CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE. 64th CONGRESS, 1st SESSION VOLUME 53, PART 7
25 April 1916
I wish to put in the RECORD the secret treaty of Verona of November 22, 1822, showing what this ancient conflict is between the rule of the few and the rule of the many. I wish to call the attention of the Senate to this treaty because it is the threat of this treaty which was the basis of the Monroe doctrine. It throws a powerful white light upon the conflict between monarchial government and government by the people. The Holy Alliance under the influence of Metternich, the Premier of Austria, in 1822, issued this remarkable secret document :
[American Diplomatic Code, 1778 - 1884, vol. 2 ; Elliott, p. 179.]
SECRET TREATY OF VERONA
The undersigned, specially authorized to make some additions to the treaty of the Holy Alliance, after having exchanged their respective credentials, have agreed as follows :
ARTICLE 1. The high contracting powers being convinced that the system of representative govern- ment is egually as incompatible with the monarchial principles as the maxim of the sovereignty of the people with the high devine right, engage mutually in the most solemn manner, to use all their efforts to put an end to the system of representative governments, in whatever country it may exhist in Europe, and to prevent its being introduced in those countries where it is not yet known.
ART. 2. As it can not be doubted that the liberty of the press is the most powerful means used by the pretended supporters of the rights of nations to the detrement of those princes, the high contracting parties promise reciprocally to adopt all proper measures to suppress it, not only in their own states but also in the rest of Europe.
ART . 3. Convinced that the principles of religion contribute most powerfully to keep nations in the state of passive obedience which they owe to their princes, the high contracting parties declare it to be their intention to sustain in their respective States those measures which the clergy may adopt, with the aim of ameliorating their own interests, so intimately connected with the preservation of the authority of the princes ; and the contracting powers join in offering their thanks to the Pope for what he has already done for them,
and solicit his constant cooperation in their views of submitting the nations.
ART. 4. The situation of Spain and Portugal unite unhappily all the circumstances to which this treaty has particular reference. The high contracting parties, in confiding to France the care of putting an end to them, engaged to assist her in the manner which may the least compromit them with their own people and the people of France by means of a
subsidy on the part of the two empires of 20,000,000 of francs every year from the date of the signature of this treaty to the end of the war.'
ART. 5. In order to establish in the Peninsula the order of things which exhisted before the revolution of Cadiz, and to insure the entire execution of the articles of the present treaty, the high contracting parties give to each other the reciprocal assurance that as long as their views are not fulfilled, rejecting all other ideas of utility or other measure to be taken, they will address themselves with the shortest possible delay to all the authorities exhisting in their States and to all their agents in foreign countries, with the view to establish connections tending toward the accomplishment of the objects proposed by this treaty.
ART. 6. This treaty shall be renewed with such changes as new circumstances may give occasion for, either at a new congress or at the court of one of the contracting parties, as soon as the war with Spain shall be terminated.
ART. 7. The present treaty shall be ratified and the ratifications exchanged at Paris within the space of six months.
Made at Verona the 22d November, 1822.
I ask to have printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD this secret treaty, because I think it ought to be called now to the attention of the people of the United States and of the world. This evidence of the conflict between the rule of the few verses popular government should be emphasized on the minds of the people of the United States, that the conflict now waging throughout the world may be more clearly understood, for after all said the great pending war springs from the weakness and frailty of government by the few, where human error is far more probable than the error of the many where aggressive war is only permitted upon the authorizing vote of those whose lives are jeopardized in the trenches of modern war.
Mr. SHAFROTH. Mr. President, I should like to have the senator state whether in that treaty there was not a coalition formed between the powerful countries of Europe to reestablish the sovereignty of Spain in the Republics of South and Central America?
