Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

imagehttp://home.hiwaay.net/%7Ebecraft/1213Concession.html
_____________________________________________
There is a

baseless theory

floating around that

King John’s

“Concession of 15 May 1213″

with the

Pope

means that, even today, the

Vatican

owns both

England

and the

United States of America
………………………………………………..
Like many

groundless ideas

that get promoted,

advocates

of

arguments

like this one

focus on a single fact

and then draw

wild conclusions
………………………………………………..
The

“Concession”

required

payments

from the

English King

to the

Pope,

but history shows that

King John

did not make the

required payment

for the following year
_____________________________________________
See:
——————————————————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John,_King_of_England
—————————————————————–
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John,_King_of_England
_____________________________________________
Where the following is found:
………………………………………………..
“Under mounting political pressure,

John

finally negotiated terms for a reconciliation,

and the

papal terms for submission

were accepted

in the presence of the

papal legate Pandulph

in

May 1213

at the

Templar Church at Dover
………………………………………………..
[177]
………………………………………………..
As part of the deal,

John

offered to

surrender

the

Kingdom of England

to the

papacy

for a

feudal service

of

1,000 marks

(equivalent to £666 at the time)

annually:

700 marks

(£466)

for

England

and

300 marks

(£200)

for

Ireland,

as well as

recompensing the church

for

revenue lost during the crisis
………………………………………………..
[178]
………………………………………………..
The

agreement

was

formalised

in the

Bulla Aurea,

or

Golden Bull
………………………………………………..
This

resolution

produced mixed responses
………………………………………………..
Although some chroniclers felt that

John

had been

humiliated

by the

sequence of events,

there was

little public reaction
………………………………………………..
[179]
………………………………………………..
Innocent

benefited from the

resolution

of his long-standing

English problem,

but

John

probably gained more, as

Innocent

became a firm supporter of

John

for the rest of his reign,

backing him in both

domestic

and

continental

policy issues

………………………………………………..
[180]
………………………………………………..
Innocent

immediately turned against

Philip,

calling upon him to

reject plans

to

invade

England

and to

sue for peace
………………………………………………..
[180]
………………………………………………..
John

paid some of the

compensation money

he had

promised

the

church,

but he

ceased making payments

in late

1214,

leaving

two-thirds of the sum unpaid;

Innocent

appears to have

conveniently forgotten this debt

for the

good of the wider relationship
………………………………………………..
[181]”
………………………………………………..
Some

payments

to the

Pope

were made

pursuant

to this

agreement

off and on

for a little more than the next 100 years,

eventually ending
………………………………………………..
“The last

payment

ever

recorded

was a

token

£1,000

from

Edward III

in

1333,

in expectation of

papal favours”
_____________________________________________
See:
——————————————————————
http://www.historyextra.com/qa/when-did-pope-rule-england
—————————————————————–
http://m.historyextra.com/qa/when-did-pope-rule-england
_____________________________________________
It is

alleged

that this

concession

was a

treaty,

but if it was,

it is subject to another fact regarding

treaties:

they are often broken
………………………………………………..
King Henry VIII

broke with the

Vatican

and established the

Church of England,

seizing

Catholic properties
_____________________________________________
See:
—————————————————————–
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/reformation.htm
_____________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England
—————————————————————–
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England
_____________________________________________
History reveals that both

Henry VII

and

Oliver Cromwell

essentially ended the

Papacy’s

control over

England
_____________________________________________
See:
——————————————————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Reformation
—————————————————————–
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Reformation
_____________________________________________
The following is stated at the above link:
………………………………………………..
“The Act in Restraint of Appeals,

drafted by

Cromwell,

apart from

outlawing appeals

to

Rome

on

ecclesiastical matters,

declared that
………………………………………………..
“This realm of

England

is an

Empire,

and so hath been

accepted

in the

world,

governed

by

one Supreme Head

and

King

having the

dignity

and

royal estate

of the

Imperial Crown

of the same,

unto whom a

body politic compact

of all

sorts

and

degrees

of

people

divided in

terms

and by

names

of

Spirituality

and

Temporality,

be

bounden

and

owe

to bear next to

God

a

natural

and

humble

obedience
………………………………………………..
[20]
………………………………………………..
“This declared

England

an

independent country

in every respect”
………………………………………………..
The above

(along with lots of other authority)

demonstrates that certainly by the time of

Henry VIII

and

Oliver Cromwell,

the

Pope

did not

own

or

control

England
………………………………………………..
The above

theory

is thus a

false,

baseless contention
………………………………………………..
But does the

English Monarchy

or

England

have any

legal control

over the

United States of America?
………………………………………………..
Please remember that there was indeed

(contrary to contentions of the revisionists)

an

American Revolution
………………………………………………..
And both

English

and

American

courts

long ago held that the

Revolution

severed all

legal connections

between

our country

and the

English crown/England
………………………………………………..
I described these cases and other matters on my website as follows:
………………………………………………..
Simple facts regarding the

“we are subjects of the British Crown”

issue
………………………………………………..
Several years ago, some folks developed an argument that

“we are still subjects of the British crown”

and started promoting it
………………………………………………..
You are free to believe that argument which will waste your time
………………………………………………..
Here is a simple refutation of that argument:
………………………………………………..
1. The

Articles of Confederation

provided as follows:
………………………………………………..
“Article II.

