The head of the crown , Queen Elizabeth is getting even richer using her hand picked judicial mobsters to steal the assets of men caught up in her devious and dangerous family courts. A racket so enormous NO ONE would believe how many arms of state are required to ensure they operate in the best interests of the most corrupt oilgarth on the planet, the British crown.

They are NOT called Her Majesty's courts and Her Majesty's prisons and where you serve time in Her Majesty's jails for NO reason, Lizzie heads this mob of swindlers disguised, like HER, in all their robes and regalia and who decide the fate of many many victims on behalf of the crown , seldom if ever with a proper common law jury. The myth that the royals are disconnected from political and legal decisions is a monstrous lie that is allowing her henchmen to greatly increase the royals enormous wealth on the backs of civil court corruption, not only in the UK, but in every country that uses lawyers who are part of the bar associations and who ultimately answer to the inns of court in London. This is a form of modern day warfare were unarmed men are facing a tyranny much worse than they would face fighting another country. This is a civil war between the establishment goons working for the British royals against victims of their criminality and dangerous thuggery.

This utter web of deceit sees men NOT part of Her Majesty's creepy masonic network being dragged through medieval like court systems and being stitched up by a myriad of hangers on only to glad to supply the lies that will allow the judicial monsters to relieve you of all your worldly possessions with impunity. Doctors, social workers and teachers only to happy to provide written and in some cases oral evidence that every man, not part of Lizzie's masonic army , deserves to be thrown out on the street , bankrupted, broken and childless.

There is a long line of destitute men worldwide on the streets, that have been the victims of the thugs that operate on behalf of Lizzie and her masonic network, run by proxy from Israel . This is the biggest war outside a physical war for men to deal with, that the deadly crown only needs your ex-wife or long term partner to file for separation and Lizzie's judicial army move in for the kill.

For any man to come through the intolerable pressures these scumbags generate requires enormous courage and restraint. With a mass media totally backing this evil game that shows the powers the British monarchy can create when vast swathes of mens land, business's and property are disappearing into the crown, masonic , judicial and legal coffers. This through a conspiracy so enormous NO ONE could believe how sick and disturbed they are that this massive scam would NOT finally get exposed. Many of those men now no longer with us due to the psychological torture Lizzie's judicial army placed on those men's shoulders.

Only the uniting of her victims and the increasing use of modern technology can protect any more men and their children from going through the horrors of what these evil bastards are doing to our families. Just like the British Empire was founded on the ruthless masonic plundering of the many nations that fell under crown rule, men are the modern day targets for the same judicial mindset. Crown laws, are not laws of the people, but merely a tool for the richest dynasty in the world to continue to screw the millions of families who fall under their twisted and devious radar.


    queen2 Elizabeth II "The Sovereign can do no wrong and no laws can be brought against her". Lord Halsbury "The Laws of England"

    Civil List Loot

    The Civil List provides lavish expenditure for the monarch to spend on Palace entertaining. Queen Victoria stole most of this annual gift from public funds and banked it in the royal maze of off-shore banks. As did her descendants until 1992. Since 1992 when a few Labour MP’s demanded a closer look at Palace expenditure; the present Queen, Elizabeth II, has been unable to steal as much as her ancestors.

    In 1993 it came to light the Queen had a ‘Civil List Surplus’ of £35 Million. A half decent Head Of State would have returned that money to the Treasury for use in our schools and hospitals. Elizabeth II held on it for 'shortfalls'. Were it not for the book Royal Fortune, which led to more palace scrutiny, nobody would have known about the Queen's Civil List 'surplus'. The £35 Million would have followed centuries of Civil List surpluses into the royals Swiss accounts.

    August 2009. We now know Elizabeth II had the insolence to designate the Civil List 'surplus' (the £35 Million she stole) as "the Queen's reserve". Which she now insists is all but spent and therefore, she says, she needs another £6 Million added to her annual Civil List of £7.9 Million!

    Between 1952 - 1992 the Queen stole another £30 Million by illegally avoiding tax. The stolen money was salted away in Swiss banks where it would have realized £300 Million by now. Anyone who thinks this woman has any love for Britain and the British has no real knowledge of the so-called "royal family." From the start of her reign the Queen has had to plan for the possibility of Great Britain becoming a nuclear desert. The British public have never for one moment entered those plans. Should Chernobyl happen at Sellafield or Sizewell the royals have escape planes standing by 24/7, private Pacific islands to go to and billions in foreign banks. In case of a nuclear disaster the evacuation of the Queen's family and ministers is reviewed and rehearsed every year - sometimes twice a year. The Queen's subjects will be abandoned without so much as a royal wave.

    The Uranium Queen

    Once upon a time we were told nuclear power stations would provide electricity 'too cheap to meter.' We then learned that when the Queen opened her first uranium (nuclear) power station it had had nothing to do with providing electricity. Nuclear power stations are built to produce nuclear weapons material for Her Majesties Government. From the very beginning of nuclear power Her Majesties Government planned and plotted to hide the horrendous cost of running nuclear power stations with massive subsidies, of the taxpayers money, distributed under the cloak of Her Majesties Official Secret Act.

    The Queen's Uranium Mines

    The Queen owns mines in America, Canada and Africa. The uranium mining company Rio Tinto Mines was formed for the British Royal Family in the late 1950's by the Queen's "Africa adviser" Roland Walter Fuhrhop. Described by a fellow German as "an ardent supporter of Hitler and an arrogant, nasty piece of work to boot." The Queen's adviser (better known as "Tiny" Rowland) had been a passionate member of the Nazi youth movement. Rowland became Africa's most ruthless businessman. Africa being a prime source of the uranium used in the Queen's nuclear reactors. Between 1957 and 1976 British reactors produced enough nuclear waste/weapons material to suit our Defence Requirements for the next 200 years. By which time nuclear weapons will be obsolete. Although we had more nuclear weapons material than we could ever use, without choking on our own nuclear fallout, the Queen's cartel had no intention of giving-up their obscene profits from their nuclear power and waste companies, funded by the stroke of the royal pen with an endless supply of the taxpayers billions.

    When Electricité de France announced the new European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) would be more efficient than the old Chernobyl type reactor they were, for once, actually telling the truth. The EPR will “overcook” nuclear fuel. This will produce between five and fifteen times more eternally fatal High Level Nuclear Waste for the taxpayer to pay for. Forever and ever. An accident, like Chernobyl, in an EPR will release much higher levels of fatal radiation causing five to fifteen times the human misery Chernobyl has. How’s that for nuclear efficiency! May 2009. The Queen granted her French collaborators permission to build two of these foreign Doomsday Machines in Somerset and another two in Suffolk. No doubt Al Qeada are already writing letters of thanks to Her Majesty in anticipation of these dream Targets of Nuclear Mass Destruction.

    The Crown Prerogative dictates there can be no questions in Her Majesties Parliament probing Her Majesties control of the Energy Market. Members of Parliament are not even allowed to think of how much the royals are making every single minute from their oil, gas and nuclear investments. Which gives you some idea how patently impotent Members of Her Majesties Parliament really are.

    The British Head of State, Elizabeth II, presides over a weekly meeting of the Joint Intelligence Committee, (JIC) where she - and not the passing prime minister - is fully briefed on the activities of all of the British secret services. The Queen alone appoints military commanders. No British agents, or British troops, carry out a single act, overt or covert, without direct orders signed by the British Head Of State.

    With Rothschilds acting as her principle-nominee-bankers Queen Elizabeth II has become the wealthiest women in the world. In financial circles the Queen is known as the world's "ultimate insider trader.'' Not only is she advised by the world's richest financiers she also has full access to all British State Secrets, through the daily Red Boxes. The Queen has 455 military advisers in 30 countries. If the Queen learns that some country, lets say Nigeria, is about to be destabilized, she can immediately sell her Nigerian oil shares and invest that money in Arms sales to Nigeria. The only people who know the murky details of royal insider dealing are those on the same gravy train. It would prove impossible, for anyone (especially a royal banker), to press charges of insider trading and conflict of interest against the Queen in her own courts.


    Princess Diana was preparing to unmask those involved in British manufacturing of land mines, it has been claimed Diana, Princess of Wales was killed because she planned to expose senior members of the British arms trade involved with land mines, a leading lawyer claimed today. Michael Mansfield QC, who represented Mohamed al-Fayed in the inquest into the death of his son Dodi and the former royal, said Diana claimed she had an 'exposure diary' in which she was going to unmask the people most closely involved with the British manufacturing of land mines.

    He told the Hay Festival in mid Wales: 'I think everyone remembers she raised the profile of the land mines. 'Everybody is aware that the British involvement in the arms trade, particularly land mines, is and was a huge vested interest. 'It seems to me she had planned various visits. She had already been to Angola, she was going to Cambodia later in the year. 'She was going to set up an institute for the victims of the land mines that had been exploded.' He added: 'A large number of land mines had been manufactured by the British and I think, and a witness who knew her well claimed, that she had an exposure diary in which she was going to expose the people most closely involved in the British arms trade. It seems to me that is not unrelated (to her death).' Mr Mansfield said there is a missing box of papers which could contain crucial information.

    He said: 'Nobody really knows what was in it. The box exists but when it was opened there was nothing in it and everybody has forgotten what was in it. 'I don't know what was in it. It is said there were papers in there, it may have been the diary or notebook she was keeping in relation to the arms trade or it may be other correspondence between the royal family and herself.' Mr Mansfield said he believed the car crash in Paris in 1997 was 'more than a mere accident' when he first heard about it.

    He said: 'Two people so vilified suddenly end up in a crash. I started to ask questions about who does this benefit, how did this come about? 'I got asked to do the case from a different channel and they didn't know I was already very interested in the opportunity, which very few of us ever get, to get senior security service chiefs and senior politicians in a witness box. 'I felt very strongly there was more to this case than a mere accident.'

    He added: 'The verdict of the jury was not accidental death. The jury had that option and chose not to take it, they came back to unlawful killing contributed to by the paparazzi and following vehicles. 'The interesting thing is most immediate vehicles were driven not by paparazzi but people they have never managed to trace.' When asked how he distanced himself from conspiracy theorists, Mr Mansfield said: 'I think most people think I'm a lunatic and that's fine. 'I'm not a conspiracy theorist about everything and there is cock-up as opposed to conspiracy but it's a very healthy analysis. It gets you to ask questions you wouldn't otherwise ask.'

    Divorce is a very different ball game for the royals as the men ALWAYS hang on to their stash using all sorts of archane royal laws to avoid getting stitched up. Not like millions of men who are fleeced by judges hand picked by the same British royal family

    The Duchess of York has held secret talks with Princess Diana's lawyers about renegotiating her 'paltry' divorce settlement with Prince Andrew. Sarah Ferguson consulted Anthony Julius at Mishcon de Reya, who famously negotiated a £17million pay off for Princess Diana when she divorced Prince Charles.

