as the “Plymouth Company” and the “Virginia Bay Company”) also with the purpose of establishing colonial settlements in North America but from the 38th parallel (Chesapeake Bay) north to the 45th parallel (Maine). As both companies had territory that deliberately overlapped, their Charters stipulated that neither company could found a settlement within 100 miles (160 km) of an existing settlement of the other company.

The claim that the Virginia companies were named after Elizabeth is an absurd and unsupportable lie as there is overwhelming evidence that James hated Elizabeth for killing his mother in 1587. Instead, King James chose the name Virginia in honor of his mother Mary, named after the “Virgin” Mary and in honor of the recognition of the English Crown Corporation by the Holy See. In fact, the claim Elizabeth was known as “the Virgin Queen” is a 19th Century fabrication to hide the obvious etymology of the state of Virginia.

Unlike the East India Company formed under Charter by Protestant Elizabeth I in 1600, the “Virgin” Companies were formed wholly under the legal recognition of “the Union” corporation subject to the “Holy See” corporation in Rome.

Now if anyone still remains skeptical of the direct connection between the Roman Cult and the land of the Virgin, the son of James I, King Charles I—universally recognized as being openly supportive of Catholics—granted a Royal Charter in 1629 of “the Union” to Catholic George Calvert, 1st Lord Baltimore for the Province of Mary Land within the previous lands of “the Company”—exclusively for Catholics.

“Just because Washington DC has symbols of power doesn’t mean it is controlled by the Vatican-Jesuit led New World Order”

Unfortunately, there is not sufficient time nor space to go through the intervening years from the foundation of Virgin Mary Land to the 20th Century and then the present to demonstrate the influence of the Jesuits.

However, there remains compelling evidence to demonstrate their power—not the least being the selection of the site of Washington to be the Capital of the United States. At the end of the 18th Century there were several cities that warranted recognition as the capital (e.g. New York) rather than going to the extraordinary expense (at the time the colonies were broke) to plan and build from scratch a new capital on former farmland on the Potomac River.

Instead, a deliberately planned city was created—Washington—from December 1790 deliberately incorporating symbols of power and magic familiar to the Jesuit controlled masons and the Vatican herself—on the lands of Mary (MaryLand).

Excluding Vatican City herself, there is no other capital on Earth that possesses more massive satanic and pagan symbols per sq foot than Washington—from Pentagrams within the street grid; the giant hidden Pentagram of Mendes formed by extending lay lines around the Pentagon; the largest Obelisk of Ba’al Moloch in the world (Washington Monument); the Naval Academy in Annapolis forming a giant Swaztika; the CIA headquarters forming a giant HIS (representing HIS for the Jesuits) and the list goes on.

It is only because the Jesuits continue to tightly control mass media and promote disinformation on the Masons and others that so many do not see what is in front of their eyes—the Vatican’s own theme park to Satanism—the playground of the New World Order.

The Vatican depends on Virgin Mary Land to stay in power

Today in the 21st Century we see a far more transparent relationship between the main tenants of Virgin Mary Land and their landlords of the Roman Cult.

Former US Presidents such as George W. Bush and others have hosted the Pope and spoken publicly of their loyalty to the Pope—in stark contrast to President Abraham Lincoln who was quoted in speech and writings many hundreds of times warning of the evil of the Vatican and in particular the Jesuits.

That both President Franklin D. Roosevelt and President Harry S. Truman retained the services of Jesuit Fr. Edmund Walsh S.J. as arguably their most trusted international advisor may not seem strange even to truth seekers today. But then again, why the decision was made to drop the second Atomic bomb on a small fishing village called Nagasaki—with no known historical or military value except being the former property of the Jesuits before their 1st expulsion from Japan—may not have crossed your mind as strange either.

Incidentally, some readers/listeners may be interested to know that Tehran from Ter’gan (Hebrew for “blessed garden”) is also a former Jesuit trading settlement granted in 1548 by Safavid Tahmasp I –but rejected by Mohammad Reza Shah in the 1960’s and also later the Ayatollahs of the Revolutionary Guard. If and when WWIII moves to the nuclear phase you can bet 100% that the prime target for the Jesuits will be complete destruction of Tehran.

