Old Project Avalon Forum (ARCHIVE) - View Single Post - Ring Of Power-intro 101 to the NWO

Seashore · 06-13-2009, 10:57 AM

I did some research on this series for the “The US Constitution” thread.

I emailed the producer of this series, Grace Powers, to ask her some questions.

Here is the exchange:

Grace,

Concerning the Ring of Power set, you talk about there being a separate Constitution for the District of Columbia. What Constitution is that? Can I view it online?

Thank you,
_______________________________________________

Hi Mary,
I suggest you get a copy of the book, The Empire of "The city" (Paperback) by E. C. Knuth.

Grace
_______________________________________________

Hi Grace,

I have received my copy of The Empire of "The City" but there is nothing in it that I can see about a Constitution for the District of Columbia. There is stuff about the United States Constitution only.

Your documentary states that the 3rd city state, the District of Columbia, was officially created in 1982.

I see from my research and I posted on my forum: "...In 1982 elected delegates to a District of Columbia statehood convention drafted a constitution for the proposed State of New Columbia. The petition for statehood was approved by voters within the District and sent to Congress. But in 1993 Congress voted on and rejected District statehood by 63 votes (277 against, 153 for, and four not voting)..." But if Congress rejected statehood, how could this be the Constitution in question?

Also, I'm concerned about the statement in your documentary, "The Treaty of 1783 identifies the King of England as a prince of the United States."

I looked the treaty up on the Library of Congress website and posted the following on my forum: "The link to the treaty on the Library of Congress website shows that the treaty does say, '...It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God King of Great Britain...and of the United States of America, to forget...' But of course this is naming the two parties, it is not saying that George the Third was Prince of the United States..."

Here's the link:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage...8.db&recNum=93

Can you shed any light?
_______________________________________________

Hi Mary,
Please visit this website in answer to your DC question. DC operates under a tyranical Roman law known as the lex fori.

http://www.lanksamling.se/blogg/eng3kronstater.html

Please visit this website in answer to your Prince George question.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedst...aty-paris2.htm

The Paris Peace Treaty

In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.

It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America...

Cheers,
Grace
_______________________________________________

Grace,

It's identifying the two parties that the Divine Providence is pleased to dispose the hearts of to forget all past misunderstandings and differences; that's all. It's not saying prince of the United States:

It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore, and to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse, between the two countries upon the ground of reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience as may promote and secure to both perpetual peace and harmony; and having for this desirable end already laid the foundation of peace and reconciliation by the Provisional Articles signed at Paris on the 30th of November 1782, by the commissioners empowered on each part, which articles were agreed to be inserted in and constitute the Treaty of Peace proposed to be concluded between the Crown of Great Britain and the said United States, but which treaty was not to be concluded until terms of peace should be agreed upon between Great Britain and France and his Britannic Majesty should be ready to conclude such treaty accordingly; and the treaty between Great Britain and France having since been concluded, his Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, in order to carry into full effect the Provisional Articles above mentioned, according to the tenor thereof, have constituted and appointed, that is to say his Britannic Majesty on his part, David Hartley, Esqr., member of the Parliament of Great Britain, and the said United States on their part, John Adams, Esqr., late a commissioner of the United States of America at the court of Versailles, late delegate in Congress from the state of Massachusetts, and chief justice of the said state, and minister plenipotentiary of the said United States to their high mightinesses the States General of the United Netherlands; Benjamin Franklin, Esqr., late delegate in Congress from the state of Pennsylvania, president of the convention of the said state, and minister plenipotentiary from the United States of America at the court of Versailles; John Jay, Esqr., late president of Congress and chief justice of the state of New York, and minister plenipotentiary from the said United States at the court of Madrid; to be plenipotentiaries for the concluding and signing the present definitive treaty; who after having reciprocally communicated their respective full powers have agreed upon and confirmed the following articles.
_______________________________________________

Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc. AND of the United States of America.

This is perfectly clear.
_______________________________________________

No, it is not.