    The figure is in stark contrast to the £15,000 a year which the duchess receives from Prince Andrew after their marriage ended after ten years in 1996. One leading divorce lawyer has estimated cash-strapped Fergie, whose reputation is now in tatters after the money-for-access scandal, is entitled to up to £7.5million more from Prince Andrew. The greedy Duchess was exposed last weekend by a Sunday tabloid, whose reporter posed as a businessman and secretly filmed her offering access to the prince for £500,000.

    During the meeting, she expressed anger about the small size of her divorce settlement. Blaming it for all her money troubles, she said it had 'left me without a pot to p*** in'. Her dwindling band of friends have long urged her to seek to demand more money - particularly in view of the way she was stripped of her HRH title and banished from the Royal Family without a home she could call her own. Troubled times: But law experts say Fergie could 'revisit' the divorce settlement from Prince Andrew and demand up to £7.5million One friend of the family said: 'It is true she has looked hard at this and talked to Mishcon about her settlement. But she walked away because she thought it was important to remain friends with Andrew and the Queen.'

    Another friend said: 'In truth, about the only good thing that has come out of this ghastly mess is that people now know how little Sarah got in her divorce settlement. It's why she could revisit it.' James Stewart, a partner in Manches, the law firm which represented film director Guy Ritchie in his multi-million-pound divorce from Madonna, said: 'In big money divorces, there is a presumption of a clean break. But where maintenance is still being paid, the wife can go back to court. '£250,000 to £300,000 is not an unreasonable annual amount for a wife, like the Duchess of York, who has had a certain standard of living, and international lifestyle.' Under the formula used to renegotiate payments based on a claimant's age, Mr Stewart estimated that the 50-year-old Duchess could seek between £6.2million to £7.5million.

    Prince Andrew's financial circumstances altered dramatically when he sold the former marital home Sunninghill Park - which had been a gift from the Queen - for £15million in 2007. The duchess received no money from the sale. He also receives a £249,000 parliamentary annuity, which is reimbursed to the Treasury by the Queen, and a £30,000 naval pension. Shortly before her encounter with the undercover reporter, the duchess paid £100,000 which she owed Mayfair solicitors Davenport and Lyons.

    It was an 11th-hour attempt to avert the fresh humiliation of being made bankrupt because the firm had issued a writ over unpaid fees of £204,000. The duchess will return to Britain from the U.S. this weekend after filming an interview with talk show host Oprah Winfrey as part of the process of rebuilding her battered image.

    She will hold crisis talks with Prince Andrew at his 30-room mansion, Royal Lodge, which is her temporary home. Fergie has offered to move out of the mansion, in the shadow of Windsor Castle, to spare him any further embarrassment. The duchess has no discernible income of her own and crippling six-figure debts, which means if she does move out she will have to throw herself on the mercy of friends who are concerned it will make her even more vulnerable to conmen. Her daughters Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie, the fifth and sixth in line to the throne, have also baled out their mother.

    She told the undercover reporter: 'At the moment, my children pay for me. They have a trust fund from Andrew and they pay for me.' Any new financial settlement would mean that the girls would no longer have to subsidise their spend-thrift mother, whose retinue includes a butler, dresser and personal assistant. The friends of the duchess argue it was the failure of Prince Andrew to give her any money from the sale of their former marital home which may yet return to haunt him.

    In an interview with the Mail in February, Prince Andrew was asked the secret of his happy divorce from the duchess. 'Being divorced to, and not being divorced from. It's why we are good friends,' he said. But, after the events of the last week, senior royals such as Prince Philip are wishing he had cut himself off from her completely when he divorced in 1996.

    crushed car A FRESH inquest into the death of Princess Diana must be held to get to the truth following a widespread cover-up by the French authorities, according to the author of an explosive new book.

    Investigative journalist and author John Morgan slammed the official London inquest into how the Princess died following the crash in the Alma Tunnel in Paris in 1997. He insisted last year’s hearing was tainted by errors, omissions and suppressions following a French cover-up. Mr Morgan claims to have uncovered crucial evidence that the inquest jury never heard, including that from the two French doctors who carried out the post-mortem on chauffeur Henri Paul – the man branded as the drunk driver responsible for the deaths of both the Princess and her lover Dodi Fayed. “They blamed a dead, defenceless, innocent driver,” Mr Morgan said. The Australian author makes his claims in his book, Diana Inquest: The French Cover-up, published yesterday in Brisbane, Austrialia. Mr Morgan points to documentary evidence of a second body and a plethora of inconsistencies in conflicting blood samples, errors in body identification, witnesses never heard and glaring inaccuracies of evidence. “The inquest was seriously flawed. The jury did not hear from at least 176 witnesses, many of whom were critical. The two French medical experts who performed the autopsy on chauffeur Henri Paul refused to give evidence, even via video link. Their results are conflicting, but their statements which were in the possession of Lord Justice Scott Baker at the Diana inquest in London were not even read to the jury,” said Mr Morgan.

    “For instance, there were blood samples close to Mr Paul’s body, supposedly taken from his chest ­cavity. But the photographs show that his chest cavity had not been opened at that point. Measurements given for Mr Paul’s height and weight were wrong on one report, but correct on a second document. Two autopsy documents for one body? So how could the jury be expected to come to any kind of reasonable conclusion? The very concept of the jury arriving at an informed verdict was a joke. It is just ridiculous.”

    The jury in London eventually handed down a verdict of “unlawful killing”.

    But Mr Morgan, who has spent the past four years sifting through documents never before published and talking to witnesses, said the hearing was a sham. “It is a ludicrous proposition that you should have an inquest in London into an accident which happened in France with French witnesses,” he said. “Quite clearly for the whole truth to come out, a body such as the International Court of Justice should hold a proper inquest on French soil – where witnesses like the professor and the doctor who carried out what I believe was the flawed autopsy on Henri Paul could be compelled to give ­evidence.” One of the author’s most sensational claims is that Diana and Dodi’s chauffeur was framed as a drunk driver.

    His new book, which is almost 700 pages long, documents how blood samples used to prove Paul was three times over the legal alcohol driving limit came from another body. Mr Morgan says he has uncovered medical records which prove Paul was not drunk behind the wheel. “There is a mass of evidence that Henri Paul was not drunk, from CCTV footage of him talking to Diana inside the hotel and from eyewitnesses who said he was definitely not drunk,” Mr Morgan told the Daily Express at the official launch of his book, the third in a series, yesterday. “He is seen going up and down stairs, walking normally and even at one point bending down to tie his shoelace without any difficulty. So how does a man go from being sober in the Ritz Hotel to five minutes later being a totally drunk driver? “DNA samples taken from Henri Paul during the autopsy, which were definitely from him, have never been tested for elevated alcohol levels.

    “And the doctor who took them, Dr Gilbert Pepin is quoted as saying it would take a request from the Queen of England to the French president to get them.” Wheelchair-bound Mr Morgan, who lives in Brisbane, was praised for his investigative efforts by Mohamed Al Fayed, with whom he had no contact when he began writing the Diana inquest books. Mr Al Fayed, who sent his spokesman Michael Cole to Australia help launch the book on to the world market as a “thank you”, said Mr Morgan’s work provides new insight into the way in which his son, Dodi, and Princess Diana died. “When I said I accepted the verdicts of ‘unlawful killing’ following the inquests into the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi, I was hoping that in time new information would be revealed,” said Mr Al Fayed. “I believe that John Morgan has done more to expose the facts of this case than police in France and Britain. He has shown how the so-called investigators were more interested in covering up what really happened than honestly delving for the truth.”

    Mr Cole told the Daily Express yesterday that Mr Morgan’s self-funded work on his own over four years was “an epic magnum opus for the death of Diana and Dodi”. He added: “I knew Henri Paul. He drove me around on visits to Paris. He drove my wife and daughter and only on the Friday before the crash, he had passed his private pilot’s licence medical. “I am here on behalf of Mr Al Fayed to shake John’s hand and say ‘thanks’ from Mr Al Fayed for his magnificent work. We are sticking to our unshakeable belief that one day the whole truth come out.” The Australian author also won praise from top QC Michael Mansfield, who congratulated him on reaching “compelling conclusions”.


    I am not the first, nor the last, to say that the "rich are getting richer", and the "middle-class and the poor are getting poorer". However, I now have the absolute proof of this statement. The following chart very clearly proves that this well-known statement is indeed true.

    490 of the Richest Individuals & Families in the World

    Forbes magazine yearly list an index of the Billionaires around the world. These articles implied that they are all-inclusive lists. However, it becomes clear that they are not complete lists when they exclude such prominent wealthy persons as: Her Royal Majesty Elizabeth - Queen of England, Her Royal Majesty Beatrix - Queen of the Netherlands (known as the wealthiest woman in the world), Her Royal Majesty Margaret the II - Queen of Denmark, Her Royal Majesty Sofia - Queen of Spain, Sir Muda Hassanal Bolkiah Muizzadin Waddaulah - The Sultan of Brunei, Darussalam, King Fahd - Monarch of Saudi Arabia, Emir Shaikh Jabir al-Ahmad al-Jabir as-Sabah - King of Kuwait, Sultan Qabus bin Said - King of Oman, Emir & Prime Minister Khalifah ibn Hamad ath-Thani - King of Qatar, President Zaid ibn Sultan an-Nahayan - Ruler of the United Arab Emirates, Haydar Abu Bakr-al Attas - Prime Minister of Yemen, Amir isa bin Sulman al-Khalifa - King of Bahrain, the House of Rothschild, the Wallenberg interests, the Warburg interests, the Schiff interests, or many others. The ultra-rich are very likely members of the Inner Circle of the Elite and do not want their massive wealth to be known by the public, therefore, they are not likely to be listed by Forbes magazine or any other news media.

  • Lists of people by wealth
    queen2 Queen wants extra £44m to refurbish palaces

    The Queen is privately pushing for taxpayers to contribute an extra £44 million to the Royal household to cover the cost of refurbishments, letters released by the Treasury have disclosed. The removal of lead Victorian water mains at Windsor would cost £4.2million.

    The Royal Household currently receives £15million a year to keep up the royal residences, including Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, but needs about an extra £4million a year for the next decade to cover essential works – a rise of almost 30 per cent. The request for more money for the palaces is likely to be controversial at time of cutbacks in the public sector. Crucial repairs listed include the refurbishment of St James’s Palace – where Prince William and Prince Harry have offices – costing £3million and the renewal of lead and slate roofs at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, which would cost £18.3million. The roof at Windsor Castle covers two acres. Work on the wiring and heating at Buckingham Palace, including asbestos removal, would be £5.5million, while the removal of lead Victorian water mains at Windsor would cost £4.2million. The documents also explore “Further opportunities to generate income” which could include selling “non core assets” such as the Hampton Court Mews. Another option would be to charge the Royal Collection for its use of Buckingham Palace for the public opening every summer.