Mr. OWEN. I was just going to comment upon that, and I am going to take but a few moments to do so because I realize the preasure of other matters. This Holy Alliance, having put a Bourbon prince upon the throne of France by force, then used France to suppress the constitution of Spain immediately afterwards, and by this very treaty gave her a subsidy of 20,000,000 francs annually to enable her to wage war upon the people of Spain and to prevent their exercise of any measure of the right of self-government. The Holy Alliance immediately did the same thing in Italy, by sending Austrian troops to Italy, where the people there attempted to exercise a like measure of liberal constitutional self-government ; and it was not until the printing press, which the Holy Alliance so stoutly opposed, taught the people of Europe the value of liberty that finally one country after another seized a greater and greater right of self government, until now it may be fairly said that nearly all the nations of Europe have a very large measure of self government. However, I wish to call the attention of the Senate and the country to this important history in the growth of constitutional popular self-government. The Holy Alliance made its powers felt by the wholesale drastic suppression of the press in Europe, by universal censorship, by killing free speech and all ideas of popular rights, and by the complete suppression of popular government. The Holy Alliance having destroyed popular government in Spain and in Italy, had well-laid plans also to destroy popular government in the American colonies which had revolted from Spain and Portugal in Central and South America under the influence of the successful example of the United States. It was because of this conspiracy against the American Republics by the Europian monarchies that the great English statesman, Canning, called the attention of our government to it, and our statesmen then, including Thomas Jefferson, took an active part to bring about the declaration by President Monroe in his next annual message to the Congress of the United States that the United States should regard it as an act of hostility to the government of the United States and an unfriendly act if this coalition or if any power of Europe ever undertook to establish upon the American Continent any control of any American Republic or to acquire any territorial rights. This is the so-called Monroe doctrine. The threat under the secret treaty of Verona to suppress popular governments in the American Republics is the basis of the Monroe doctrine. This secret treaty sets forth clearly the conflict between monarchial government and popular government and the government of the few as against the government of the many. It is a part, in reality, of developing popular sovereignty when we demand for women equal rights to life, to liberty, to the possession of property, to an equal voice in the making of the laws and the administration of the laws. This demand on the part of the women is made by men, and it ought to be made by men as well as by thinking, progressive women, as it will promote human liberty and human happiness. I sympathize with it, and I hope that all parties will in the national conventions give their approval to this larger measure of liberty to the better half of the human race.
The experience we have had, has made us acquainted with the many advantages that have been taken by the Society of its intervention in the marriages of the House of Austria, and of those which have been effected in other kingdoms, France, Poland, and in various duchies. Forasmuch assembling, proposing with prudence, selecting choice persons who may be friends and families of the relatives, and of the friends of the Society.
It will be easy to gain the princesses, making use of their valets; by that coming to feed and nourish with relations of friendship, by being located at the entrance in all parts, and thus become acquainted with the most intimate secrets of the familiars. Secret Instructions of The Company of Jesus: Chapter II.
THE SECRET TREATY OF VERONA 1213
On October 3rd 1213, King John, as ‘King of England Corporation Sole’ claimed autonomy over all the sovereign rights of England and assigned them to the Pope, who, as Vicar of Christ, claimed dominion over the whole world. In return, the Pope granted executiveship to the English Crown over all these dominions. In other words, the Crown is the chief executive and the Vatican is the owner, although, of course, the true owner is whoever controls the Vatican. This is why I keep saying that London is the centre of the operational level of the Brotherhood.
Even greater power lies elsewhere, some of it in the Vatican, and, ultimately, I think, on the physical level, somewhere under the ground in Tibet and Asia. The people of America have been bled dry by this scam and continue to be so. Land of the Free? What a joke! And, people of America, your presidents and leading government officials know this. In turn, it must be stressed, the King John agreement with the Pope presumably gave away the sovereignty of England, also. And who controlled King John? The Templars did.
— David Icke; The Biggest Secret
Treaty of 1213 - The Beginning of the Lie
Once upon a time before the year 1066 the people of England held Allodial title to their land. Not even the king could take the land for not paying a tithe. William the Conquer came in 1066 and stole the Kings Title and took the land of the people. From William I, 1066, to King John, 1199, England was in dire straits. It was bankrupt.