Each

state

retains its

sovereignty,

freedom,

and

independence,

and every

Power,

Jurisdiction

and

right,

which is not by this

confederation

expressly delegated

to the

United States,

in Congress assembled”
………………………………………………..
2. On

February 6, 1778,

the

United States

entered into a

Treaty of Alliance

with

France

(8 Stat. 6)
………………………………………………..
On

July 16, 1782,

we

borrowed substantial sums

from

King Louis XVI of France,

via an

agreement

signed by

French Foreign Minister

Charles Gravier de Vergennes
………………………………………………..
It must be noted that there are people who

erroneously assert

that this

loan

was really

secured

from the

Brits

instead of the

French

(you can be the judge of their honesty)
………………………………………………..
3. Our country

and the

British Crown

signed

the

Treaty of Peace

on

September 3, 1783

(8 Stat. 218),

the

first provision

of which

reads as follows:
………………………………………………..
“His Britannic Majesty

acknowledges the said

United States,

viz,

New-Hampshire,

Massachusetts-Bay,

Rhode-Island

and

Providence Plantations,

Connecticut,

New-York,

New-Jersey,

Pennsylvania,

Delaware,

Maryland,

Virginia,

North-Carolina,

South-Carolina,

and

Georgia,

to be

free,

sovereign

and

independent States;

that he treats with them as such;

and for himself,

his heirs

and

successors,

relinquishes all

claims

to the

government,

proprietary

and

territorial rights

of the same,

and every part thereof”
………………………………………………..
See also

Nov. 30, 1782

Provisional Treaty

and

Jan. 20, 1783

Treaty of Cessation of Hostilities
………………………………………………..
Does this

1783 Peace Treaty

still exist?
………………………………………………..
All one needs to do to confirm this is to check out a

government publication

entitled

“Treaties in Force”

which can be found in any good library, especially a university library
………………………………………………..
Under the list of our

treaties

with

Great Britain

and the

United Kingdom,

you will find that this

1783 treaty

is still in effect,

at least a part of it:
………………………………………………..
“Only article 1 is in force”
………………………………………………..
Art. 1 was the section of this

treaty

acknowledging our independence
………………………………………………..
The War of 1812

resulted in

modifications

of this

treaty

and so did later

treaties
………………………………………………..
4. The

courts

have not been silent regarding the effect of the

Declaration of Independence

and the

Treaty of Peace
………………………………………………..
For example, the

consequences

of

independence

were explained in
………………………………………………..
Harcourt v. Gaillard,

25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 523, 526-27

(1827),
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/25/523/case.html
—————————————————————–
http://www.ecases.us/case/scotus/2620706/harcourt-v-gaillard
_____________________________________________
where the

Supreme Court

stated:
………………………………………………..
“There was no

territory

within

the

United States

that was

claimed

in any other

right

than that of some one of the

confederated states;

therefore, there could be no

acquisition

of

territory

made by the

United States

distinct from,

or

independent of

some one of the

states
………………………………………………..
“Each declared itself

sovereign

and

independent,

according to the

limits

of its

territory
………………………………………………..
“[T]he

soil

and

sovereignty

within

their

acknowledged limits

were as much

their

at the

declaration of independence

as at this hour”
………………………………………………..
In
………………………………………………..
M’Ilvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee,

8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 209, 212

(1808),
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/8/209/case.html
—————————————————————–
https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/8/8.US.209.html
_____________________________________________
the

Supreme Court

held:
………………………………………………..
“This

opinion

is

predicated

upon a

principle

which is

believed

to be

undeniable,

that the

several states

which composed this

Union,

so far at least as regarded their

municipal regulations,

became entitled,

from the time when they

declared themselves independent,

to all the

rights

and

powers

of

sovereign states,

and that they

did not

derive them

from

concessions

made by the

British king
………………………………………………..
The

treaty of peace

contains a

recognition

of their

independence,

not a

grant

of it
………………………………………………..
From hence it results, that the

laws

of the

several state governments

were the

laws

of

sovereign states,

and as such were

obligatory

upon the

people

of such

state,

from the time they were enacted”
………………………………………………..
In reference to the

Treaty of Peace,

this same

court

stated:
………………………………………………..
“It contains an

acknowledgment

of the

independence

and

sovereignty

of the

United States,

in their

political capacities,

and a

relinquishment

on the part of

His Britannic Majesty,

of all

claim

to the

government,

propriety

and

territorial rights

of the same
………………………………………………..
These

concessions

amounted,

no doubt,

to a

formal renunciation

of all

claim

to the

allegiance

of the

citizens of the United States”
………………………………………………..
Finally, in
………………………………………………..
Inglis v. Trustees of the Sailor’s Snug Harbor,