    The budget, which covers six palaces, will be reassessed by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport in 2010. The documents were produced by Buckingham Palace as it “endeavoured to prepare a better ‘business case’” for additional funding. The Royal Household also requested £3 million for “much needed” maintenance work to the Victoria and Albert Mausoleum, where the royal couple are buried at Frogmore House, near Windsor Castle. The mausoleum was added to the English Heritage Buildings at Risk register after part of the roof fell in. The documents suggest a fund-raising effort specifically raising money for the mausoleum, proposing a £1.5million target.

    Around £10million would cover repairs to perimeter gates and railings as well as “stone repairs” to Buckingham Palace. The façade of Buckingham Palace is in such poor repair that pieces of stone have fallen off. One narrowly missed Princess Anne’s parked car. The £44 million does not include cleaning the exterior of Buckingham Palace, nor the refurbishment of its State Rooms. The State Rooms have not been redecorated since the Queen came to the throne in 1952. A spokesman for Buckingham Palace said: “We have been saying these works are essential, they need to be done and we don’t have the funds at the moment.”

    MPs on the public accounts committee, which monitors the Queen’s finances, have said that if the amount received under “grant in aid” is to rise, they would expect the public to be allowed more access to the palaces. Richard Bacon, a Conservative MP on the committee, said that if further taxpayer funds were needed, then further access to the palaces should be allowed. "One thing that struck me is that they spend £200,000 a year on temporary access to Buckingham Palace, which seemed a waste. That is £1million every five years for something that really could be permanent," said Mr Bacon. "The Royal household is alive to the problems and alive to public concerns with the lack of public access."

    The Royal household is also seeking to increase the amount the Queen receives under the civil list when the current financial agreement of £7.9million runs out in December. It would be the first increase above the rate of inflation in almost two decades. In recent years, the Queen has drawn on her personal income to subsidise the rest of the Royal family. Last year, the Royal family cost 69p per person in the country or £41.5 million.

    Typical corporate media stance supporting the royals using penny comparisions, this is the same media mafia that call the poorest in Britain the scroungers when it is the royals and their vast army of hangers on that are leeching the wealth from the long suffering UK public.

    Ten to twelve pivotal companies, assisted by another three dozen, run the world's food supply. They are the key components of the Anglo-Dutch-Swiss food cartel, which is grouped around Britain's House of Windsor. Led by the six leading grain companies—Cargill, Continental, Louis Dreyfus, Bunge and Born, André, and Archer Daniels Midland/Töpfer—the Windsor-led food and raw materials cartel has complete domination over world cereals and grains supplies, from wheat to corn and oats, from barley to sorghum and rye. But it also controls meat, dairy, edible oils and fats, fruits and vegetables, sugar, and all forms of spices.

    Each year tens of millions die from the most elementary lack of their daily bread. This is the result of the work of the Windsor-led cartel. And, as the ongoing financial collapse wipes out bloated speculative financial paper, the oligarchy has moved into hoarding, increasing its food and raw materials holdings. It is prepared to apply a tourniquet to food production and export supplies, not only to poor nations, but to advanced sector nations as well.

    Clik image to enlarge

    The use of food as a weapon can be found at least four millennia ago in Babylon. Imperial Rome took this tack, as did Venice and various Venetian offshoots, including the Antwerp-centered, powerful Burgundian duchy, and the Dutch and British Levant companies, East India companies, and West India companies. Today, food warfare is firmly under the control of London, with the help of subordinate partners in especially Switzerland and Amsterdam. Today's food companies were created by having had a section of this ancient set of Mesopotamian-Roman-Venetian-British food networks and infrastructure carved out for them. The Windsor-led oligarchy has built up a single, integrated raw materials cartel, with three divisions—energy, raw materials and minerals, and increasingly scarce food supplies. Figure 1 represents the situation. At the top is the House of Windsor and Club of the Isles. Right below are two of the principal appurtenances of the House of Windsor: the World Wide Fund for Nature, headed by the Doge of London, Prince Philip, which leads the world in orchestration of ethnic conflict and terrorism, such as the British-created afghansi movement; and British intelligence's Hollinger Corp. of Conrad Black, which is leading the assault to destroy Bill Clinton and the American Presidency.

    The firms within each cartel group are listed. While they maintain the legal fiction of being different corporate organizations, in reality this is one interlocking syndicate, with a common purpose and multiple overlapping boards of directors. The Windsor-centered oligarchy owns these cartels, and they are the instruments of power of the oligarchy, accumulated over centuries, for breaking nations' sovereignty. The control works as follows: The oligarchy has developed four regions to be the principal exporters of almost every type of food; the oligarchy has historically acquired top-down control over the food chain in these regions. These four regions are: the United States; the European Union, particularly France and Germany; the British Commonwealth nations of Australia, Canada, the Republic of South Africa, and New Zealand; and Argentina and Brazil in Ibero-America. Through the centuries, the oligarchy has taken control of these regions' markets, and thus over the world food supply. These four regions have a population of, at most, 900 million people, or 15% of the world's population. The rest of the world, with 85% of the population—4.7 billion people—is dependent on the food exports from those regions. British food cartel control intensified after World War II. Regions such as America had long been seen as important areas in which to increase control, in order to maintain the cartel's global domination, especially around the turn of the twentieth century when Minneapolis, under the control of the Pillsbury and Peavey families, replaced Hungary as the world's major miller of grain. But before World War II, the amount of grain that crossed borders, or oceans, seldom exceeded 30 million tons a year. America's share of that was usually 10 million tons or less. This was a substantial amount, but small compared to the levels of trade that would follow. World War II ravaged the globe, creating mass hunger, especially in Europe and what is today the Third World. Under the impetus of American programs such as "Food for Peace," PL 480, the worldwide trade in grain shot up to 160 million tons by 1979. Today it is 215 million tons per year. In addition, tens of millions of tons of other foodstuffs, from meat to dairy, are traded each year.

    It is proper for countries with grain, meat, dairy, and other surpluses to export them. But the cartel's four exporting regions were given preeminence in a brutal manner, while much of the rest of the world was thrust into enforced backwardness. The oligarchy denied these nations seed, fertilizer, water management, electricity, rail transportation, that is, all the infrastructural and capital goods inputs needed to turn them into self-sufficient food producers. These nations were reduced to the status of vassals: Either import from the cartel's export regions, or starve. Meanwhile, the Anglo-Dutch-Swiss food cartel reduced the export regions, which supposedly enjoy favored status, to a state of servitude as well. During the last two decades, millions of farmers in the United States, Europe, Canada, Australia, and Argentina have been wiped out. For example, in 1982, the United States still had 600,000 independent hog farmers. Today, that number is less than 225,000. The food cartel companies have concentrated hog production into their own hands. Farmers were paid far below a parity price, i.e., a price that covers costs of agricultural production plus a fair profit for investment in future production. In 1983, Robert Bergland, President Jimmy Carter's agriculture secretary in 1976-80, told an interviewer concerning Cargill, the world's largest grain company: "Cargill's view is ... [that] they generally regard the United States as a grain colony." Bergland continued, "When [in 1979] the Russians invaded Afghanistan and Jimmy Carter asked how much grain the Russians had bought [from the United States] ... we couldn't tell him because we didn't know." But Cargill and the other grain cartel companies knew. In 1976, when Cargill, Continental, and other grain cartel companies sold the Russians a record 12.4 million tons of American and Canadian grain (creating a grain shortage in the United States), the administration of President Gerald Ford learned of the sales only after the fact. The grain may have been American grown, but the Anglo-Dutch-Swiss cartel disposes of it as it pleases. This article will document, for the first time, the extent of concentration and control that the British-centered raw materials cartel exercises over both the international and domestic trade in food. It will look at the food cartel's international and domestic control of grains, milk, edible oils and fats, and meat. The article which follows provides a more detailed profile, with names and addresses, of the key forces in the cartel's control of the world's food supply.

    Concentration in four food groups

    Grains and grain products, milk and dairy products, edible oils and fats, and meat provide the majority of the intake of calories, as well as proteins and vitamins, which keeps the human species alive. Grain and grain products can be consumed as animal feed (especially corn and oats), and directly for human consumption, sometimes in grain form (the case of rice or barley), but often in a milled form, such as in bread and tortillas. The "Big Six" leading grain cartel companies are: Minneapolis- and Geneva-based Cargill; New York-based Continental; Paris-based Louis Dreyfus; São Paulo, Brazil- and Netherlands, Antilles-based Bunge and Born; Lausanne, Switzerland-based André; and Illinois- and Hamburg, Germany-based Archer Daniels Midland/Töpfer. The first five of the companies are privately owned and run by billionaire families. They issue no public stock, nor annual report. They are more secretive than any oil company, bank, or government intelligence service. Just two of these companies, Cargill and Continental, control 45-50% of the world's grain trade. We look at the food cartel's control over each of the four dominant food groups.

    Grains: Grains, or cereals as they are often called, consist of wheat; the coarse grains, including corn, barley, oats, sorghum, and rye; and rice. The Anglo-Dutch-Swiss cartel's control over wheat exports is shown in Figure 2. For the crop year 1994-95, the cartel's four food export regions produced and traded 88% of the world's wheat exports of 97.2 million metric tons. But, the four cartel food export regions, while accounting for 88% of worldwide wheat exports, accounted for only 39% of all the world's wheat production of 522.4 million metric tons in the 1994-95 crop year (see Figure 2). That is, their share of world wheat exports was more than double their share of world wheat output. This underscores the point that the cartel built up four regions as the choke points over the world's food supply, even though these regions, collectively, are not often the largest producers.

    Figure 3 shows, for the 1994-95 crop year, the percentages that the cartel's four food export regions control of the exports of the leading coarse grains. They control 95% of world annual corn exports, of 69.9 million metric tons; 76% of world barley exports, of 14.8 million metric tons; and 97% of world sorghum (milo) exports, of 6 million metric tons. Within these export regions, the cartel's six leading grain companies have, historically, built up total domination of the external grain markets. While the cartel's export regions dominate 76-97% of the world's grain trade, depending on the grain, the cartel's six grain companies also control the exports of the four regions. For example, in the 1994-95 crop year, the United States exported 102 of the world's 215 million metric tons in grain exports, nearly half the total. It accounted for 33% of world wheat exports, 83% of world corn exports, and 89% of world sorghum exports, making it the leading exporter in each of these three markets. Now, let us turn to the leading grain companies' command of America's grain export market, with America itself controlling nearly one-half of all world grain exports. Figure 4 shows that the cartel's Big Six grain trading companies own and control 95% of America's wheat exports, 95% of its corn exports, 90% of its oats exports, and 80% of its sorghum exports. A few smaller companies, almost all in the grain cartel's orbit, control the remaining market share. The grain companies' control over the American grain market is absolute.