Before such events unfold, it would be good at least if the Truth Movement finally “ran out of town” those Jesuit controlled propagandists that split and confuse those willing to search for the truth. Maybe, then we might have a hope of stopping their unfolding plans for a far more draconian Social Police State in which we have even less rights.

How the Vatican ‘Legally’ Gets Away With Child Abuse

By Greg Szymanski, JD
June 3, 2009

This three-part series of articles by Australian researcher Frank O’Collins starts today by asking the blunt question:

How can the Vatican continue to “legally” get away with child abuse?

His answer lies deep within the Western legal system, a system carved out by the Vatican centuries ago which conveniently places the Holy See above the law.

The second part of his series which will appear tomorrow focuses in on why Washington D.C. should be renamed “Virgin Mary Land” and why it is nothing more than Lucifer’s very special playground.

In the last article, appearing Thursday, O’Collins will tell us how the Vatican and Jesuits manufactured Shakespeare and how they used his writings to advance the legal system we live under today.

But now O’Collins tells us how the Vatican can legally get away with child abuse all over the world. Here is what he has to say:

Anyone who views the TV news, reads the papers or has heard from some friends knows that the Roman Catholic Church, controlled by the Vatican in Rome is guilty of at least covering up wholesale child molestation and abuse on an unprecedented scale. The recent events that have been unearthed in Ireland are a perfect example.

If for one moment we considered the Vatican to be a private services organization such as a chain of child care centres, then the whole network would have been shut down by the Justice department, all the executives would now be in jail and common law suits of millions of dollars would have been paid. So why hasn’t this happened in the case of the Vatican?

Why? for example have priests, nuns and bishops in Ireland been “let off the hook” for decades of systematic child abuse in Ireland—tantamount to serial torture—and not one priest is set to go to prison?

Why in places like the United States, Canada, Australia has so little been paid by the local arm of the Vatican for proven cases of child abuse in courts of law?

Most importantly, how come the Vatican continues to get away with hundreds of thousands of verifiable cases of evil child molestation across the planet and no one seems able to stop it?

Sadly, the answer lies not in a fear of the Vatican and the Roman Cult, but the inherit design of the very legal system of our countries that we think we know and trust. The weakness lies in the very fabric of the modern western legal system as first formed by the Jesuits of the College of English at the end of the 16th century and transmitted into common usage through such masterworks as the manufacture of William Shakespeare.

The weakness lies in the supreme lie concocted by Pope Innocent III in the 13th Century and the first formation of the Holy See that claimed the ancient (and false) right of supremacy above all secular laws of society by the terribly corrupted Codex Justinian and Pandects of previous Roman emperors.

So as much as a judge or magistrate may wish to hear a case against the Vatican for one of their many crimes against humanity, he or she may be stripped of all jurisdiction in the matter simply by the Vatican—the Roman Cult—exercising its ancient fraudulent right of supremacy both in the legal words and fabric of law and ancient forged documents.

How then might the church be forced to be held account? What cruel legal trickery is played upon the many hundreds of thousands of victims of the Vatican so that their right of remedy is stolen? And how might good individuals become better forewarned and forearmed in understanding the corrupt personality of the Vatican led New World Order?

The modern western legal system

The modern western legal system–first fully formed and launched at the end of the 16th century –is the system of legal terms, phrases and precedents by which 80% of the population of planet Earth are governed.

Its origin can be found from the works of the 1st Jesuit university and scriptorium in Rome known as the College of English by Papal Charter (Bull) by Gregory XIII (1572-1585) on 23 April 1579, appointing Jesuit Fr. Alphonsus Agazzari S.J. as its rector. This is in turn is the home and origin of the unmatched “Shakespeare Folio” of magnificent works of 37 plays, 154 sonnets and 2 narrative poems from no earlier than 1598 to no later than 1613–the first folio being published in 1623.

It is from the Jesuit written “Shakespeare Folio” that we see the use 884,000 words; contained in 34,896 lines; spoken by 1,211 characters; representing no less than 28,829 word forms—of which over 2,500 were new words to the English language for the first time (The Oxford English Dictionary attributes only around 2,000 new words to Shakespeare).