You have taken the words out of context.

06-13-2009, 10:57 AM	#22
Seashore Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 3,564	Re: Ring Of Power-intro 101 to the NWO I did some research on this series for the “The US Constitution” thread. I emailed the producer of this series, Grace Powers, to ask her some questions. Here is the exchange: Grace, Concerning the Ring of Power set, you talk about there being a separate Constitution for the District of Columbia. What Constitution is that? Can I view it online? Thank you, _______________________________________________ Hi Mary, I suggest you get a copy of the book, The Empire of "The city" (Paperback) by E. C. Knuth. Grace _______________________________________________ Hi Grace, I have received my copy of The Empire of "The City" but there is nothing in it that I can see about a Constitution for the District of Columbia. There is stuff about the United States Constitution only. Your documentary states that the 3rd city state, the District of Columbia, was officially created in 1982. I see from my research and I posted on my forum: "...In 1982 elected delegates to a District of Columbia statehood convention drafted a constitution for the proposed State of New Columbia. The petition for statehood was approved by voters within the District and sent to Congress. But in 1993 Congress voted on and rejected District statehood by 63 votes (277 against, 153 for, and four not voting)..." But if Congress rejected statehood, how could this be the Constitution in question? Also, I'm concerned about the statement in your documentary, "The Treaty of 1783 identifies the King of England as a prince of the United States." I looked the treaty up on the Library of Congress website and posted the following on my forum: "The link to the treaty on the Library of Congress website shows that the treaty does say, '...It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God King of Great Britain...and of the United States of America, to forget...' But of course this is naming the two parties, it is not saying that George the Third was Prince of the United States..." Here's the link: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage...8.db&recNum=93 Can you shed any light? _______________________________________________ Hi Mary, Please visit this website in answer to your DC question. DC operates under a tyranical Roman law known as the lex fori. http://www.lanksamling.se/blogg/eng3kronstater.html Please visit this website in answer to your Prince George question. http://www.historyplace.com/unitedst...aty-paris2.htm The Paris Peace Treaty In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America... Cheers, Grace _______________________________________________ Grace, It's identifying the two parties that the Divine Providence is pleased to dispose the hearts of to forget all past misunderstandings and differences; that's all. It's not saying prince of the United States: It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore, and to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse, between the two countries upon the ground of reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience as may promote and secure to both perpetual peace and harmony; and having for this desirable end already laid the foundation of peace and reconciliation by the Provisional Articles signed at Paris on the 30th of November 1782, by the commissioners empowered on each part, which articles were agreed to be inserted in and constitute the Treaty of Peace proposed to be concluded between the Crown of Great Britain and the said United States, but which treaty was not to be concluded until terms of peace should be agreed upon between Great Britain and France and his Britannic Majesty should be ready to conclude such treaty accordingly; and the treaty between Great Britain and France having since been concluded, his Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, in order to carry into full effect the Provisional Articles above mentioned, according to the tenor thereof, have constituted and appointed, that is to say his Britannic Majesty on his part, David Hartley, Esqr., member of the Parliament of Great Britain, and the said United States on their part, John Adams, Esqr., late a commissioner of the United States of America at the court of Versailles, late delegate in Congress from the state of Massachusetts, and chief justice of the said state, and minister plenipotentiary of the said United States to their high mightinesses the States General of the United Netherlands; Benjamin Franklin, Esqr., late delegate in Congress from the state of Pennsylvania, president of the convention of the said state, and minister plenipotentiary from the United States of America at the court of Versailles; John Jay, Esqr., late president of Congress and chief justice of the state of New York, and minister plenipotentiary from the said United States at the court of Madrid; to be plenipotentiaries for the concluding and signing the present definitive treaty; who after having reciprocally communicated their respective full powers have agreed upon and confirmed the following articles. _______________________________________________ Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc. AND of the United States of America. This is perfectly clear. _______________________________________________ No, it is not. You have taken the words out of context.