    The Big Six grain companies also control 60-70% of France's grain exports. France is the biggest grain exporter in Europe (the world's second largest grain exporting region), exporting more grain than the next three largest European grain exporting nations combined. Figure 5 shows that the Big Six, along with some affiliated Argentine companies such as Nidera and ACA, control 67.8%, or two-thirds, of Argentina's grain exports. Argentina is the fourth largest grain exporter in the world. Canada and Australia combined are the world's third largest grain exporting region, after America and Europe. Although they have their own unique internal picture, with a modicum of political influence from farmers, both are British Commonwealth nations, under the thumb of Queen Elizabeth II.

    In sum, the Anglo-Dutch-Swiss food cartel dominates 80-90% of the world grain trade. In fact, however, the control is far greater than the sum of its parts: The Big Six grain companies are organized as a cartel; they move grain back and forth from any one of the major, or minor, exporting nations. Cargill, Continental, Louis Dreyfus et al. own world shipping fleets, and have long-established sales relationships, financial markets, and commodity trading exchanges (such as the London-based Baltic Mercantile and Shipping Exchange) on which grain is traded, which completes their domination. No other forces in the world, including governments, are as well organized as the cartel, and therefore, London's power in this area remains unchallenged. Milk and Milk Products: The big exporters of milk and milk products are three out of the cartel's four basic export regions: the United States; the European Union plus Switzerland (which is not an EU member); and the British Commonwealth countries of New Zealand, in particular, and Australia. In 1994, the cartel's domination of dairy and dairy products was astonishing. Figure 6 shows that the cartel's food export regions controlled 89% of the world's export of whole milk powder, of 1.08 billion metric tons; 94% of the world's export trade of 653 million metric tons of butter; and 86% of the world's export trade of 1.11 billion metric tons of cheese. It also controlled a huge portion of the export of condensed milk.

    The case of whole milk powder exemplifies the process of the cartel's control. Milk is not usually exported in liquid form, except for short distances over nearby borders; it is usually exported either as whole milk or skim milk powder, or as condensed milk. When it is exported as whole milk powder, it is reconstituted upon delivery, usually at the ratio of 10 parts water to 1 part whole milk powder. Of the world's export of 1.08 billion metric tons of whole milk powder in 1994, the developing world imported 885 million metric tons, or 82% of the total. Nestlé Corp., S.A., based in Vevey and Cham (near Geneva), Switzerland, and Borden, Inc., based in Columbus, Ohio, are the two largest exporters of whole milk powder in the world. Founded in 1867, Nestlé grew significantly in 1905, when it merged with the Anglo-Swiss Condensed Milk Company, also of Switzerland. Nestlé S.A. illustrates the food cartel's global reach: It is the number-one world trader in whole milk powder and condensed milk; the number-one seller of chocolate, confectionery products, and mineral water (it owns Perrier); and the number-three U.S.-based coffee firm. Its products include Nestlé chocolate and candy; Libby fruit juice; Carnation Condensed Milk; Buitoni spaghetti; Contadina tomato paste; Hills Brothers and Nescafé coffees; and Stouffers' restaurants and frozen foods. (It also owns 26% of the world's biggest cosmetic company, L'Oreal.) All told, it is the biggest food company in the world. In 1994, there were 13 countries in which Nestlé had sales of 1 billion Swiss francs or more, including all advanced sector nations. Its total 1994 sales were SF 56.9 billion, or $45.5 billion. Its 1994 profits were $4.8 billion, bigger than all but a half-dozen companies. Nestlé chairman Helmut Maucher is on the board of J.P. Morgan, British intelligence's leading bank in the United States. Its board of directors serves as a retirement home for the world's central bankers: Fritz Leutwiller, former chairman of the Basel, Switzerland Bank for International Settlements, the central bank of central banks, is on Nestlé's board, as is Paul Volcker, who, as chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Board in 1979 and the early 1980s, put the world economy through what was referred to as "controlled disintegration."

    Borden is the second biggest milk powder producer, through its KLIM milk powder division. It is also one of the world's biggest condensed milk producers, through its Eagle Brand sweetened condensed milk. In 1995, Borden was bought by the leveraged buy-out firm of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, which is headed by Henry Kravis, who was finance committee co-chairman of George Bush's 1992 Presidential campaign. As a result of the 1988 merger of R.JU. Reynolds and Nabsico, KKR now owns 33% of, and effectively controls, RJR Nabisco, which produces nine of the top ten cookies and crackers brands sold in America. KKR also owns a portion of Beatrice Foods, a conglomerate, which makes KKR one of the top five food companies in the world. Completing the picture of world control of whole milk powder is Unilever, a large player in this area as well as the number-one world producer of ice cream and margarine. Typifying the Anglo-Dutch oligarchy's joint control over raw materials, Unilever, which is the result of a 1930 merger of a British and a Dutch firm, has headquarters in London and Amsterdam. On the Unilever board is Lord Wright of Richmond, GCMG. From 1986 through 1991, he was head of Britain's Diplomatic Service and also permanent undersecretary of state at the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Lord Wright is also a director of Barclay's Bank, which is a major funder of Prince Philip's World Wide Fund for Nature. Unilever is an example of how the different corporate entities operate as part of one interlocked syndicate. The former chairman of Unilever, M.F. Van den Moven, now sits on the board of the other Anglo-Dutch giant, Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum, the world's largest marketer of oil and a controlling force in the energy cartel.

    Meat: The cartel's four major export source regions (the United States; the European Union; the British Commonwealth countries of New Zealand, Australia, and Canada; and the Ibero-American nations Argentina and Brazil) exert enormous dominance over meat exports. As well, a Chinese bloc of China, Taiwan, and Hongkong (the last nation a re-exporter) is important in pork and poultry exports. Figure 7 shows that for 1994, the cartel's basic food export regions commanded 85% of the world's export of beef and veal of 4.95 million metric tons; when the Chinese market is added in, these regions commanded 92% of the world's export trade of 2.1 million tons of pork, and 93% of the world's export trade of 5.84 million metric tons of poultry. The export of pork and poultry in China and Taiwan is increasingly run by the food cartel. Four of the cartel's biggest companies in beef export are Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland/Töpfer, ConAgra/Peavey, and Iowa Beef Processors, now called IBP. The Dakota City, Nebraska-based IBP exemplifies how the oligarchy employs its corporate offshoots. Once owned by Armand Hammer's Occidental Petroleum Co., today 13% of the stock of IBP is owned by FMR Corp., the holding company for Fidelity Investments, the largest family of mutual funds in the United States, which is run by the Boston Brahmin oligarchical families. FMR is interlocked with other parts of the Windsor cartel—it is a large owner of raw material cartel companies, including shares of 5% or more of Homestake Mining, Coeur D'Alene Mines, and Santa Fe Pacific Gold Corp., three of the world's largest gold mining companies.

    Through IBP, the food cartel is intervening in the U.S. Presidential elections, giving heavy backing to the "free enterprise" Presidential campaign of Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.). On IBP's board of directors is Alec Courtalis, a Florida real estate magnate who was national finance co-chairman of the 1992 Bush-Quayle campaign, and is currently chairman of the futuristic Armand Hammer United World College and finance committee chairman of the Gramm for President campaign. In addition, Gramm's wife, Wendy Gramm, is an IBP board member. From 1988 to 1993, Wendy Gramm chaired the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, during which time the CFTC rigged the explosive growth in speculative derivatives instruments. Edible oils and fats: The United States, the European Union, and Argentina and Brazil thoroughly dominate the export market in the soybean and its by-products, the most basic source of edible oils and fats. Figure 8 documents that the food cartel export source sectors are the masters of 90% of the international trade in soybeans, of 32.1 million metric tons per year; 90% of the international trade in soybean meal, of 31.1 million metric tons; and, along with British Commonwealth member India, 92% of the 31.1 million metric tons of soybean meal exports. According to spokesmen for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, as well as private industry, the same six companies that dominate the international grain trade also dominate the international trade in soybeans and by-products. The one additional cartel member company which is influential in the soybean trade, and which is smaller than the leading six companies, is S.I. Joseph Co. of Minneapolis, Minnesota. Burton Joseph, chairman of this company, is a former national chairman and a leading member of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith. He is a longtime enemy of Lyndon LaRouche.

    Feed and seed: The cartel also controls feed for animals and seed for planting. British Petroleum, through its Nutrition division, is the largest feed producer in Europe. Having bought Purina Mills from Ralston Purina Company, British Petroleum, one of the House of Windsor's key energy companies, is now the second largest feed producer in America. Cargill, the world's largest grain exporter, through its Nutrena Feed division, is also the biggest producer of animal feed and hybrid seed in the world, while Continental Grain, through its Wayne Feed division, is one of the biggest producers of feed and a major force in hybrid seed production.

    Domestic markets

    The cartel exercises an iron hand over the domestic agricultural economies of nations, especially those that comprise the four export source regions of the food cartel. This is exercised through the processing industries: If one controls the processing industries, one controls domestic trade. Except for use as animal feed, corn, wheat, and soybean cannot be eaten in their unrefined form (excluding sweet corn, which is eaten by humans, but which is a minuscule percentage of the annual corn harvest). The grain, or soybean (which is a legume), must be processed. The same is true of meat, which must be slaughtered and cut, before it is fit for human consumption. This is where the processing-milling industries, in the case of grains and soybean, and the packing/slaughtering industries, in the case of meat, come in. Taking America as the test case, in order to make the case generally, one can see the cartel's domination.

    For example, Figures 9, 10, 11, and 12, demonstrate that the main grain companies of the oligarchy's food cartel control 71% of the milling of America's flour; 57% of the dry milling of America's corn; 74% of the wet milling of America's corn; and 76% of the crushing of America's soybeans. (In the dry milling of corn, the corn is turned into corn meal, muffins, corn flakes, etc. In the wet milling of corn, the corn is turned into sweetener, starch, alcohol, ethanol, etc. Of America's corn crop of 7.4 million bushels, 5.6 million bushels will be consumed as animal feed; 1.5 million bushels will be wet milled; and 0.3 million bushels will be dry milled.) Figures 13, 14, and 15 confirm that the largest meat companies in the food cartel (IBP, ConAgra, Cargill, and two smaller companies) control 72% of America's beef slaughtering/packing; 45% of its pork slaughtering/packing; and 70% of its sheep slaughtering/packing. The meatpacking industry demonstrates the accelerated rate at which the cartel is building its concentration in these industries. In 1979, the top four packers controlled 41% of the industry. Today, they control 72%.

    Finally, as Figure 16 shows, four of the six leading grain cartel companies own 24% of America's grain elevator storage capacity. However, this figure is deceptive. Many of the grain elevators in America are in local areas, where there is a substantial degree of individual or cooperative ownership. When one gets to regional grain elevators, the grain cartel's ownership percentage is higher. And at ports, where grain is transshipped, the same four grain cartel companies own 59% of all American grain elevator facilities. A farmer must sell his grain either to a grain elevator, or, in the rarer case where he can afford transport, to a grain miller. In either case, it is a grain cartel company to which he must sell. By this process, the grain cartel sets the price to the farmer—at the lowest level possible.