Again to put this in perspective, King James or Authorized Version of the Holy Bible, published in 1611 makes use of a mere 8,000 word forms; the playright Christopher Marlowe used around 7,000; the poet John Milton 6,000, Charles Dickens 8,000 word forms.

What is directly relevant to the modern western legal system in the Jesuit written “Shakespeare Folio” of works is that over 1,700 of the newly created words released as a whole model by the beginning of the 17th Century remain the cornerstones of meaning of our modern legal system including: accused, addiction, assassination, bandit, bar, case, contract, courtship, creditor, crown, debt, employer, investments, law, bond, lawyer, majestic, marriage, negotiate, obligation, secure, submit, vessel, understand.

Yet if the creation of a complete legal lexicon embedded within the Jesuit “Skakespeare Folio” is impressive, it is the unique and complete demonstration of legal precedence, legal procedure and function resulting in the Holy See remaining above the laws of man that is the crowning achievement.

Simply, from the time of James I, the Crown (of England) treated Shakespeare as if it were an extension of its own legal statutes–required reading for all judges, lawyers and men involved in trade. Why? Because it was common knowledge up until the 20th Century that Shakespeare remained the most comprehensive reference of legal statutes and procedures for English and common law for nearly 400 years.

The essential structure of the modern legal system

As complex as the legal system may appear, its basic structure and function is very simple. Our western legal system by its primary nature is a system of consent, precedence and judgment.

Unlike dictatorships and places having authoritarian, sometimes absolute religious rule, the modern western legal system requires constent of an individual to the system, not their forced compliance.

Modern western law can therefore be most simply described as “A set of accepted traditions (orthodoxies) validated by their consent use under an agreed authority”.

Therefore a law for a small community, represents no less a valid law than a law agreed amongst nations—except that international laws are generally regarded to have precedence over local laws, through treaties (surrendering of rights) to the larger community of law.

A person may claim a law contrary to national or international law. That in itself may not render a law invalid. Instead, it is encumbered upon that individual to demonstrate – non consent, and a legal alternative that is greater in validity to the present law being contested.

This is where such arguments become tricky. Validity is a gladiatorial battle between ideas, words, definitions and systems whereby only the most comprehensive, the largest, the strongest win. It is why claiming a new precedent to a court requires enormous effort to have it accepted in common law, not because the claim may be unproven, but it must also be valid (equal or stronger to a contrary argument).

This is demonstrated through the skill of lawyers, who use words to present such cases for and against fundamental propositions of assumed guilt or innocence—lack of, or existence of doubt.

The trickery of consent

The consent of a living individual man, woman or group of men and/or women is one of the fundamental principles of Western Law. Unlike some older forms of law, which provided almost no opportunity for an individual to agree (consent) to the proceedings against them, Western law is predicated on the Roman Cult philosophy of the surrender of individual free will—thereby abdicating fundamental rights before proceedings with the dispute of legal action.

This consent and surrender of free will is done through the oration and documentation of key legal terms designed to transfer an individual’s rights by consent including PERSON, UNDERSTAND, STATEMENT, DECLARATION.

In all legal cases brought against an individual in modern western law, the legal system begins by first requiring an individual consent to be treated as a PERSON by:

· Writing their name in CAPITALS according to the legal principle of and a legal recognition of a PERSON

· Witnessing an oath to the effect that an individual consents to themselves being treated as a PERSON

· Openly declaring as a PERSON that person UNDERSTANDS their RIGHTS, thereby surrendering all extraneous common law rights not ascribed to a PERSON and placing an individual (by their own consent) into the limited rights prescribed by law for a PERSON of your CHARACTER.

When a POLICE OFFICER asks an individual do they UNDERSTAND? He/she is asking literally to CONSENT TO “To stand under the authority of the Church (Roman Cult)”—the literal meaning of the word. Therefore, in such a simple word as UNDERSTAND, individuals unwittingly give their consent to be treated as a SUSPECTED PERSON, not as an individual who by common law rights possesses a superior number of rights over and above any challenge by authority. By right, an individual by ancient common law right has the freedom of passage—that is to travel freely unencumbered on the highways of the land.