The King invoked the Law of Mortmain, the dead man's hand, so people couldn't pass their land on to the church or anyone else without the King's permission, (modern day probate?). Without Mortmain the King would lose the land he controlled. The Vatican didn't like that because the King owed a lot of pounds to the Vatican.(WHY?)(1). King John refused to accept The Vatican's representative, Stephen Langton, whom Pope Innocent III installed to rule England(religious or in fact?)(2) In 1208 England was placed under Papal interdict(?). Interdict means a prohibition.)
King John was excommunicated and in trying to regain his stature he groveled before the Pope and returned the title to his kingdoms of England and Ireland to the Pope as vassals, and swore submission and loyalty to him. King John accepted Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, and offered
the Pope a vassal's bond of fealty and homage. Two months later, in July of 1213, King John was absolved of excommunication, at Winchester, by the returned Archbishop of Canterbury, Langton. On October 3, 1213, by treaty, King John ratified his surrender of his kingdoms to the Pope, as Vicar of Christ who claimed ownership of everything and everyone on earth as tradition. Question 1. Where in the Bible did Jesus give any man this kind of power over all men and land? He didn't. He did not create a religion nor did he create the office of Pope. Question 2. Can you have a third party break a contract between you and another person under duress..? Don't those of you who are forced into a contract reserve all your rights under modern UCC 1-207 and claim UCC 1-103? The contract (treaty of 1213) was between two parties. Now the Barons of England would not put up with being slaves anymore so they took to the sword and made King John sign the Magna Charta. So doesn't this act of the Barons violate the principle of natural law, when they created the Magna Charta, as having no force and effect upon a contract between two parties? Well Pope Innocent III, the other contracting party thought so, for he declared the Magna Charta to be: ". . .unlawful and unjust as it is base and shameful. . . whereby the Apostolic See is brought into contempt, the Royal Prerogative diminished, the English outraged, and the whole enterprise of the Crusade greatly imperiled." Quoted from G.R.C. Davis: Magna Charta. Trustee of the British Museum. London. 1965. The Pope, in order to introduce strife in England and Ireland that would help him, used Jesus teachings to his advantage that is verified in the Gospels by two of His Apostles. So St. Levy (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27), alias Matthew, cites Jesus at Matthew 10::34-36 and Luke 12:49, 51-3. Nothing reveals the antithesis of government and religion more clearly than these facts. Question 3. What did the contract of 1213 A.D. create? A TRUST or CONTRACT. Only the two parties, the King's heirs and the Pope, can break the contract. For the Trust /Contract cannot be broken as long as there are heirs to both sides of the contract. At this time in history we now know who controlled the Kings of England and the land of the world. For Now we have the Pope claiming the whole Western Hemisphere besides Europe. The Holy See of Antioch ruled all the easterly side and the Holy See of Alexandria ruled the western side, so there was a conflict. (3)
So, on with the story. The King's explorers had come to America to claim dominion over land by deceiving and murdering the natives, the American Indians. The King operated under the treaty of 1213 and everything was going along okay until the 1770's when the bunch of rogues called the
"Founding Fathers" decided they wanted the benefits but not pay the taxes to the King. They, being lawyers, and professional educated men, didn't know they were still under the Pope's control? Their lies and fraud now would affect the American colonies and the people who lived on the land.
Those common people who fought in the American Revolution were unaware that the 1213 treaty still ruled despite the fact they THOUGHT the Magna Charta was a viable piece of work.(4) The Declaration of Rights in 1689 declared the Rights of the British subjects in England. At the end of the English Declaration it stated at Section III " ...that should any of the Rights just mentioned be in violation of the HOLY ALLIANCE (1213 Treaty), ...it is as if this Declaration was never written".