    The control apparatus

    The control of food for use as a weapon is an ancient practice. The House of Windsor inherited certain routes and infrastructure. One finds the practice in ancient Babylon/Mesopotamia 4,000 years ago. In Greece, the cults of Apollo, Demeter, and Rhea-Cybele often controlled the shipment of grain and other food stuffs, through the temples. In Imperial Rome, the control of grain became the basis of the empire. Rome was the center. Conquered outlying colonies in Gaul, Brittany, Spain, Sicily, Egypt, North Africa, and the Mediterranean littoral had to ship grain to the noble Roman families, as taxes and tribute. Often the grain tax was greater than the land could bear, and areas of North Africa, for instance, were turned into dust bowls. The evil city-state of Venice took over grain routes, particularly after the Fourth Crusade (1202-04). The main Venetian thirteenth century trading routes had their eastern termini in Constantinople, the ports of the Oltremare (which were the lands of the crusading States), and Alexandria, Egypt. Goods from these ports were shipped to Venice, and from there made their way up the Po Valley to markets in Lombardy, or over the Alpine passes to the Rhône and into France. Eventually, Venetian trade extended to the Mongol empire in the East. By the fifteenth century, although Venice was still very much a merchant empire, it had franchised some of its grain and other trade to the powerful Burgundian duchy, whose effective headquarters was Antwerp. This empire, encompassing parts of France, extended from Amsterdam and Belgium to much of present-day Switzerland. From this Venetian-Lombard-Burgundian nexus, each of the food cartel's six leading grain companies was either founded, or inherited a substantial part of its operations today.

    By the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the British Levant and East India companies had absorbed many of these Venetian operations. In the nineteenth century, the London-based Baltic Mercantile and Shipping Exchange became the world's leading instrument for contracting for and shipping grain. The five privately held grain companies were carved out from the centuries-old Mesopotamian-Venetian-Burgundian-Swiss-Amsterdam grain route, which today extends around the world. The Big Five are Cargill, Continental, Louis Dreyfus, Bunge and Born, and André. The Continental Grain Company is run by billionaire Michel Fribourg and his son Paul. Simon Fribourg started the company in 1813 in Arlon, Belgium. He moved the company to Antwerp, and then, in the 1920s, to Paris and London. Today, it has a New York office, along with a strong Swiss-French base. In 1852, Léopold Louis Dreyfus, who was born in Sierentz, France, established wheat-trading operations in Basel, Switzerland. In this century, except during World War II, Louis Dreyfus has been headquartered in Paris (part of the old Lombard-Burgundian route).

    Bunge and Born was founded by the Bunge family from Amsterdam in 1752. The company was eventually moved to Antwerp (today it is technically headquartered in São Paulo, Brazil and the Netherlands Antilles). The André Company was founded by Georges André in Nyon, Switzerland, and today is headquartered in Lausanne, Switzerland. Cargill Company, the world's largest grain company, is based in the Minneapolis, Minnesota suburb of Minnetonka. It was founded by Scotsman William Cargill, in Conover, Iowa in 1865, and has been run, since the 1920s, by the billionaire MacMillan family. But the true nexus of Cargill is in Geneva, Switzerland, where Cargill's international trading arm, Tradax, Inc., is headquartered, having been established there in 1956 (technically, Tradax is a Panamanian-registered company). Tradax has divisions all around the world, including in Argentina, Germany, and Japan. It is the major source for Cargill's international trading; Cargill has a lot of money invested in it, and Cargill reaps a large return from Tradax's operations. Tradax also has partial Swiss ownership. The Lombard, Odier Bank, as well as the Pictet Bank, both old, private and very dirty Swiss banks, own a chunk of Tradax. The principal financier for Tradax is the Geneva-based Crédit Suisse, which is one of the world's largest money-launderers. Archer Daniels Midland's purchase of Töpfer, a Hamburg, Germany-based grain company, vastly increased ADM's presence in the world grain trade. Töpfer's trade is situated within the old Venice-Swiss-Amsterdam-Paris routes, and it has extensive business partnerships with the British Crown jewel, the Rothschild Bank.

    Secret intelligence

    The manner in which the grain cartel companies operate is highly secretive. All but ADM-Töpfer are private companies, and Bush ally and former Cargill employee Dwayne Andreas runs ADM as his personal fiefdom. A strategic profile of each of the leading food cartel companies is contained in the following article, but it is worth noting here a few critical points about how they work. Much of their workings is shrouded in mystery, because they release little information to the public. People who have attempted to write books about the grain companies have spent years without getting a single interview from any of the reigning grain company families. Unlike many American companies, where the founding family has long since departed the scene, such as in the case of Morgan bank or Chrysler Corp., the grain cartel companies are run by the same families that have run them for centuries. The inter-married MacMillan and Cargill families run Cargill; the Fribourg family runs Continental; the Louis Dreyfus family runs Louis Dreyfus; the André family runs André; and the Hirsch and Born families run Bunge and Born. However, the little that has been gleaned is very revealing. In 1979, Dan Morgan wrote The Merchants of Grain, about the world grain trade. He disclosed that Cargill's Geneva-based trading arm, Tradax, operates not only such as to park sales of grain in order to escape taxes in the United States and most countries, but it confounds anyone trying to follow Cargill's grain movements. In his book, Morgan reported:

    "When Cargill sells a cargo of corn to a Dutch animal-feed manufacturer, the grain is shipped down the Mississippi River, put aboard a vessel at Baton Rouge and sent to Rotterdam. On paper, however ... its route is more elaborate. Cargill first sells the corn to Tradax International in Panama, which will 'hire' Tradax/Geneva as its agent; Tradax/Geneva then might arrange the sale to a Dutch miller through its subsidiary, Tradax/Holland; any profits would be booked to Tradax/Panama, a tax-haven company, and Tradax/Geneva would earn only a 'management fee' for brokering the deal between Tradax/Panama and Tradax/Holland." While evading taxes and inspection, Cargill also uses its network to move large shipments of goods anywhere on the globe, on split-second notice. It has an in-house intelligence service that matches the CIA's: It uses global communication satellites, weather-sensing satellites, a database that utilizes 7,000 primary sources of intelligence, several hundred field offices, etc. Cargill is representative of all of the grain companies, and a brief examination of it gives insight into all the others. Cargill, which had $51 billion in annual sales in 1994, has a dominant position in many aspects of the world food trade. It is the world's and the United States' number-one grain exporter, and has a market share of 25-30% in each of several commodities. It is the world's number-one cotton trader; the number-one U.S. owner of grain elevators (340); the number-one U.S. manufacturer of corn-based, high-protein animal feeds (through subsidiary Nutrena Mills); the number-two U.S. wet corn miller and U.S. soybean crusher; the number-two Argentine grain exporter (10% of market); the number-three U.S. flour miller (18% of market), U.S. meatpacker (18% of market), U.S. pork packer/slaughterer, and U.S. commercial animal feeder; the number-three French grain exporter (15-18% of the market); and the number-six U.S. turkey producer. It also has a fleet of 420 barges, 11 towboats, 2 huge vessels that sail the Great Lakes, 12 ocean-going ships, 2,000 railroad hopper cars, and 2,000 tank cars.

    Cargill has been able to place its people in top posts around the world. Daniel Amstutz, a 25-year Cargill man, was U.S. Undersecretary of Agriculture for International Affairs and Commodity Programs in 1983-87, from which post he decided on the export policy of U.S. grains. He later became a leader of the U.S. trade commission in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) negotiations on agricultural trade. Meanwhile, the head of Bunge and Born, Nestor Rapanelli, became Argentina's economics minister within weeks of Carlos Menem coming in as Argentine President in 1989. Rapanelli began shifting Argentina from "State intervention to a 'market driven' economy." Today, Cargill Company is privately owned and run by the MacMillan family. The MacMillan family's collective wealth, at $5.1 billion, according to the July 17, 1994 Forbes magazine, is larger than that of the better-known Mellon family. The MacMillans have always been of service to the British. John Hugh MacMillan, president of Cargill from 1936 to 1957, and then chairman from 1957 through 1960, held the title of "hereditary Knight Commander of Justice in the Sovereign Order of St. John (Knights of Malta)," one of the British Crown's most important orders.

    The drive to the East

    The food cartel continues to consolidate its worldwide control in the face of the oncoming financial disintegration. In the past four years, the food cartel has bought up many milling-processing plants and bakeries throughout the former Soviet Union and East bloc, bringing these nations under tight food control. Recently, IBP moved to dump cheap Mexican meat there, in order to bankrupt beef producers. The Clinton Agriculture Department has brought them up for investigation. The food cartel has also built up its control, in the food distribution industries, through such combines as Philip Morris, Grand Metropolitan-Pillsbury, and KKR-RJR-Nabisco-Borden. In the case of Philip Morris, which owns Kraft Foods, General Foods (Post cereals), the Miller Brewing Company, and a host of other brand names, 10¢ of every $1 that an American spends on brand-name food items is for a Philip Morris product.

    The food cartel's power must be broken. This year, the U.S. Justice Department's Anti-Trust division launched an investigation into price-fixing in the case of corn-based fructose and lysine, by Archer Daniels Midland and some of the other food cartel companies. The case, if brought to trial, could provide valuable information and help to expose and possibly halt, in a limited way, a few of ADM's practices. But the Anglo-Dutch-Swiss cartel is playing for high stakes—the ability to constrain the supply of raw materials, and above all, food, to turn back the clock of history, and reduce mankind from the 5.6 billion population it currently enjoys to the state of a few hundred million semi-literate souls scratching out a bare existence. That assault cannot be fought timidly. The full truth about the food cartel must be known.

    by Richard Freeman


    We pick out only two of these royalist goffers

    Order of the British Empire
    Commanders of the Order of the British Empire

    Professor Alice BROWN
    Lately Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. For public service. (Edinburgh)

    Alice Brown has had MORE complaints about her failures to address grievances made against councils across Scotland than any other regulator, yet is given an OBE . For the many victims of corrupt councils this is an absolute disgrace.

    Sheriff Principal Edward Farquharson BOWEN, TD QC
    Sheriff Principal of Lothian and Borders. For services to the Administration of Justice in Scotland.

    Like every other Sheriff Principal in Scotland they are responsible for decisions by sheriffs in sheriffdoms across Scotland. Bowen is a regular name that comes up time and again in cases of injustice that go on every day in Scottish courts. For the victims of those courts giving him an OBE is a disgrace. One look at the many names on this list shows the multi-tier system of dupes and goons the monarchy require to survive . Many on the list will be members of secret societies like the masons doing so much harm behind the scenes on behalf of the royal mafia.


  • So how do Royal asslickers get on the New Year's Honours list?
  • New Year's Honour for the cop chief in charge of the bungled Stockwell shooting
  • The tacky awards dished out by royalty to their goffers
    tom binns A radio DJ was sacked after stopping the Queen's speech on air and telling listeners it was boring.