The word LAW itself comes from the ancient Latin cultural laws of LARES from 3rd Century BCE Latin meaning “a group ancient Roman deities (gods) defining localized activities, customs and practices accumulated over time including (but not limited to) home, family, the state, the sea, land and travel”. But it was under the Jesuit Shakespeare embedded legal system that we first see the modern word LAW appear meaning “A collection of rules (doctrines), customs and practices (accumulated over time) enjoining or prohibiting certain action; also the individual rules themselves”. In contrast, Roman civil law was founded on lēx/lēgis (statutes) and later (under Constantine) ilex (universal statutes). The modern western legal systems of nations are therefore based on inferior lāres –religious doctrines and concepts designed by the Roman Cult–while the Roman Cult reserved the formal structure of superior lēx/lēgis in the form of covenants and agreements such as Concordats, Official Church Councils and Papal Charters (Bulls).

By ancient common law right, an individual has the basic freedom of their body not to be subject to arrest without a properly notarized document that in itself must demonstrate consent to be a PERSON. If no consent is given, then even a court warrant to search a building is a fraudulent document—an illegal document. When an individual is asked are they the PERSON on a warrant and say yes, then they CONSENT to the document being properly notarized and they having the limited rights of a PERSON.

Of course, an authority figure may ignore the law and arrest and individual without their consent, including an unlawful warrant to search. Yet the system is careful to maintain a continual flow of consent. For when an individual reaches the prison as a prisoner, they are required to sign (consent) to entering the building—making such consent the legal equivalent to a VESSEL consenting to MASTER of the ships they are under BOND (their jurisdiction and control).

Yet an individual that refuses consent, even upon the threat of violence and intimidation retains a fundamental common law right—which under the western legal system has always applied. An individual who does not consent to the fiction of a PERSON retains the common law right of HABAES CORPUS and may apply immediately to be freed and presented to the nearest court to hear why they should be kept in custody.

In most cases, where an individual can demonstrate that at no time was their arrest or imprisonment lawful, must immediately release an individual under HABAES CORPUS as the court has no power to enforce an illegal act.

The trick of legal status

Legal status is the most important form of legal precedence. Legal status is the status of the individual before the courts. An individual that surrenders their rights to become a PERSON must then rely not on common law principles, but their PERSONAL STATUS within (the laws) of society.

This is why—in spite of all claims to the contrary—that the modern western legal system will forever favour the rich and the powerful over the poor and dispossessed, because that is how it is designed in the first place.

However, there exists a group of individuals that have higher status before a court, regardless of their personal wealth or position in society—they are individuals that exercise an awareness of legal precedence in relation to court jurisdiction.

The first group is the Roman Catholic Church, the Vatican and also known as Holy See. The Holy See continues to avoids countless legal cases brought against it by demonstrating key legal precedence in relation to its STATUS before the courts of a nation, state or community. In many cases, the court has no choice but to dismiss all cases, simply because the status of the Vatican in modern western law is superior to any secular court. Only the courts of the Vatican themselves, the CURIA (from which the word COURT comes) is higher than the body of the church. So unless the CURIA headed by the POPE as supreme JUDGE decides to surrender their rights to a secular court, the court has no authority legally whatsoever over the church.

Another group of individuals who occasionally demonstrate a superior status before a court are those individuals who understand the power of not consenting to be subjected as PERSON. These individuals are few and far between, and usually are targeted to be avoided from the courts, lest their knowledge become common knowledge and the jurisdiction of courts be tested and found fundamentally flawed.

Pulling it all together so the Vatican always walks away free

When an individual lodges a criminal or civil case against the Vatican they are encouraged and forced to lodge it as a PERSON. However, the Vatican by law cannot, nor ever will accept the jurisdiction of a court as a PERSON (a corporation being a type of person), because by definition of the words themselves, the HOLY SEE is the superior entity that owns all PERSONS.

Occasionally, the Vatican will permit an arm to make a remedy to a claim of child abuse, almost always as a settlement whereby the legal status of the Catholic Church is not contested in court. Very occasionally, a Vatican priest will be convicted as a child molester and be sent to prison. But you might be interested to know in the summary of such proceedings that again the legal status of the Catholic Church was never questioned—the priest eventually consented to be put in prison. Nor does a Roman Catholic Priest lose their priestly status as a convicted child rapist.