So we know that the English Declaration didn't fly, so what makes you think the 1774 Declaration of Rights in this British Colony would work. Weren't these people doing the same thing as the Barons did in 1215 A.D. to King John? A contract is a contract. Look at Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Can anyone obligate a contract? Were the "founding fathers" trying to obligate a contract between two parties that still have heirs living today? Question 4. How important is the "ultimate benefactor", the Pope, The HOLY SEE, in the scheme of things? Move through history till modern times and pull Public Law 88-244, which follows Public Law 88-243 - the institution of the law- merchants Uniform Commercial Code. Are you shocked that the Pope is listed in this Public Law?
Doesn't the United States have an ambassador in the Vatican? Why? Is it a government like all other nations such as France, Japan, Spain or Brazil? The Vatican runs the world, it controls the British Crown. Is it any wonder they separate man's Church and government? They don't talk about the Lord Almighty's Church (government) do they.(5) "Organized churches" are given special tax privileges because the Vatican dictates to the sixty United States trustees through the trust document, the U.S. Constitution created by the 1783 treaty between the King, frontman for the Vatican, and Adams, Hartly, Laurens, & Franklin who were operating for the King and not the people of America. Look at Article VI of the Constitution for the United States for your answer as stated in the "New History of America".(6)
You see we are still under the Pope who rules over all nations as he declared he did back in 1213. The 1783 Treaty did say in the opening statement quoted exactly as it appears in olde English; "It having pleafed the Divine Providence to difpofe the hearts of the Moft Serene and Moft Porent Prince, George the Third, by the grace of God, King of the Great
Britain, France and Ireland, Defender, of the Faith, Duke of Brunfwick and Laurenberg, Arch-Treafurer and PRINCE ELECTOR OF THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE, & C. AND OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, . . ." (Emphasis added in caps).
Did you catch the last few words? This is from a King (man) who can supposedly make no claim over the United States of America because he was defeated? The King claims God gave him the almighty power to say that no man can ever own property because it, "goes against the tenets of his church, the Vatican/Holy Roman Empire, because the King is the "Elector of the Holy Roman Empire’"
What about the secret Treaty of Verona, made the 22nd of November, 1822, which shows the power of the Pope and the Vatican's interest in the US Republic.
Here is part of The Secret Treaty of Verona. "The undersigned specially authorized to make some additions to the treaty of the Holy Alliance, after having exchanged their respective credentials, have agreed as follows: ARTICLE I. The high contracting powers being convinced that the system of representative government is equally as incompatible with the monarchial principles as the maxim of the sovereignty of the people with the divine right, engage mutually, in the most solemn manner to use all their efforts to put an end to the system of representative governments, in what ever country it may exist in Europe, and to prevent its being introduced in those countries where it is not yet known. ARTICLE 2. As it cannot be doubted that the liberty of the press is the most powerful means used by the pretended supporters of the rights of nations to the detriment of those of princes, the high contracting parties promise reciprocally to adopt all proper measures to suppress it, not only in their own state but also in the rest of Europe. ARTICLE 3. Convinced that the principles of religion contribute most powerfully to keep nations in the state of passive obedience which they owe to their princes, the high contracting parties declare it to be their intention to sustain in their respective states, those measures which the clergy may adopt with the aim of ameliorating their own interests, so intimately connected with the preservation of the authority of the princes; and the contracting powers join in offering their thanks to the Pope for what he has already done for them, and solicit his constant cooperation in their views of submitting the nations."
Do we have a false God before us and worship him and his church instead of the real Lord, Jesus and his government. The divine right of kings exists
in Clinton and every Governor of the states in corporate Union. Well let me go on record and say that the Lord gave me the same right as the Pope claims was given to him. Am I not a Steward upon the land of the Lord as a mere sojourner, the same as the Pope? Are not you also a Steward?
Did the Lord make a covenant with Adam and Eve to subdue the earth and reign over the animals and to populate the earth? Doesn't that contract still exist? And doesn't it exist with you also? And we, the true believers in that contract, can we take all the nations (mans) laws in the world and dump them in the ocean to regain our rightful place on this earth under the Lord's Natural Law to thwart the contract between King John and the Pope that appears to defeat the original contract the Lord made with man?
