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
thethese dominions.
Vatican In other
is the owner, words, of
although, thecourse,
Crownthe
is the
truechief
ownerexecutive and
is whoever
controls the Vatican. This is why I keep saying that London is the centre of
the operational level of the Brotherho
Brotherhood.
od.
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 Kingpass
couldn't invoked
their the
landLaw of the
on to Mortmain, theanyone
church or dead man's hand, so
else without thepeople
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

1
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 Prerogativ
Prerogative
e 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

2
"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
Magna Charta that the 1213
was treatypiece
a viable still ruled despite The
of work.(4) the fact they THOUGHT
Declaration of Rightsthe
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
Porent Providence
Prince, George to
thedifpofe
Third, the hearts
by the of the
grace Moft King
of God, Serene andGreat
of the Moft

3
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
was defeated? make noKing
The claimclaims
over the
GodUnited States
gave him theofalmighty
Americapower
because he
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 wereal
of the have a false
Lord, God
Jesus before
and us and worship
his government. Thehim andright
divine his church
of kingsinstead
exists

4
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
exist?over
And the animals
doesn't andwith
it exist to populate
you also?theAnd
earth?
we, Doesn't
the true that contract
believers still
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”,
"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

America. head?domain
Eminent Right after the King's
replaced government
the Law was of
of Mortmain formed hereand
England in

5
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
some of today's ever free to hold
farmers andland
seethat
howcould
manynever
lostbetheir
taken away?
farms to Ask
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

6
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

7
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
and the Sen
Senate
ate is Antioch.
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

8
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.
William
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

9
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 unlawfu
unlawfull 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’
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

10
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.

http://www.truthcontrol.com
http://www.truthcontrol.com/node/treat
/node/treaty-1213
y-1213 (2011-12-17)

11