However, in the case of attempt to get the Vatican to divulge its treasury of stolen loot such as the Nazi gold and the stolen gold from Croatia during World War II, the Vatican legal representatives merely have to cite their legal status and the court can do nothing but drop the case.

Don’t blame the courts, nor the judges—they are powerless. Don’t even blame the police who enforce this deliberately “unjust” system in favour of the Jesuits and the Holy See. Instead, blame the graduates from Catholic and Jesuit colleges who weasel their way into politics and then grovel for favour in the eye of the Roman Cult by never permitting the corrupt system to function on the basis of time honoured natural law—that to sexually molest a child is a crime, no matter what organization you belong to. Until people realize how the Vatican maintains control on a daily basis, we will continue to see our children abused by the Vatican and its true adherents without justice ever being served.

Jesuit and Mormon Cult Leaders Have Common Blood Oath Bonds

By Greg Szymanski, JD
June 1, 2009

The bloody secret oath of the Mormon cult leaders is no different than the Jesuits, according to ex-communicated Mormon A. True Ott.

Shrouded in secrecy behind temples of blood, both the Jesuits and hierarchy of the Mormon cult have a common bond dating back to the early days of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

A University named after a killer is not how Brigham Young is depicted, but Ott brings more historical data showing his true nature and murderous ways.

Ott, a regular guest on my radio show, The Investigative Journal, had this to say:

“The year was 1889.  The place was Logan Utah’s Utah State University fledgling campus.

“The event was the placing of a “time capsule” – a potpourri of documents providing a diverse “snapshot” of life in pioneer Utah. Nobody knew exactly WHEN or even IF the documents would be seen again by human eyes. Nobody knew exactly what Utah would be like a hundred years later.  However, the founding intellectuals of Utah State University clearly desired that specific truths, scarcely dared to be uttered above a hushed whisper for decades in pioneer Utah, should be saved intact for a future generation.

“For nearly a century, the contents lay safe and
secure; “sealed” in the walls of the University’s “Old Main”
building until the capsule was once again opened on March 8,
1987.    In the musty container, a letter of historical truth was
found.  It was written by a Cache County resident, a prominent
businessman and poet named Aaron DeWitt, written on January 31, 1875
and addressed to his sister, Elizabeth Durrant, then living in
England.  The letter documents the two-decade-long “reign of terror”
during the infamous years of Brigham Young’s “reformation” in Utah
between 1854 and 1874.  It wasn’t until the intercontinental
railroad was completed on May 10, 1869 that Brigham’s “kingdom” with
its veil of isolation was finally pierced.  Five years later,
conscientious individuals like Aaron DeWitt for the first time,
dared to write and expose the truth.  DeWitt, like many individuals
with the Light of Christ, began to follow the admonition found in
Ephesians 5:11: “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of
darkness, but rather expose them.”

“The following letter is a genuine historical document, and
confirms the journal entries of many a disgruntled early Utah
pioneer.  One having integrity must ask: Can a cult-like sect that
practiced and eventually perfected murder to get gain; secrecy
shrouded and sealed by bloody oaths in “holy temples” truly be
followers of Jesus Christ?  If the root is corrupt, can the stem,
leaf and fruit growing from it ever be incorruptible and infallible?
The entire content of the letter is as follows:

Logan, Utah  Jan. 31, 1875

To Mrs. Elizabeth Durrant:

My Dear Sister:

How to commence this letter I have promised you so long.  I
hardly know, but will say in the first place I have been deceived,
led into error, imposed upon, deluded, beguiled into a false
religion in my youth and spent the best part of my life in a
wilderness, a desert, a land of sage and salt, away from all
enlightenment and civilization, among the most degraded tribes of
Indians on the Western hemisphere.  And what is still more worse, I
have had to mingle with A BEASTLY, BLACKHEARTED, BLOODY PRIESTHOOD;
a set of treacherous villains, as full of meanness as old Satan, and
as thirsty for blood as a stinted leech.