Yes, let us go back to the original contract and destroy the Vatican's control over everybody. Before 1066 the Pope did not claim all the land as the people claimed the land and didn't pay taxes on it to anybody. Didn't the Lord say to the people after coming out of Egypt, "why do you want a king when you have me and my contract?" Which Lord do you want to live under, a Pope, a King, President, Governors, Senators, Representatives, or a real Lord called Jesus Christ. "Christians”, are ridiculed and put down because they read the Word of the Lord correctly and could defeat even the best the Pope has to throw at them.
The King James version of the Bible is just that. A version concocted by the King under the guidance of the Pope so as to hide the real truth. I was taught by the church I went to, which is government controlled as it has to be by the treaty of 1213 and reiterated in the 1783 Treaty between The Pope's Elector, King John and the First President of the United States, Sam Huntington and Charles Thompson, Secretary. I read the passage, when Jesus was on the cross, from a very old manuscript that said, "Forgive them NOT, for they know what they do." This is different than what most people believe he said, "Forgive them for they know not what they do." Bottom line is that when men write, transcribe, translate, update, and copy over thousands of years they always alter the interpretation, words and insert their own meanings. You can see this in just the 200 years that our country became separated from England, but still remains a colony under different compact and use of clever wording. But that is another whole subject that you do not know about.
Eminent domain and Allodial title: Why and where did "eminent domain" rear its ugly head? Right after the King's government was formed here in America. Eminent domain replaced the Law of Mortmain of England and
when government wanted your land they claimed eminent domain thereby destroying that to what people think they have allodial title. Allodial title only existed in America when the King granted the use of the land to the likes of William Penn, .........
But it could be taken at any time. Are you or were your great, great, great grandfathers ever free to hold land that could never be taken away? Ask some of today's farmers and see how many lost their farms to the government that belonged to their past family and I'll bet none of the land goes back to the 1789 era. Well it's a wonderful world to live in the end times, isn't it. Read Revelations to see where the false preachers come from. Who is the "Harlot" in Revelations?
Does the Vatican come close with a mortal calling himself the "vicar" of Christ?
Here is the definition of vicar in Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language. Vicar: "In a general sense, a person deputed or authorized to perform the functions of another; a substitute in office."
The Pope PRETENDS to be vicar of Jesus Christ on earth.
Pretend; To hold out as a false appearance; to offer something feigned instead of that which is real; To exhibit as a cover for something hidden."
You bet your life the Pope has something to hide. He is no more powerful than You. The King is no more powerful than You. The American President and Governor's are no more powerful than You. You allow THEM run your lives ...WHY.?
Thinkers, you cannot fight the Pope or the King on their contract even though you are affected by the contract. You must go elsewhere for relief. Remember the first contract in history, God with Adam and Eve? You had better because you were a part of it as an heir and it is your saving grace. Why do you think the "courts of common law" are despised and Government and States are taking action to stop them? See where the power lies when this happens? Clinton, the Governors, and Congress of the United States and the Legislatures of the several states are only following orders and delegate to the 60 U.S. Trustees, who always show up in bankruptcy generated mostly by IRS actions. Isn't that a starting point?
What do Trustees administer? A trust? The Constitution is a trust, correct? It was created by the 1783 Treaty, correct? It is not the private man's trust
contract, correct? Only those entering into the contract are UNDER the constitution and are bound by it, correct? Look up the definition of "under" in words and phrases and a good dictionary such as Webster's 1828 at Vol. II, 101. I, my dear readers, am not "under" some damn corporate trust (constitution) drafted in secrecy by the King and corporate lawyer esquires (you call them the "Founding Fathers") whom were controlled by the Treaty of 1213, wherein the Vatican still ruled over all. It was never "my constitution" and never will be. The Constitution does not apply to me nor will it ever.
However, some of the states' representatives in 1776 realized that the Constitution was a commercial contract among the Founding Fathers to protect their financial interests in the Americas and in Europe. The Articles of the Bill of Rights is designed to keep those United States citizens whom are bound by the Constitution (contract) from encroaching upon my natural Law Rights, (With this hint in mind you may discover where the IRS gets its purported power that makes you liable, because you claim to be UNDER the constitution, but they will never admit it because only a few know the real reason and they are not about to tell their agents. The same goes for any license issued to you by the corporate States). I hope you have read the Supreme Court cases of State and United States cited in my previous books that prove beyond any shadow of a doubt I am correct in my previous two sentences. Yet you always fall back into the trap by claiming citizenship of the United States AND THE STATES.
No! You are not a citizen of the corporate or organic State if you want to be free. You cannot claim it is your constitution and remain free. You cannot claim representatives in the legislatures and remain free. How about your estate? State and Estate come from the same contract.
Webster's 1828 Dictionary defines it;
"ESTA'TE, n. 1. In a general sense, fixedness; a condition; now generally written and pronounced state. (6) The general interest of business or government; hence a political body; a commonwealth; a republic.
But in this sense, we now use State." Get the picture? We are the ryots tenure holding the "estate" of the King called your estate. Belong to a body politic and you are a slave. In my previous books I told the people a "republic" is a fraud, for then you belong to the estate of the King which makes you a law-merchant holding as a trustee the King's land that he is holding in trust for the Vatican. The States are the "estate" of the
Vatican/King cabal with the money changers along for the ride are a full blown consortium which includes the Congress/President/ Governors et al. I don't want to drive you crazy, since you might not comprehend all that is here. Once you know the truth and let go of all you were taught by the government and the preachers you don't become the drowning man grasping at the lies to stay afloat. Have you ever wondered why you were sinking while pleading case law and their constitution to protect you?
Bye till next time, The Informer
(1)(WHY?). Because the Pope claimed all lands as the vicar of Christ and the king owed money from the Vatican that was to be collected by the Church of England. The church reduced their parishioners to mere serfdom. When they died the church got the property and the King, in order to preserve what property he had instituted the law of Mortmain. This prevented the people from willing the land to the Pope. When the pope got wind of this he excommunicated the King. That's the explanation for the Why?
(2) This is a fact that is documented in the English documents of History at the Leeds Library.
(3)The conflict between each of the Holy Sees, one controlling the western front (America) and the other controlling the China side with the dividing line somewhere in Spain and France through Germany. The Pope is the figurehead, remember and the best way to explain it is Congress is Alexandria and the Senate is Antioch.
(4) (Why doesn't the Magna Charta hold more force and effect than a later contract between the king and the Pope? Because the Pope decreed it null and void as it would break the contract he had initiated with the King. The Magna Charta was a contract breaker by third parties and that was a no-no in any law. Besides the Pope owned England and how could the Barons take the land that the King pledged let alone all the surfs that the Pope still controlled through the church of England? He can't and so the Magna Charta was declared Void. Now the Pope, through the front man, The King, could create the other contracts called treaties and no one is the wiser. Remember, the Pope was being controlled by the creditor, The Rothschilds to whom the Pope was indebted.
(5) Why? It is clear as a bell. The "church" of GOD is 'Government of GOD and man created all these religions and made churches for them. They, man, cannot allow the Government of the Lord "Church upon this rock" to
get in the way of the government of men, now can they?
(6) "New History of America", by The Informer
People you can read this for yourself in American Council of Christian Laymen: "How Red Is The Federal Council of Churches", Madison, Wisconsin, 1949. Now you may better understand James Montgomery's latest as to why all the declarations, Magna Charta, etc. have no effect. Read on to see why.
See: James Montgomery's - "British Colony III" on the Internet. To further prove what I say that the declared rights were also at the mercy of any previous charters or grants from the king of England you must read section 25 of the 1776 North Carolina Constitution, Declaration of Rights which states; 09 "And provided further, that nothing herein contained shall affect the titles or possessions of individuals holding or claiming under the laws heretofore in force, or grants heretofore made by the late King George II, or his predecessors, or the late lords proprietors, or any of them."
