I do not consent

The “divine right of popes” was exchanged for “the divine right of kings,” and the Church – State was effectively replaced by a State – Church.

It was also at this time that the Church Of England became Anglican (Episcopal)
The Church Of England had long been Roman Catholic, but that all changed when King Henry VIII separated the Church Of England from the Church Of Rome, by the Act of Supremacy, in 1534. 






This Act not only made the break from Rome, declaring that the Pope had no authority in England, it also declared that the King of England was the “lord sovereign head” of the Church Of Engl and. The “divine right of popes” was exchanged for “the divine right of kings,” and the Church – State was effectively replaced by a State – Church. It was also at this time that the Church Of England became Anglican (Episcopal)

*Link 2 @ 55 min, When Georgia and South Carolina signed the Articles of
Confederation *see: Contrary to revised history and fraudulent documents,
it is only then that the States not under the control of the Dutch Wall
Street Bankers ceded from the Union. The problem for the bankers https://pdf.yt/d/O_EURHBIonZ446ae was this
simple issue of law- when a party to a treaty forming a body, abjures from
such a union, *the union ceases to exist*.

There are no ifs, ands, buts or technical complexities- that the original
treaty is dead, gone and buried. And that is precisely what *Georgia and
South Carolina* 
did when they signed the Articles of Confederation of the
United States of America by the end of 1860. Just in case anyone still
wants to argue the point – once the Southern States signed the
Articles of *Confederation for The United States of America
https://ucadia.s3.amazonaws.com/audio_reference/american_history/us_constitution_1861.pdf *
by the end of 1860 (more than 3 months before Lincoln took his false oath to a non-existent office) – the original United States ceased to exist
lawfully and legally. That is an irrefutable fact that is well overdue to
have put on the record once and for all, and is not subject to debate or
argument. Just to be crystal clear- Lincoln was never the legitimate
President of the United States of America ever, because he was never
elected under the Constitution of the Confederacy of the United States of



1st link is part 3 because it contains links to parts 1 & 3 that work.


link to part 4..





Estoppel by Silence; Such estoppel arises where a person is under duty to speak or failure to speak is inconsistence with honest dealings. An agreement inferred from silence rests upon principles of "estoppel". Letres v Washington Co-op Chick Assn, 8 Wash 2d 64, 111 P2d 594 at 596. Silence to work"estoppel, must announce to bad faith, Wise v US, D.C. Ky. 38 F Supp 130 at 134; and elementsor essentials of such estoppel include: change of position to prejudice a person claiming estoppel, Sherlock v Greaves, , 106 Mont206, 76 P2d 87 at 91; damages if the estoppel is denied, James v Nelson, C.C.A. Alaska , 90 F2d 910 at 917; duty & opportunity to speak, Merry v garibaldi, 48 Cal App 2d 397, 119 P2d 768 at 771; ignorance of facts by person claiming estoppel , Nelson v Chicago Mill & Lumber Corp, C.C.A. Ark 76 F2d 17; inducing person claiming estoppel to alter his position; knowledge of facts & of rights by person estopped,
Consoldiated Frieght Lines v Groenen, 10 Wash 2d 672, 117 P2d 966 at 968, misleading of party claiming estoppel, Lincoln v Bennit, Tex Civ App 135S W 2d 632 at 636; reliance upon silence of party sought to be estopped, New York Life Ins Co v Talley, C. C. A. Iowa, 72 F2d 715 at 718

"Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. . . We cannot condone this shocking behavior by the IRS. Our revenue system is based on the good faith of the taxpayer and the taxpayers should be able to expect the same from the government in its enforcement and collection activities." U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299. See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932.
"Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters," Nudd v. Burrows, 91 US 426; NUDD v. BURROWS, 91 US 426 (1875) -- US Supreme Court Cases from ...
NUDD v. BURROWS, 91 US 426 (1875) ... NUDD ET AL. v. BURROWS, ASSIGNEE. October Term,
1875. [ Nudd v. Burrows 91 US 426 (1875) ...www.justia.us/us/91/426/ - 11k - Cached - Similar pages
"Fraud vitiates everything," Boyce v. Grundy, 3 Pet. 210; Volume 1830 -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
Boyce's Executors v. Grundy,, 28 US 210, 3 Pet. 210 (1830) [ Full Text ] Patapsco
Ins. Co. v. Coulter,, 28 US 222, 3 Pet. 222 (1830) [ Full Text ] Shanks v. ...
www.justia.us/us/year/1830.html - 13k - Cached - Similar pages
"Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents and even judgments." U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s