While these are facts, they are not half told;
For hundreds have been killed for gold;
Both men and women have been slain
And robbed to add to Brigham’s gain.

I will here mention a few of the most inhuman and cruel acts ever
committed by any man-eating savage in the darkest ages, and which
none but a corrupt priesthood could ever perpetrated.  All of these
have been done in Utah since I came here by men claiming to hold THE
HOLY PRIESTHOOD OF THE SON OF GOD, and sent by their great Prophet
and leader to do these deeds of blood and plunder in the name of God
Almighty.

On the 12th day of September, 1857, two days after I arrived in this
accursed land, 119 men, women and children were murdered while
traveling to California, by a band of Mormons painted as Indians,
and led by a Mormon high priest, a pious president of a stake of
Zion, and a wise ward bishop.  After the emigrants had defended
themselves against those wretches for three days beneath a burning
sun in a sandy desert, WITHOUT A DROP OF WATER, they dressed two
beautiful little girls in white and sent them to a spring nearby.
But as they tripped along towards the sparkling stream they met the
bullets of those merciless Mormons and fell dead into the water they
were trying to secure to save their own lives and quench the parched
throats of their beloved parents.  Finally John D. Lee, a Mormon
bishop, who had just been anointed A KING AND PRIEST TO GOD, and who
had eighteen wives given to him for being so great and good, sent a
flag of truce to the poor, parched up, bleeding emigrants and
promised them protection if they would give up their arms and go
back to the nearest town.  This they gladly agreed to; but mark the
next act of this sanctified saint.  They had not gone a half mile
from their camp, when this great deliverer gave the command to his
men to fire, and every man was shot down and every woman screamed
and ran.  The terrible, sorrowful scene that ensued no tongue can
tell.  Every woman was caught and ravished, murdered, robbed of her
jewelry, stripped naked and left unburied on the burning sand.  In a
few days nothing was left of all those beautiful forms but the
bleaching bones the prairie wolf could not devour.  Then every child
those bloodhounds thought could tell the tale of their infernal
villainy was beheaded or cut to pieces, and scattered quivering with
its bleeding friends.  Then those pure-souled priests plunged their
hands into the gory clotted blood of their victims, and with
outstretched arms toward heaven, EXPRESSED THEIR GRATITUDE TO GOD
for so great a favor; to Him who doeth all things well; but who will
undoubtedly, when they meet Him, hear His laugh re-echo through the
caverns of the damned, saying, “I told you I would laugh at your
calamity and mock when your fear cometh.”

All the property of those murdered men and women was gathered
together the value of one hundred and fifteen thousand dollars,
besides thirty-five thousand dollars in gold, and sent to their old
master-murderer Brigham.  And this is how he sits in his office,
wags his big toe, and makes his means, and then boasts that he is
THE GREATEST FINANCIER ON EARTH, and owns nothing but what the Lord
has given him.

Another and similar case is that of the murdered Morrisites, a
religious body of simple- minded souls, who had met together for
devotional exercise in a small valley on the banks of the Weber
River in the summer of 1862, when a corps of the Nauvoo Legion, led
by cowardly Captain Burton, who is now on a mission preaching the
Gospel of Mercy to you dark benighted Britons, and inviting you to
the home of the free and the land of the brave, but he is not
gallant enough to come home himself.  He is the dastardly dog who
crawled on his belly, like his ancient progenitor which tempted
Mother Eve, until he was near enough to fire a cannon and blow down
the house where those poor souls had met.  Then, after they had
surrendered, and given up their few fire arms, the poltroon shot and
killed Joseph Morris, Mr. Banks, and two women, one with a beautiful
baby nursing at her breast, took the rest of the camp prisoners, put
them in the penitentiary, and finally fined them one hundred dollars
each, just because they did not believe in the rascality of Brigham
Young, and do as they were told.

What bloody deeds, what sin and strive
What sacrifice of human life,
What deeds of plunder have been done,
To raise a gory throne for Young.