Another Perspective on the Treaty of 1213
Just some facts for your consideration regarding your "enslavement" to the Pope. Starting with the Conquest of England, duke William (the conqueror) won the throne of England by defeating Harold the usurper in 1066. William’s claim was by blood and by promise from Edward the Confessor. He did not "steal" the Crown and was, after beating Harold, elected by the national council, he swore a coronation oath to the people and became King of the English, not King of the soil. He introduced an alien feudal system where by those who held land had to suply Knights for the defence of the country. He was the highest in the chain but did not literally own all the land, even having a Great Inquisition (Domesday) to find out who owned what. Mortmain existed in England before William under the name of "folcland", which was land held by a customary right and could not be alienated.
Depts of English Kings have always been their own burden and not a national dept. King John could not give England away to pay his depts, because he sat on the throne and did not own England, this is why he then became a tyrant. He declared himself as owner of the land in violation of the customary law, he may have even threatened the national council to accept him as such, but in England neither does the national council have such an authority to acknowledge a single owner of all England, other than the entire population by jus gentium. Any "treaty" made between King John and a Pope in violation of the customary common law is worthless, because King John being in violation of common law would cease to be lawful and
forfeit the crown and government of England. A King can only act under positive laws known as prerogatives, which restrict the powers of a King. The fact that if King John was made a corporation sole disproves your point, he would have two identities King John a natural person and King John the Crown and government. Under his natural person their would be no right to give away his corporate person, his corporate person was made by and belongs to the people for ever. Even today the Crown corporation owns all the land, which effectively means we the people of England own all the land. So if he made a treaty with the Pope in 1213, the treaty is nugatory, the pope may as well have dealt with the village idiot.
Regarding a peace treaty, if one party is acting under duress, this does not invalidate the agreement, even though it would with a contract. So when the English nation rose against "Bad" King John the unlawful King, they first gave him a last chance to retake his coronation oath and seal a peace treaty confirming the laws of the land. King John agreed and put his seal to what became the Magna Carta, the fact that the Barons had their swords drawn does not invalidate the treaty, King John had made war on the people and duely surrendered to the people by the peace treaty. So when the Pope, at John’s request, later annulled the treaty, it made no difference what so ever. The Magna Carta has been confirmed some 40 times by English Kings, it is now a customary law to refere to the Magna Carta, Oliver Cromwel cited the Magna Carta in the English civil war, as has Winston Churchil and Elizabeth. II.
You will notice any treaty agreement made between King John and a Pope is not readily available, well it can not be that lawful then? Any contract King John made with a Pope was under duress because Pope Innocent III along with the King of France were threatening to attack him, this invalidates a contract. And if these facts do not satisfy then, surely the heir to the throne Henry VIII ended once and for all any links with a Pope. From when there has been a progression towards the total ban on any King or Queen of England being under any authority of a Pope or Holy Emperor or the See of Rome.
The Declaration of Right 1688 also a treaty agreement, declares the rights of English subjects not British as you say. Great Britain is a de facto union and "British" subjects are a false conscience. I do not know where you have seen the Declaration of right, it is rolled up and hidden away. It was written in haste, not realy being in articles and had ink accidently spilled over it so how you manage to know the ending of "Article III" is a mystery. If
you are indeed refering to the Bill of Rights 1689, then it is a greater mystery because Article III decrees that all crown servants must swear an oath of allegiance to the King/Queen, the oath to be sworn denounces the directions of a Pope or the See of Rome, to have our Kings and Queens "deposed or murdered", where Article III ends thus "no foreign prince person prelate state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction power superiority pre-eminence or authoritie ecclesiasticall or spiritual, with in this realm"
I am baffled at your version of the ending, but feel you can rest assured no one in England is a slave of the Pope, nor that the pope owns one scrap of land in England. And I doubt very much if the people of America are "slaves" of the Pope or the See of Rome. But if you are, have no fear we the people of England will help you in your fight for freedom.