    Tom Binns made the comments during a Christmas Day show on Birmingham radio station BRMB leading to complaints. The station had switched to the Queen's speech by mistake and Mr Binns took the decision to take it off air before making a quip about the French royal family being beheaded.

    He then introduced the next song, Last Christmas by Wham! as 'from one Queen to another.'

    Orion Media which owns the station said Mr Binns' comments were inappropriate and confirmed the presenter would not be working for the station again. Mr Binns said he had not been listening to the content of the speech, but decided to interrupt because the station should have been broadcasting a news bulletin instead. "Nobody would have tuned in to hear the Queen's speech and I tried to deal with in in a funny way. After all they employ comedians to make jokes," Binns told comedy website Chortle.

    The Orion Media Group programme and marketing director, David Lloyd said they would make contact with listeners who complained to apologise. "We do not condone what he said in any way, whether said in jest or not," said Mr Lloyd. "Tom will now not be featuring again on our radio stations."

    queen Secret correspondence between the Government and Buckingham Palace concerning the growing public cost of the Royal Family is to be released to The Independent after three years of campaigning.

    In a far-reaching ruling, the Government must disclose more than 100 letters and memos written by ministers and members of the Royal Household during negotiations over public subsidies paid to the Queen for the upkeep of her palaces. The Information Commissioner's decision deals a severe blow to the Royal Family's efforts to ensure correspondence between the Palace and the Government is not caught by the public's right-to-know law. Royal aides warned ministers that they did not want the letters disclosed to The Independent.

    But the Deputy Commissioner, Graham Smith, said the public interest in releasing the letters and other documents outweighed the Royal Family's right to protection under the Freedom of Information Act. He said: "[The Commissioner] believes that disclosure of the requested information would enhance public awareness and understanding of the funding and accommodation arrangements of the Royal Household and this would be in the public interest." The Government had also argued against disclosure because it claimed that publishing the documents would inhibit the free and frank exchange of views between ministers and so prejudice the conduct of public affairs. But again the Commissioner said the exemption was overruled by the public interest and that disclosure would "increase transparency and accountability" in the awarding of grants to the Royal Household.

    He said that by withholding the information, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) had breached the terms of the Freedom of Information legislation, which Labour introduced in 2000. The Government has been given 35 days to surrender the correspondence to The Independent. MPs and republican groups have criticised the lack of transparency over the public money given to the royals, who have spent £41.5m in 2009; £1.5m more than last year. The documents will shed light on the extent of the financial crisis at the Palace as the Queen tries to balance her books. A small number of the letters concern an application for a public subsidy for energy-saving measures, as well as money spent on security lighting and cameras. But the contents of the vast majority of the correspondence will not be known until it is handed over to The Independent.

    Some of the information held contains "free and frank commentary" on the decisions being taken by the DCMS. And the Commissioner said that while he recognised that this correspondence was of a "candid" nature, it was in the public interest to understand how public money was spent and how the Government had responded to requests for funding from the Royal Household. Palace officials admit they are still locked in a battle with Whitehall after the DCMS rejected a request for extra funds to repair the crumbling royal palaces, leaving the Queen in despair at her "patch and mend monarchy". The backlog in essential maintenance is estimated at £40m, but staff have been given just £15m for the year. The Queen is also negotiating with the Government over an increase in the Civil List. But MPs and taxpayers' groups want a greater say in how the Royal Family is subsidised after a string of scandals over public money being spent on minor roles.

    This year it emerged that £250,000 had been spent on redecorating Princess Beatrice's university accommodation. The cash helped redecorate a private four-bed apartment at St James's Palace for her use while she is a student. Last year Prince and Princess Michael of Kent were made to pay rent of £120,000 a year to stay in their Kensington Palace apartment, after almost seven years of paying only a nominal fee. Buckingham Palace has said that the royal couple will be charged the full commercial rate from 2010 to remain in their five-bedroom, five-reception home. The move followed demands by MPs on the Commons public accounts committee that full rent should be paid for the property after it emerged that the prince and princess were paying a nominal amount. Under a financial memorandum drawn up between the Government and the monarch, there is an obligation on the Royal Household to provide officials with easy access to any documents which have a bearing on the public cost of the accommodation of the Queen. It is this correspondence which the Information Commissioner says should be disclosed in the public interest.

    In his ruling in favour of the The Independent, the Commissioner disagreed with ministers' contention that if the information was made public it would have a "chilling effect" on the future disclosure of private documents to the Government. The Deputy Commissioner concluded: "The content of the information is such that it does not relate to the personal privacy of any member of the Royal Family, but rather the discussions relate to the spending of the Grant in Aid which is specifically in relation to the maintenance and upkeep of the Royal Household. In the Commissioner's view, disclosure would not undermine the privacy of nor the constitutional position of the Royal Family."

    Yet the Palace contends: "It is particularly worth recognising that information that interests the public may not be the same as that which would be disclosed in the public interest. It is a fundamental constitutional principle that communications between the Queen and her ministers and other public bodies should remain confidential, and that the political neutrality of the Queen and the Royal Family, and the Royal Household acting on their behalf, should be maintained." A spokesman for the DCMS said that Government lawyers were considering the implications of the ruling and would respond in due course.

    queen At least Labour have got one issue correct .

    A row has erupted after a Labour Party candidate called the Queen a "parasite" and likened her to "vermin". Peter White used the Facebook networking site to express his feelings about the monarch to Tory MP Andrew Rosindell. Mr White is contesting the South Hornchurch council ward in Havering next year.

    The former election agent in Romford made his comments as he condemned plans to mark the Queen's Diamond Jubilee in 2012. Mr Rosindell last week presented a bill calling for a national holiday to coincide with the anniversary. South Hornchurch is in the constituency of Dagenham and Rainham, currently held by Labour's Jon Cruddas. Mr White wrote: "What is the point of celebrating the Diamond Jubilee of someone who is born into a position of privilege, she is a parasite and milks this country for everything she can. "She has more front than Margate asking for extra money from the civil list. Maybe she should sell a couple of her properties. "Maybe if she wants Buckingham Palace to be maintained from public funds she should open it to the public.

    "Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with a public holiday but lets [sic] have one that means something, rather than celebrating vermin." Romford MP Mr Rosindell said he was "disgusted" by Mr White's remarks.

    He told Sky News Online: "I think for someone holding a responsible position in the Labour Party to state publicly that the Queen is a parasite and vermin is most outrageous and disgusting. "He wrote the comments on my Facebook and immediately dozens of people started slating him. "He tried to justify himself but he quickly removed the post. I think he's gone to ground." Mr White today appeared to stand by his remarks.

    "Maybe you could say I went too far, but that's for other people to judge," he told the London Evening Standard. "I think that Republicanism is a valid viewpoint and there are plenty of people who agree with me."

    A London Labour Party spokesperson said: "Peter White has been summoned to a meeting with key members of the local party and officers from the London Regional Labour Party. "He will be required to explain his comments and they will consider his future."

    mmf It has been brought to her attention that Her Officers commit inter alia, fraud, theft, intimidation and assault and battery in Her Majesty’s name. Her Majesty treats my complaints with general contempt, accepting that Her Majesty’s Officers may abuse Her Subject and his children at their will, therefore treating with “contempt”, Her Coronation Oath to “abide” by the “Common Law”, Magna Carta.

    “No Freeman shall be captured or imprisoned or deisseied or outlawed or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go against him or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land”. The conduct exercised against my person and children by Her Majesty’s Officers is in contravention of my Constitutional and Statutory Rights as granted by Common and Statutory Law, therefore in breach of the “Law of the Land”.
    queencaric In so many ways, the House of Windsor encapsulates almost every element of this story. They are of a Black Nobility bloodline who are knowingly working to the Brotherhood Agenda and when you look behind the facade what you find is very dark indeed. The Windsors are the highest profile reptilian family on the planet and they operate at the heart of the global manipulation.

    They are still ‘goffers’ of a kind and not at the very top of the pyramid, but they are close to those who are.

    The very coronation of the British monarch reveals the true background to the Windsors and their predecessors. When the Queen was crowned Elizabeth II on June 2nd 1953, all the regalia of the ceremony, the crowns, sceptres, gowns, orb and bracelets, were taken from the Tower of London and kept overnight in the Jerusalem Chamber at Westminster Abbey.

    This chamber is where the scholars met to translate the King James ‘authorised version’ of the Bible under the overall supervision of Sir Francis Bacon and Robert Fludd, the Grand Master of the Priory of Sion.1 The British Royal family still hold the copyright for this! The Jerusalem Chamber is panelled with cedar wood brought from the Lebanon because that was the wood said to be used to build Solomon’s Temple. The tapestry in the chamber depicts the Judgment of Solomon. Westminster Abbey, the ‘Christian cathedral’, is in fact a Pagan temple. Even the floor is made of black and white squares like a Freemasonic temple.

    At the start of the ceremony in 1953, the Queen sat on the Coronation Chair and under her bum was the Stone of Destiny which Edward I had stolen from Scone (pronounced ‘scoon’) Abbey in Scotland in 1246. The Stone was supposed to have been brought to Ireland from Israel via Egypt and is also known as Jacob’s Pillar or Pillow. I think the basic theme of that is correct, but there is a great deal more to know about the detail and its true significance. The Archbishop of Canterbury turned to the north, south, east, and west ( the four points of the Pagan cross) and the congregation shouted “God save the Queen”. This was symbolic of the story in the Old Testament describing the crowning of ‘Saul’ as King of Israel when people shouted “God save the King”. This cry can be found eight times in the Old Testament when the Kings of Israel are crowned. The Queen sat in the Coronation Chair holding the Egyptian symbols, a sceptre and a rod. On the top of the sceptre is the Maltese Cross and on the rod is a dove. She also later holds an orb with a Maltese Cross on the top, the same as those used by the Dutch wing of the Black Nobility.

    Babylon is now London and Queen Elizabeth is seen by the Brotherhood as a symbolic successor to the legendary founder of Babylon, Queen Semiramis, who was symbolized as a ‘dove’. The Queen was also anointed with oil at her Coronation, the ancient Aryan and reptile-Aryan tradition which goes back thousands of years. The word ‘Christ’ means the ‘anointed one’. The oil at the Queen’s coronation was the same mixture as that used in the ancient Middle East. It was carried in a gold vessel called the Ampulla made in the form of... a dove. This is symbolic of the messeh fat used in Egypt by the Royal Court of the Dragon. The anointing at the Coronation is supposed to elevate the monarch to the rank of High Priest, in this case, appropriately, High Priestess of the Church of England as well as head of state.

    charlie2 The Queen’s income Civil list

    Funding from government to cover the monarch’s state duties, including staffing, public engagements, official entertainment and state visits.
    Grants in aid
    Funds from government to cover travel on state business and the upkeep of royal palaces

    Parliamentary annuities
    £359,000, paid to Prince Philip for state duties

    Government departments
    Other costs including maintenance of Holyroodhouse, Edinburgh, and secondment of equerries and orderlies from the armed forces

    Note: The £41.5m total does not include the royal security bill

    Prince William

    William’s training as a helicopter pilot has turned out to be rather more costly than expected. When he used a Chinook helicopter to fly himself and his brother to a stag party on the Isle of Wight, the “training” flight cost £9,000. He also used his chopper to attend a wedding in Northumberland, visit Kate Middleton’s family home and “buzz” his father’s country pad at Highgrove. The total cost for these essential military manoeuvres? £86,000.

    On a charity motorbike ride in 2008 William and Harry raised £1,500 each for charity, a sum unfortunately dwarfed by the £30,000 cost of their 24-hour accompaniment by six Royal Protection Squad officers. The £3,000 raised would just cover six bottles of Cristal champagne at the princes’ preferred hang-out in Mayfair, Mahiki, where William once spent £11,000 during what was undoubtedly a particularly spiffing evening.

    Prince Charles

    Last March the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall toured the Caribbean aboard a 245ft luxury yacht, Leander, which normally costs £40,000 a day to charter – but the use of the yacht was secured by Charles’s old servant Michael Fawcett, who was once paid a salary of £100,000 for duties including squeezing Charles’s toothpaste, so perhaps he managed to get a discount.

    Nevertheless, Prince Charles broke records for the two most expensive trips in the history of the royal accounts with his Far Eastern and South American tours in 2008, both of which checked in at £700,000. He also seems to be aiming for the most expensive pub visits of all time – last year it cost £18,900 to transport the Prince to a pub in Cumbria aboard the royal train. Cheers, sir!

    Prince Andrew

    Prince Andrew seems determined to live up to his “Air Miles Andy” nickname, travelling to the Baltic states, Mongolia and China and accumulating costs of £149,430, in October alone. To be fair, he was representing the Queen as special ambassador for trade and investment, although apparently it is sometimes hard to find him enough to do during his jollies. No surprise that despite receiving a £249,000 salary from the Queen, Andrew often goes over budget on his £300,000 annual travel exes.

    Princess Beatrice

    No £80-a-week student digs for Beatrice: an apartment in St James’s Palace was renovated for her when she enrolled at Goldsmiths College, London. Rewiring, installing two new bathrooms, a kitchen and wood flooring was a snip at £256,000, given that the annual cost of bodyguards for Beatrice and her sister, Princess Eugenie, comes in at £500,000-plus. Neither Princess Anne’s nor the Kents’ children have bodyguards, but after one of Eugenie’s friends had her purse snatched during their gap year in Cambodia, best be safe, eh?
    crown Understanding Jurisdiction

    In all of history there has been only one successful protest against an income tax. It all revolves around the word “jurisdiction”. We need to go back about 400 years to discover this success. The word “jurisdiction” was still understood at that time. It means “oath spoken”. “Juris”, in the original Latin meaning is “oath”. “Diction” means spoken.

    Over in England about 400 years ago the Bible had just recently been put to print. Up to that time only the churches and nobility owned copies, due to the extreme high cost of paper. Although movable type had been around for quite some time the printing press didn’t become popular until the price of paper fell. Of course the hand written bibles were very expensive and only the churches and royalty could afford them. Cheap paper changed all that.

    The wealth of the nobility was attributable to feudalism. “Feud” is old English for “oath”. The nobility had land under the crown. That land was useful for farming. That’s how nobility made their wealth. The nobility rented the land to tenants who farmed the land. The tenant wasn’t a freeman. He was servant to the (land) lord, the noble. In order to have access to the land to farm it, the noble required the tenant to kneel before him, hat in hand, and swear an oath of allegiance and then kiss the nobles ring which would extend the oath of allegiance to the heirs of the tenants estate. That oath established servitude. Once that servitude was established then the tenant could put his plow to the fields. The rent was a variable. In good growing years it was very high, in bad years it fell. The tenant was a subsistence farmer, keeping only enough of what he produced to sustain himself and his family. The nobles took the rest and could have demanded 100%. But under the “common law” a servant was akin to livestock, he had to be fed. Not well fed, just fed. So they allowed the servant to keep some of his production. Liken it to “personal and dependent deductions”.

    The freemen of that time were primarily tradesmen. They were unsworn and unallieged to anybody. They were truly free men. They taught their sons the trade so they could be freemen also. Occasionally they took on an apprentice under a sworn oath contract from the father of the apprentice. His parents made a few coins but the kid was the main beneficiary. He’d learn a trade. He’d never need to become a tenant farmer. He’d keep what he earned. He only apprenticed for a term of years, usually about seven. Start when the kid is about 13 so by 21 the kid had learned enough to practice a craft. Then the contract expired. He was then called a journeyman. The definition of journeyman breaks down as follows. He was a “man” now, formerly a “nee” (adolescent), bound by an oath “jur”. He’d then go to work for a “master” craftsman. The pay was established, but he could ask for more if he thought he was worth it. And he was free to quit. At some point if the journeyman was good at his trade the market would recognize him as a “master” craftsman. Then he would be the one hiring the journeyman and making oaths and contracts with the parents. Of course those oaths and contracts only lasted a few years.

    Not so the tenant. The oath of the tenant ran for life, and the life of the heirs. So, oaths were important on both sides. In fact, at one point the tradesmen established “guilds” (gold) as a protection against the potential of the government attempting to bind them into servitudes by compelling oaths. Later to become the Order of the Free and Accepted Masons. Who literally swore an oath to serve only gold. Basically swearing to only work for pay. Once so sworn, any other oath of servitude would be a perjury of that oath. He bound himself for life to never be a servant, save to the benevolent master “gold”. Then the Bible came to print. And they were cheap. This made it available to all the “master” craftsmen and journeyman. The tenants were still too poor but the tradesmen ran with it. And the tradesmen, in order to learn his trade, had to learn how to read. Can you imagine how they felt when they read of Jesus’ command against swearing oaths? (Matt. 5: 33-37). Needless to say they were very angry, to put it mildly. All hell broke lose. The church had been lying to them for over a millennia. They trusted the church, thought the church had been telling them everything they needed to know about the Bible. Then they found out that Jesus said, “Swear no oaths”. Surprise!!!

    Thus the “Reformation” was born. Without oaths there would have been no tenants laboring for the nobility, making the nobility wealthy, and receiving mere subsistence in return. The whole society was premised on oaths. The whole society claimed it was Christian; yet, it violated a very simple command of Christ. The tradesman had done it too, by demanding contracts of indenture for apprentices and giving their own oaths to the guilds. They had no way of knowing that was prohibited by Jesus. They were plenty angry for being lied to for so long by the church. Well, the governments had seen this coming so in an unprecedented display of unanimity, the governments of Europe adopted a treaty. This treaty would allow anyone the State-right of founding a church. The church would be granted a charter. It only had to do one very simple thing to obtain that charter. It had to assent to the terms of the treaty. However, buried in those treaties, most of which was totally innocuous, was a statement that the church would never oppose the swearing of lawful oaths. Jesus said “none”. The churches all said (and still say), “None, except…” So, who’s right, the churches or Jesus?

    The tradesmen got even angrier. They had already left the Church of England. But with every new reformed church that popped up still opposing the clear words of Christ, there was no church for them to join – or found. They were in a catch 22. They couldn't form a church without swearing an oath to the state, when their religion forbade swearing oaths of any kind. To show their absolute contempt to those who kept this secret for so long, they refused to give anyone in the church or state any respect. These tradesmen soon got the nickname “Quakers”. This was a nickname given to them by a judge. One of the tradesman had told the judge that he'd better “Quake before the Lord God Almighty”. The Judge, in a display of irreverent disrespect replied, “Thee are the Quaker here”. They found that pretty funny, it being such a total misnomer. But the nickname stuck.

    crown By Mark Own

    There are two Crowns operant in England, one being Queen Elizabeth II. Although extremely wealthy, the Queen functions largely in a ceremonial capacity and serves to deflect attention away from the other Crown, who issues her marching orders through their control of the English Parliament. This other Crown is comprised of a committee of 12 banks headed by the Bank of England (House of Rothschild). They rule the world from the 677-acre, independent sovereign state know as The City of London, or simply ‘The City.’ The City is not a part of England, just as Washington is not a part of the USA. The City is referred to as the wealthiest square mile on earth and is presided over by a Lord Mayor who is appointed annually. When the Queen wishes to conduct business within the City, she is met by the Lord Mayor at Temple (Templar) Bar where she requests permission to enter this private, sovereign state. She then proceeds into the City walking several paces behind the Mayor. Her entourage may not be clothed in anything other than service uniforms. In the nineteenth century, 90% of the world’s trade was carried by British ships controlled by the Crown. The other 10% of ships had to pay commissions to the Crown simply for the privilege of using the world’s oceans.

    The Crown reaped billions in profits while operating under the protection of the British armed forces. This was not British commerce or British wealth, but the Crown’s commerce and the Crown’s wealth. As of 1850, author Frederick Morton estimated the Rothschild fortune to be in excess of $10 billion. Today, the bonded indebtedness of the world is held by the Crown. The aforementioned Temple Bar is the juristic arm of the Crown and holds an exclusive monopoly on global legal fraud through their Bar Association franchises. The Temple Bar is comprised of four Inns of Court. They are; the Middle Temple, Inner Temple, Lincoln’s Inn and Gray’s Inn. The entry point to these closed secret societies is only to be found when one is called to their Bar. The Bar attorneys in the United States owe their allegiance and pledge their oaths to the Crown. All Bar Associations throughout the world are signatories and franchises to the International Bar Association located at the Inns of Court of the Crown Temple.

    The Inner Temple holds the legal system franchise by license that bleeds Canada and Great Britain white, while the Middle Temple has license to steal from America. To have the Declaration of Independence recognized internationally, Middle Templar King George III agreed in the Treaty of Paris of 1783 to establish the legal Crown entity of the incorporated United States, referred to internally as the Crown Temple States (Colonies). States spelled with a capital letter ‘S,’ denotes a legal entity of the Crown. At least five Templar Bar Attorneys under solemn oath to the Crown, signed the American Declaration of Independence. This means that both parties were agents of the Crown. There is no lawful effect when a party signs as both the first and second parties. The Declaration was simply an internal memo circulating among private members of the Crown. Most Americans believe that they own their own land, but they have merely purchased real estate by contract. Upon fulfillment of the contract, control of the land is transferred by Warranty Deed. The Warranty Deed is only a ‘color of title.’ Color of Title is a semblance or appearance of title, but not title in fact or in law. The Warranty Deed cannot stand against the Land Patent. The Crown was granted Land Patents in North America by the King of England. Colonials rebelled at the usurious Crown taxes, and thus the Declaration of Independence was created to pacify the populace.

    Another method used to hoodwink natural persons is enfranchisement. Those cards in your wallet bearing your name spelled in all capital letters means that you have been enfranchised and have the status of a corporation. A ‘juristic personality’ has been created, and you have entered into multi-variant agreements that place you in an equity relationship with the Crown. These invisible contracts include: birth certificates, citizenship records, employment agreements, driver’s licenses and bank accounts. It is perhaps helpful to note here that contracts do not now, nor have they ever had to be stated in writing in order to be enforceable by American judges. If it is written down, it is merely a written statement of the contract. Tax protestors and (the coming) draft resistors trying to renounce the parts of these contracts that they now disagree with will not profit by resorting to tort law (fairness) arguments as justification. Judges will reject these lines of defense as they have no bearing on contract law jurisprudence. Tort law governs grievances where no contract law is in effect.

    These private agreements/contracts that bind us will always overrule the broad general clauses of the Constitution and Bill of Rights (the Constitution being essentially a renamed enactment of English common law). The Bill of Rights is viewed by the Crown as a ‘bill of benefits,’ conferred on us by them in anticipation of reciprocity (taxes). Protestors and resistors will also lose their cases by boasting of citizenship status. Citizenship is another equity agreement that we have with the Crown. And this is the very juristic contract that Federal judges will use to incarcerate them. In the words of former Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, “Equity is brutal, but we are merely enforcing agreements.” The balance of Title 42, section 1981 of the Civil Rights Code states, “….citizens shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind…” What we view as citizenship, the Crown views as a juristic enrichment instrumentality. It also should be borne in mind that even cursory circulation or commercial use of Federal Reserve Notes effects an attachment of liability for the payment of the Crown’s debt to the FED. This is measured by your taxable income. And to facilitate future asset-stripping, the end of the 14th amendment includes a state of debt hypothecation of the United States, wherein all enfranchised persons (that’s you) can be held personally liable for the Crown’s debt. The Crown views our participation in these contracts of commercial equity as being voluntary and that any gain accrued is taxable, as the gain wouldn’t have been possible were it not for the Crown. They view the system of interstate banks as their own property. Any profit or gain experienced by anyone with a bank account (or loan, mortgage or credit card) carries with it – as an operation of law – the identical same full force and effect as if the Crown had created the gain.

    Bank accounts fall outside the umbrella of Fourth Amendment protection because a commercial contract is in effect and the Bill of Rights cannot be held to interfere with the execution of commercial contracts. The Crown also views bank account records as their own private property, pursuant to the bank contract that each of us signed and that none of us ever read. The rare individual who actually reads the bank contract will find that they agreed to be bound by Title 26 and under section 7202 agreed not to disseminate any fraudulent tax advice. This written contract with the Crown also acknowledges that bank notes are taxable instruments of commerce. When we initially opened a bank account, another juristic personality was created. It is this personality (income and assets) that IRS agents are excising back to the Crown through taxation.

    A lot of ink is being spilled currently over Social Security. Possession of a Social Security Number is known in the Crown’s lex as ‘conclusive evidence’ of our having accepted federal commercial benefits. This is another example of an equity relationship with the Crown. Presenting one’s Social Security Number to an employer seals our status as taxpayers, and gives rise to liability for a reciprocal quid pro quo payment of taxes to the Crown. Through the Social Security Number we are accepting future retirement endowment benefits. Social Security is a strange animal. If you die, your spouse gets nothing, but rather, what would have gone to you is divided (forfeited) among other premium payers who haven’t died yet. But the Crown views failure to reciprocate in any of these equity attachments as an act of defilement and will proceed against us with all due prejudice. For a person to escape the tentacles of the Crown octopus, a thoroughgoing study of American jurisprudence is required. One would have to be deemed a ‘stranger to the public trust,’ forfeit all enfranchisement benefits and close all bank accounts, among other things. Citizenship would have to be made null and forfeit and the status of ‘denizen’ enacted. If there are any such natural persons extant who have passed through this fire, I would certainly appreciate hearing from them…sullivan

    harhew Prince Charles Not Harry’s Real Father; Ex Diana Lover Keeps Silents Because of Death Threats From Royal Family

    Prince Harry is the toast of NYC this week. Throngs of folks have lined the streets of Manhattan to greet Britain’s popular prince with open arms. Little do they realize that Harry could soon be stripped of his royal title because he’s not the biological son of Prince Charles, an IUC investigation has revealed. A longtime employee of Harry’s mother Princess Diana told IUC that the Royal Family was involved in a massive coverup to hide the fact that Diana’s ex lover James Hewitt is the Harry’s real father. According to the source Prince Philip threatened Hewitt’s life if he didn’t go along with the coverup. “They made him lie about the timeline,” the source told IUC. “Prince Philip told Hewitt he would destroy him if it ever leaked out. It’s impossible that Charles is Harry’s real father. Hewitt was on the scene as Diana’s lover two years before Harry was born. Diana stopped having sex with Charles years before Harry was born. Harry looks exactly like Hewitt.”

    The massive coverup involved Hewitt lying to the world about when his dalliance actually began with Diana. Originally he told the world he met Diana in 1986. Harry was born in 1984. Under hypnosis for a tv interview Hewitt admitted he met Diana in 1981 or 1982, had sexual relations with her then - some two years before Harry was born. A relative of Hewitt told IUC that privately Hewitt has always believed he’s Harry’s dad but has denied it in public because he fears for his life. He also wants to protect his son from being dethroned. “Bloody hell, Harry should call James his real father,” the relative said. “It’s the biggest lie in Britain since Neville Chamberlain assured the world some seven decades ago that Britain and Germany would never go to war. Prince Philip told James he’d kill him if he ever admitted the truth. That’s why he keeps denying it.”

    The relative added that this is another example of why the Royal Family should be abolished. “They’re the biggest crooks and liars in the world,” he said. “All the evidence clearly demonstrates that James is Harry’s real father. Just the way they killed Diana they’ll kill James. You’ll see, one day his body will be found mysteriously in a hotel room and the Royals will try to convince the world that James committed suicide.”

    paul burrell PAUL BURRELL claimed last night that the Queen warned him that there were dark forces at work in Britain that could threaten him.

    The former butler said the warning was issued during a three-hour meeting soon after the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, in 1997. He said the Queen looked him in the eye and said: “There are powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge.” She is said to have added: “Be careful, Paul, no one has been as close to a member of my family as you have.” Mr Burrell told the Daily Mirror: “She made sure I knew she was being deadly serious. I had no idea who she was talking about. There were many she could have been referring to. But she was clearly warning me to be vigiliant.”

    Mr Burrell, who was cleared last week of stealing hundreds of the Princess’s personal possessions, did not explain what “powers” may have posed a threat to him. He went on to describe how he told the Queen that he was looking after some of the Princess’s possessions. “I told Her Majesty that I intended to protect the Princess’s world and keep safe her secrets. The Queen responded by nodding her approval and smiling.” He added that they spoke about the Queen’s relationship with her former daughter-in-law. He said she had told him: “I tried to reach out to Diana so many times”, to which he replied: “But, Your Majesty, you only spoke in black and white; the Princess spoke in colours.

    “I felt a surge of emotion and wanted to embrace her. I knew the Queen was hurting like me. But even though we were alone, I couldn’t put my arms around her because she is a Queen.” Mr Burrell said he had chosen to speak publicly because he was concerned that the Queen’s reputation was being tarnished by speculation over her intervention that prompted the collapse of the case against him just before he was due to give evidence. He had never “in his wildest dreams” thought that she would intervene. “I’m not having the Queen’s reputation destroyed. I’m not having her carrying the can for all this. She is a woman of truth and honesty,” he said. Buckingham Palace declined to comment.

    Mr Burrell also described how his barrister Lord Carlile, QC, had “nearly fallen off his chair” when he mentioned the meeting with the Queen. His lawyers had thought him “nuts” not to have said anything before, but he aid: “I’m just loyal. That discretion put my liberty at risk, but I would do it again.” As the Mirror went to press last night, Mr Burrell won an injunction preventing The Sun publishing excerpts from the statement he gave to police while the theft allegations were being investigated. Yesterday the paper quoted claims that Mr Burrell smuggled the Princess’s lovers into Kensington Palace and that she had wanted to marry the heart surgeon Hasnat Khan. The Mirror today publishes part of the statement on Mr Burrell’s authority, but he had censored some of it.

    It describes how he saw the Princess’s mother and sisters removing her effects and shredding documents and how he realises “issues may be raised” about some things in his possession. “I had absolutely no dishonest intent — only an intention to preserve as decently and respectfully as possible the memory of Diana.” Mr Burrell also offers his explanation of why he was holding each of the 415 items that appeared on his charge sheet.

    hitler youth Whether its the British cubs,scouts,boys brigade or cadet corps and the equivalent for girls, the methods of indoctrination are the same.Any dictator uses all sorts of methods to brainwash its nations youth into supporting a ruthless despotic leader. Catch them while they are young before they learn to be free thinkers.

    In Germanys youth camps a large picture of Hitler adorned the walls and represented the ethos and culture of where that leader wanted the youth to gravitate to. In the UK all youth clubs that indoctrinate our own children have pictures of the Queen adorning the walls. Britain is a fascist state, run by the crown and its despot with a myriad of offshoots that ensure all agendas ultimately lead to the adoration of that leader.

    The British media have endless campaigns on gun crime yet the biggest despot of all has huge arsenals of guns protecting her vast wealth, while the unarmed population have to sit back and watch their assets , homes but most importantly their children being stolen by the British crown and its judicial mafia . Who gives these evil bastards their power? They are hand picked by Lizzie for their loyalty and expert at manufacturing the legal scams that have done away with most CIVIL JURIES while giving themselves vast powers using law as a means to control Britain's wealth and its population.

    This is like the powers the Gestapo had but far more sinister and secretive how they carry out the vast looting of a nation with only the odd whisper from a media mafia who they virtually control. Their plan would be impossible without a complicit media. The adult version of the Hitler youth clubs are the masonic halls , orange halls and a myriad of secret societies that use blackmail of their fraternity to ensure loyalty to a British despot and ensure that small elite few control all the key positions of power . The British public need to take off their masonic tinted glasses and see the true nature of the society we are being forced to tolerate.

    We have been groomed from a young age in those youth centres to endorse the many facets of fascism. The way the media are used to sell this to us and the continued adoration of those who inflict this on the population show how this is a well oiled machine that continues to pump out the necessary propaganda, that like Hitler, creates an almost godly perspective of the richest despots across the globe. Who using the British masonic judiciary have been stealing what little wealth we have managed to etch out of a tightly closed network of business's that ensure only those who have sold their soul to the devil in their evil satanic rituals have any hope of seeing any substantial gains while the rest of us can rot in the hell holes they use to fleece us of all our worldly possessions.

    Britain is one of the most evil societies across the globe that, in time, will come and steal what you thought you had legitimately earned and owned. Even in death the legal pariahs ensure your estate, if you have any left on death, will be secured for the monarchy mafia who have total control over the legal mafia that will screw you of your property one way or another and it ALL starts in those Hitler-like youth camps.

  • Queens own family have their hands deeper in the taxpayers' pockets than any MP