I will next mention the most perfidious act coupled with the
foulest murder ever committed since the world began.  IT WAS IN THE
DEAD OF NIGHT, when three of the Salt Lake City police were sent by
the great Seer and Revelator of all the world, to see Dr. Robinson
and ask him to set a broken limb for a poor man who, they said was
writhing in agony.  The Doctor had just retired to bed, but at his
murderers’ entreaties, he dressed himself, and in a few moments was
on his errand of mercy.  He had not gone far when one of the
villains, who walked behind, struck him on the head with a meat
chopper he had stolen for the purpose, and cleft open his skull.
The others fired their pistols immediately, and blowing out their
victim’s brains, fled.
But my soul sickens at these dreadful deeds, or I would tell
you of the brutal murder of Yates, the killing McNiel, the
assassination of Borman, the shooting of Brassfield, the slaughter
of the Akins party, the emasculation of Jones, and finally the
butchering of him and his poor old mother.  I would also mention the
dead man in the meat market, the three men in the barn, the murder
near the Warm Springs, the shooting of Pike in the streets of Salt
Lake City in broad daylight, the murder of the Potters and Parishes,
of Rhodes and Roberts, and HUNDREDS OF OTHERS WHO HAVE BEEN MURDERED
IN COLD BLOOD, and robbed to satisfy the avaricious cravings of as
foul a man and as false a Prophet as ever disgraced this sin-stained
earth.
These horrible deeds have all been committed in our holy Zion,
and not one of the perpetrators ever brought to justice.  In fact,
there has been no justice in the land.  A few years ago a man’s life
was not worth a cent who durst utter such words as there is evil in
the land, or sin among the Priesthood.  “You do as you are told!”
has been the Gospel preached in this priest-ridden place for the
last quarter of a century.
In the fall of 1857, I heard our Prophet in a congregation of
three thousands souls, tell his bishops they were to “counsel” the
brethren to do as they were told; and, said he “if they don’t do it,
lay righteousness to the line and judgment to the plummet.  If  you
don’t know what that is, come to me and I will tell you!” He then
threw back his head and with a revolting grin, DREW HIS FINGER
ACROSS HIS THROAT, a sign the anointed ones well understood.  And
yet, the old bilk, with his smooth slang will make his innocent
dupes believe he is free from guilt, and that he is THE LIGHT, THE
TRUTH, AND THE WAY, and that he has a place prepared for them, where
the waters are flowing placidly – a land of milk and honey.

But the waters are stained with blood, and the milk is turned to
whey,
And the honey has lost its sweetness, the people seem to say;
And dupes are getting scarcer, and obedience is dead,
And all the old man’s judgments and plummets, too, have fled.

THE HAND-CART EXPEDITION

Then there was the hand-cart company that crossed the plains in
1856.  The details of their distress caps the climax of all
horrors.  Could I portray that terrible journey and the sufferings
of those poor souls, your very heart would bleed.  Three ounces of
flour per day was all they had to eat.  Upon this scanty fare they
dragged their carts with 100 pounds of luggage over the worst kind
of road, and more than five hundred miles through snow, fording
rivers whose currents are of the swiftest kind, and their waters
always cold.  Then at night, when those poor, wet, shivering souls
came into camp they had no wood to make a fire.  At times a few
small willows could be obtained, just enough to bake their scanty
cake.  It did not take them long to eat their supper, for a mouthful
each was all they had.  So hungry were they, that some gnawed the
flesh off their own arms, ate roasted hide, or fed upon their
shoes.  One-fourth of all who started, DIED OF STARVATION ON THE
WAY.
From five to fifteen died every night for over 300 miles of the
road.  So weak and weary were these living skeletons that they could
scarcely bury their dead.  Every night a pit would be dug just large
enough to place the dead in, and a shallow covering of dirt thrown
over them.  Those that dug the grave one night expected to be placed
in theirs the next.  Many a one prayed that his spirit might leave
his frame of bones for a berth among the blessed.
Why did they start in this way? do you inquire.  Because this
false prophet had told them that it was the Lord’s plan of
emigration, and the only way to secure salvation. They believing him
to be a true prophet, had faith in all he said, and started on their
journey, 1,400 miles, as late in the season as August.  As they
traveled on Westward toward the Zion of their hopes, songs could be
heard from every cart and prayers from every camp.  But before they
got five hundred miles on their weary pilgrimage, THE SNOWS BEGAN TO
FALL, the wintry winds to blow, and the keen frost and piercing cold
set in.  Then their suffering commenced in earnest.  Still they
trudged along day after day, full of faith in God and holy
priesthood, and day after day endured greater pain.  Finally their
limbs began to freeze, and pieces fell from their worn-out bodies.
They became dispirited and pined away and died, as I have already
told you.