28 U.S. (3 Peters) 99, 120-122

(1830),
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/28/99/case.html
—————————————————————–
https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/28/28.US.99.html
_____________________________________________
the question squarely arose as to whether

Americans

are

“subjects of the crown,”

a

proposition

flatly rejected

by the

Court:
………………………………………………..
“It is

universally admitted

both in

English courts

and in those of

our own country,

that

all persons

born within

the

colonies of North America,

whilst

subject

to the

crown of Great Britain,

were

natural born British subjects,

and it

must necessarily follow

that that

character

was

changed

by the

separation

of the

colonies

from the

parent State,

and the

acknowledgment

of their

independence
………………………………………………..
“The

rule

as to the

point of time

at which the

American

antenati

ceased

to be

British subjects,

differs

in this country

and in

England,

as

established

by the

courts of justice

in the

respective countries
………………………………………………..
The

English rule

is to take the

date

of the

Treaty of Peace

in

1783

Our rule

is to take the

date

of the

Declaration of Independence”
………………………………………………..
In support of the

rule

set forth in

this case,

the

court

cited

an

English case

to demonstrate that the

English courts

had already decided that

Americans

were not

subjects of the crown:
………………………………………………..
“The

doctrine of perpetual allegiance

is not applied by the

British courts

to the

American antenati
………………………………………………..
This is fully shown by the late case of
………………………………………………..
Doe v. Acklam,

2 Barn. & Cresw. 779
………………………………………………..
Chief Justice Abbott

says:
………………………………………………..
‘James Ludlow,

the father of

Francis May,

the lessor of the

plaintiff,

was

undoubtedly born

a

subject

of

Great Britain
………………………………………………..
He was

born

in a part of

America

which was at the time of his

birth

a

British colony,

and

parcel

of the

dominions

of the

crown

of

Great Britain;

but upon the

facts found,

we are of

opinion

that he

was not

a

subject

of the

crown

of

Great Britain

at the time of the

birth

of his

daughter
………………………………………………..
She was born

after the

independence

of the

colonies

was

recognized

by the

crown

of

Great Britain;

after the

colonies

had become

United States,

and

their inhabitants generally

citizens of those States,

and her father,

by his

continued residence

in those States,

manifestly became a

citizen of them’
………………………………………………..
He considered the

Treaty of Peace

as a

release

from

their allegiance

of

all British subjects

who remained there
………………………………………………..
A

declaration,

says he, that a

State

shall be

free,

sovereign

and

independent,

is a

declaration

that the

people

composing the State

shall no longer be considered as

subjects

of the

sovereign

by whom such a

declaration

is made”
………………………………………………..
(Note: the linked copies of these cases highlight the important parts of these opinions for your convenience)
………………………………………………..
Notwithstanding the fact that

English

and

American courts

long ago rejected this

argument,

I still encounter e-mail from

parties

who

contend

that this

argument

is

correct
………………………………………………..
For example, just recently I ran across this note which stated:
………………………………………………..
“In other words, the

interstate system of banks

is the

private property

of the

King …
………………………………………………..
This means that any

profit

or

gain

anyone experienced by a

bank/thrift

and

loan/employee credit union

?? any regulated financial institution

carries with it ?? as an

operation of law

?? the identical same

full force and effect

as if the

King

himself

created

the

gain
………………………………………………..
So as an

operation of law,

anyone who has a

depository relationship,

or a

credit relationship,

with a

bank,

such as

checking,

savings,

CD’s,

charge cards,

car loans,

real estate mortgages,

etc.,

are experiencing

profit

and

gain

created by the

King

?? so says the

Supreme Court
………………………………………………..
At the present time,

Mr. Condo,

you have

bank accounts

(because you accept checks as payment for books and subscriptions),

and you are very much in an

EQUITY RELATIONSHIP

with the

King”
………………………………………………..
This note also alleged that

George Mercier,

who wrote an

article

apparently popular

among those who believe the

“contract theory”

of

government,

was a

retired judge,

which is

false
………………………………………………..
Just because you read it on the Net does not make it true
_____________________________________________
See:
—————————————————————–
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/WeAintBrits.htm
_____________________________________________
Lowell (Larry) H. Becraft, Jr.
Huntsville, Alabama
_____________________________________________
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~becraft/deadissues.htm
_____________________________________________
Articles
—————————————————————–
https://wikipediaint.wordpress.com/about/
_____________________________________________

Advertisements