So sad and sickening is this Gospel plan, As taught by Brigham, to
poor fallen man,
That every time I mention his ill name, It sends a shudder quivering
through my frame.
I also tremble for the deeds he’s done; For life destroyed, for
blood he caused to run;
For victims frozen on the plains, through him, While starving,
suffering, falling limb from limb.

Dear Sister, in this sad letter I have told you the truth, AS
IT IS IN JESUS CHRIST, and as I expect to meet at the final bar of
retribution.  All these deeds and a thousand others equal to them in
baseness and brutality, have all been committed under the cloak of
religion.  But I must tell you more of them at another time.

I will now tell you the reason why we could not leave this
blood-stained land, I mean ten or twelve years ago.  In the first
place, we were a thousand miles from the nearest town East, eight
hundred miles to the nearest settlement West, and God only knows how
far to any place north and south.  On all this vast tract of land,
NO WHITE MAN DWELT, no civilization was known, none but the red men
roamed the dreary solitudes.  To travel such a space required
considerable food, a good wagon and team, in fact, everything
necessary for a three month’s pilgrimage.  Nor was it safe for a few
men to go together, unless they were well-armed.  Again, every
Bishop knew your business AND WAS ALWAYS ON THE LOOKOUT.  If you
started, they would send men to drive off your stock, and thus you
would be compelled to return.  Then, if you did not behave and act
the hypocrite, the bishop would send the Danites to use you up, send
you across lots to that bright brimstone home we read about.  Thus
you see it was almost impossible to get away.  But now we have a
railroad across the plains and settlements every little way and
civilization is coming to Zion.  If the Lord won’t come the law
will, and if Jesus is not approaching, justice is.  Then all who
want can leave.  But now the priests want us to go, and we wish to
stay.

Burst off every fetter, remove this Priestly yoke.
And never rest contented, till every link is broke.
For every man in Utah and woman shall be free.
And shouts shall echo through the land for God and Liberty!

Hoping to meet you soon on earth life and finally beyond the
confines of time measured out to mortal man.

I am affectionately,

Your Brother,
AARON DEWITT

Georgia On My Mind

The hell with the Vatican-led NWO

By Greg Szymanski, JD
May 31, 2009

I picked up my guitar this morning and played a simple song. I haven’t played a note in months.

I am not a musician, just someone who takes refuge among the notes.

It’s an escape, but a nice escape. One I wouldn’t trade for anything except for maybe a box seat on a nice clear and bright Sunday afternoon at Wrigley field.

Why I am writing this way today when there are so many important things to say?

Why am I hearing notes in my head instead of the brutal sounds of genocide and murder trumpeted in every corner of the globe by the Jesuits and Vatican-led New World Order.

I think I hear these notes this morning because when I picked up my guitar, it all came clear today.

When I picked up the guitar the dark cloud lifted off of me and I saw it go back up behind the mountain where it belongs.

What came clear is that if you allow the Vatican-led New World to control — if you think about them every day — there are no more beautiful notes. You must oppose them but don’t let them destroy you!

Don’t let all the beautiful notes get clouded over by Jesuit insanity, destroying every good sound and thought you ever had or will have.

So I kept playing this morning and promised myself with a smile on face never to let that happen, never to let them take away the beauty of this world or the beauty of my life.

I thought the eventual inquisition and fascism coming to this country may take away everything else but it can’t take away the beautiful notes I hear within myself.

So I put into my head a song , a song they can never take away, a song I can play within my mind that will make me smile right to the very end.

Why it makes everything clear, I don’t know.

If you are reading this, maybe you should find your own song? And I hope you find one that makes it all clear for you. I hope you find one that brings beauty and happiness among all this Jesuit madness going on in America?

Here’s mine. Play it if you wish:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IumnmhnPJ…