Scio te quis sis,
Know who you are

Contact us

The Birth Certificate Via Certificate of Live Birth

  
Your birth certificate is proof of an event occurring and being registered. They are legal documents but on there own are not proof of ID. The records are public records and can be obtained by technically anyone hence they are not proof of ID.
With regards to the certificate of live birth - this is issued (by the Hospital)when you are born and taken to the registry office and used to register the event (birth). A certificate is then produced from the registration and this is then what is available and used for any future requirements.
  

The Birth Certificate 

Certificate of Live Birth

  
DNA of your blood and foot print on a certificate of live birth , Which means at the age of maturity (21) , you should have full disclosure of the ramifications and legal obligations of the Birth Certificate ( legal document not signed by HM Queen Elizabeth II )
And your personal DNA and Blood on a Certificate of Live Birth signed by HM Queen Elizabeth II , that does belong to you to prove you exist and was alive on this land.
Full disclosure , consideration , transparency openness was not given to you which is a breech of every legal document Via The Birth Certificate .
  
  
COMMOM Law of the Constitution of the peoples lands

Equity Before the Law :
We are all equal in the Divine Gods Law : Government's included
That means ( No one can ever make demands on another man or woman
Supremacy of God the rule of law .

Statutes - Acts - Society - Consent
Statutes : Legislated rule of society which has the force of law.
Society: A number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal.
Consent : occurs when one man or woman voluntarily agree to the proposal or desires of another. Common interest
Application : Why do you beg for something ?  to beg ,plead ,petition, implore, entreat or request.
Registration:  Are you a captain, ship or cargo ? to sign over for safe keeping, always voluntary  ( Abandons complete ownership for partial.
Submit application: Are you a slave? to agree to another's will or to leave to another's discretion, ( Form of Surrender. )
Act : A Bill which has passed through various legislative steps for it and which has become law.
Man and Woman are not Person because he/she is flesh and Blood ( the person is the legal subject or substance of which rights and duties are attributes ( Black's Law). All done via the Legal document the Birth Certificate.
  
 Please explain to all the british tax payers that there is no Government for the people when you have privatized all Government , and are trading as one body corporate  

Where is the british Justice and Common Law
You have Lied to us all for too long 
Time to take our great country back 

Your Government selling off all British assets 

  
Open treason at the very top began in 1936 after the removal of Edward VIII and the placement of Elizabeth Bowes Lyons with the fraudulent King George who took an unlawful Coronation Oath. This gave Elizabeth’s court full control over the levers of power accorded to the British Realm, without the duty to uphold the realm. Every contract signed in contradiction to Magna Carta has been so after 1936.
Below is the same treasonous act discussed in Parliament though specific to Elizabeth Mary Windsor continuing the unlawful actions of her father, (or the rabbit hole) with Great Britain as a realm, fixed firmly as her front for global consumption.
Everything has been Incorporated
Royal Marriages Constitutional Issues Standard Note: SN/PC/03417 Last updated: 2 December 2008 Author: Lucinda Maer Section Parliament and Constitution Centre.
  
A series of legal restrictions on the religious beliefs which can be held by the spouse of the monarch were introduced following the Glorious Revolution in 1688. The monarch must join in communion with the Church of England, must declare him or herself to be a Protestant, and must swear to maintain the established churches in England and Wales. 

As well as restrictions on the religious beliefs of the spouse of the monarch, The Royal Marriages Act 1772 requires the descendants of George II (other than the children of princesses married into foreign families) to seek consent of the monarch before marrying. This note sets out the legal and historical background to the restrictions, and considers their application in the case of the marriage of Prince Charlesto Camilla Parker Bowles. Other Standard Notes of interest may be :  
SN/PC/00683, The Act of Settlement and the Protestant Succession
SN/PC/00293, Bill of Rights 1688
SN/PC/00435, The Coronation Oath

This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual. It should not be relied upon as being up to date; the law or policies may have changed since it was last updated; and it should not be relied upon as legal or professional advice or as a substitute for it.

A suitably qualified professional should be consulted if specific advice or information is required. This information is provided subject to our general terms and conditions which are available online or may be provided on request in hard copy. Authors are available to discuss the content of this briefing with Members and their staff, but not with the general public.
  
Contents 1 Religious beliefs of the spouse of the monarch

1.1 Relevant statutes The Bill of Rights


1688 Coronation Oath Act


1688 Act of Settlement

The Bill of Rights 1688 This states :
And whereas it hath beene found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this protestant kingdome to be governed by a popish prince or by any King or Queene marrying a papist the said lords spiritual and temporall and commons doe further pray that it may be enacted that all and every person and persons that is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or church of Rome or shall professe the popish religion or shall marry a papist shall be excluded and be for ever uncapeable to inherit possesse or enjoy the crowne and government of this realme and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same or to have use or exercise any regall power authoritie or jurisdiction within the same.

The Act appears to prevent Roman Catholics from becoming the spouse to the monarch.
2 Coronation Oath Act 1688 Where it is quite clear that monarch or heir must not only not be a Catholic but also join in communion with the Church of England, it would seem that the only restriction on the monarch or heirs spouse is that she cannot be a Catholic.

  
  
So far as can be seen, the nearest requirement on a Queen consort to be a Protestant is under the Coronation Oath Act 1688. The wording seems to require the same promise of both King and Queen to maintain the established religion.

3 The Act requires the King and Queen to swear, during the coronation ceremony, that they will to the utmost of their power: maintaine the Laws of God the true profession of the Gospell and the Protestant reformed religion established by law […] and […] preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this realm and to the churches committed to their charge all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them or any of them.

4 On the other hand, section 4 of the Act appears to detract from this requirement although the wording is somewhat imprecise:

4. Oath to be administered to all future Kings and Queens And … the said oath shall be in like manner administred to every King or Queene who shall succeede to the imperiall crowne of this realme at their respective coronations by one of the archbishops or bishops of this realme of England for the time being to be 1 2 3 4 In England before 1752, 1 January was celebrated as the New Year festival, but 25 March was the start of the civil or legal year.
  
The Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 introduced the Gregorian Calendar and moved the start of the civil year to 1 January. Therefore the years given in dates for Acts preceding 1752 are often recorded differently depending on whether the old or new style calendar is used. In this note, the dates used in Halsburys Laws of England have been used.

For the rest of this note, all references to Catholics are references to Roman Catholics. Coronation Oath Act 1688 (1 Will & Mar chap 6), s 3 Coronation Oath Act 1688 (1 Will & Mar chap 6), s 3 3 thereunto appointed by such King or Queene respectively and in the presence of all persons that shall be attending assisting or otherwise present at such their respective coronations any law statute or usage to the contrary notwithstanding.

The 1688 Act included the Queen, since William and Mary ruled as joint monarchs. This joint monarchy was unprecedented in English history and came about as part of unique circumstances. Mary was the sister of James II and her husband was Dutch. As part of the negotiations leading to the Glorious Revolution, William was approached for his opinion. According to the Oxford History of England William made clear to those who sought to bring him to power that he would not be regent or accept a subordinate position to his wife. The history notes Both William and Mary formally accepted the offer of the throne made to them jointly, and with it the Declaration of Rights.

5 Therefore as far as a Queen consort or wife of the heir to the throne is concerned, it is only Catholics who are specifically affected. However, if the speculation about the Coronation Oath is justified, there might be women of some Protestant denominations and non-Christian religions who would not wish to promise to maintain the established religion. (There is also the uncertainty over Holy Communion in the coronation service.)

The coronation oath was not administered to Prince Philip, who is the consort of the current monarch. Only Elizabeth II took the oath. In contrast, the Queens parents, George VI and Queen Elizabeth both took the coronation oath.
  
6 However, it is worth noting that the oath Elizabeth II took was modified without statutory authority. The present Queen swore to govern the peoples of her realms and territories according to their respective laws and customs and to maintain the established Protestant religion in the United Kingdom.

7 If there were doubts about the religious affiliation of the spouse, it would not seem necessary for the spouse to take the formal coronation oath. The fact that the religious affiliation was non-Christian or pagan would not seem to be relevant, since the oath need not be administered to a spouse. Act of Settlement 1700 The Bill of Rights established the succession to the heirs of Mary II, Anne and William III in that order. But by 1700 Mary had died childless,

Anne’s only surviving child had died and William was dying. The Stuarts still had claims to the throne. The Act of Settlement was passed, devolving the Protestant succession after Queen Anne (assuming no heir) on Princess Sophia the Electress of Hanover and her heirs, who were Protestants. The Act explained that it was absolutely necessary for the safety, peace and quiet of this realm to obviate all doubts and contentions in the same by reason of any pretended titles to the crown.

8 , This Act in section 2 reiterated the exclusion of Catholics or persons married to Catholics and the requirement for the Coronation oath : 2. The persons inheritable by this Act, holding communion with the church of Rome, incapacitated as by the former Act, to take the oath at their coronation, according to Stat 1 W & M c 6 5 6 7 8 Sir George Clark The Later Stuarts 1660-1714 second edition p145 See Halsburys Laws of England Vol. 12(1) The Crown, para 20 For further details see Library Note SN/PC/00435, The Coronation Oath Act of Settlement 1700 (12 & 13 Will 3 chap 2), in long title 4
  
Provided always and it is hereby enacted that all and every person and persons who shall or may take or inherit the said crown by vertue of the limitation of this present Act and is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or church of Rome or shall profess the popish religion or shall marry a papist shall be subject to such incapacities as in such case or cases are by the said recited Act provided enacted and established. And that every King and Queen of this realm who shall come to and succeed in the imperiall crown of this kingdom by vertue of this Act shall have the coronation oath administered to him her or them at their respective coronations according to the Act of Parliament made in the first year of the reign of his Majesty and the said late Queen Mary intituled An Act for establishing the coronation oath and shall make subscribe and repeat the declaration in the Act first above recited mentioned or referred to in the manner and form thereby prescribed. At first the effect of this was to exclude all members of other churches. However, members of certain other Protestant churches may not now be debarred. Since 1972, by the Church of Englands Admission to Holy Communion Measure,

9 and the [Church of England] Canon (B15A) that followed it, baptised persons who are communicant members of other churches which subscribe to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and who are in good standing in their own Church shall without further process be admitted to Holy Communion in Church of England churches. This means, for instance, that a Methodist, Congregationalist, Church of Scotland, or Baptist member can take Anglican communion, though a Unitarian (who would reject the concept of the Trinity) could not. Hence in the strict sense of the wording of the Act of Settlement, members of these churches would not now be excluded. Members of Protestant denominations outside the Church of England do not generally object as a matter of 
  
faith to its established status and could thus subscribe to the requirements of the Coronation Oath Act 1688. Such a person could therefore join in communion, as the words of the statute decree. A Catholic would probably still be affected by this section, additionally to the specific disabilities quoted in s 2, since he or she could not remain in good standing in the Roman Catholic Church by taking communion from an Anglican minister.

10 This disability would appear to affect the spouse of a monarch who would be required to take the coronation oath. However, as seen above, the current monarch took a form of the coronation oath which differed in wording from the 1688 Act. Act of Union with Scotland 1706 The position of the established Protestant Presbyterian Church of Scotland was safeguarded in the Act of Union with Scotland. Article II of the Articles of Union reiterated and confirmed the provisions of the Act of Settlement. It would need amendment should the Act of Settlement be abolished or amended. 1.2 Recent examples There are two recent examples where the marriage of someone in line to the throne to a Roman Catholic has resulted in their removal from the line of succession.

11 The Earl of St Andrews and HRH Prince Michael of Kent both lost the right of succession to the throne 9 10 11 GSM no.2, 1972. The canon is reprinted in Canons of the Church of England, 5th ed 1993 (loose leaf publication) With certain minor exceptions, [RC] Canon 844; Code of Canon Law, 1997 ed. A list of the first 40 in line to the throne is available at

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page5655.asp (last viewed 22 August 2008) 5 through marriage to Roman Catholics.
  
Any children of these marriages remain in the succession provided that they are in communion with the Church of England. In 2008 it was announced that Peter Phillips would marry his partner, Autumn Kelly. It emerged that she had been baptised as a Catholic. Ms Kelly was accepted into the Church of England before the marriage took place and Peter Phillips retains his place in the line of succession.
12 2 The Royal Marriages Act 1772 This Act requires the descendants of George II (other than the children of princesses married into foreign families) to seek consent of the monarch before marrying.
13 The Act applies also to marriages celebrated abroad and makes such marriages without consent void.
14 Under the His Majestys Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 the 1772 Act was disapplied for any heirs of the Duke of Windsor. A descendant aged over 25 who persists in his/her wish to marry without consent, may do so unless both Houses of Parliament expressly disapprove of the marriage. There is no reference to the religion of the intended spouse. There have been suggestions that the Royal Marriages Act 1772 contravenes human rights legislation in requiring virtually all descendants of George II permission from the crown for their marriages, although controversy remains about its full extent. Robert Blackburn has explained the idea of constitutional control over who becomes the spouse of the reigning of future monarch as follows:
The logic behind this idea is that the personality and personal life of the individual who is or may become head of state is a matter of profound public interest to the well-being of the government and the country. The head of states consort is inter-woven into this public interest in good governance, for he or she not only has considerable de facto   
official, ceremonial and diplomatic functions to perform, but normally will be the father or mother of the subsequent heir apparent. A comparative glance at monarchies elsewhere in the world indicates that similar notions often operate there too. Both Spain and Sweden, for example, have constitutional provisions debarring from the throne those who proceed with a royal marriage which is not approved by the government.

15 3 Attempts to change the law The arguments in favour of changing The Royal Marriages Act 1772 have been set out in an article by Dr Stephen Cretney, an emeritus fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, who quotes a 1955 civil service brief prepared for the Prime Minister in relation to a Parliamentary Question : 1. It is inherently unsatisfactory that personal and constitutional questions of such high importance should still depend on the operation of an 18th Century Statute which was admittedly passed hurriedly, and in the face of considerable opposition, to deal with an ad hoc situation created largely by the unsatisfactory conduct of King George III’s brothers. 12 13 14 15 Fiance secures royal succession by abandoning her Catholic Faith, The Times, 1 May 2008 The Royal Marriages Act 1772 Modern Law Review Vol. 14 Jan 1951 suggests that descendants of Queen Elizabeth II do not come within the Act, as she was a princess marrying into a foreign family Sussex Peerage Case (1844) 11Cl and Fin 85 Blackburn, King and Country : Monarchy and the Future King Charles III, 2006, p171 6 2.
  
The legal interpretation of the Act is uncertain; but it seems that its ambit is now far too wide. It extends, or may extend to classes of persons whose connection with the Throne is very remote. Some think it should at least be confided to The Sovereigns children and grand-children and the Heir Presumptive. 3. Although many approve in principle of control of marriages which are likely to affect the succession to the Throne, it can reasonably be argued that the sanctions against marriage without consent imposed by the Act of 1772 are too strong.

A marriage without consent if void and the offspring of the union bastardised 4. The provision of the Act which requires an applicant over the age of 25 who has been refused consent to give notice to the Privy Council and then wait a year, during which either House of Parliament may prevent the marriage by passing a resolution is contrary to modern ideas of propriety and fair-dealing.

16 The Legitimacy Act 1959 introduced the doctrine of the putative marriage into English law. As a result of that Act the child of a marriage void under the Royal Marriages Act 1772 will usually be treated as the legitimate child of the parents. Dr Cretney writes: Materials now in the public domain demonstrate that there were two main options for reform of the Royal Marriages Act. [Footnote: In 1955 (when it had been thought that Princess Margaret might renounce her rights of succession on marrying Group Captain Peter Townsend) draft documents were prepared] The first was to amend the Act by confining its application to a comparatively narrow class (for example, the current Monarchs descendants.)

The second was to repeal the 1772 Act, and substitute an Act retaining the need for the Sovereigns consent to the marriage and those close to the throne, but restriction the sanction for failure to obtain that consent to disqualification from the line of succession and from any financial provision from the Civil List. Bills were drafted by counsel to give effect to these alternatives. But by 1964 all enthusiasm for reform seems to have evaporated. Approval of those Commonwealth countries which were monarchies seems to have been an especially weighty factor, and on July 13 1964 Home   
Secretary Henry Brooke decided not to proceed with legislation at the moment. Forty years later, there has still been no Government action to introduce the legislation

17 Lord Dubs introduced the Succession to the Crown [HL] Bill in the 2004-5 Session. Clause 2 of Lord Dubss Bill attempted to allow spouses of the King/Queen to be a Catholic, but did not attempt to repeal the Act of Settlement itself. Nevertheless, the Bill faced opposition on its second reading from the Bishop of Winchester : if the Bill became law and made in time for a Roman Catholic consort, in a generation we could therefore have a Roman Catholic heir to the throne who could not join in communion with the Church of England.
Although I pray earnestly for that reconciliation of the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches which for me is the only proper solution to the admitted embarrassments and misunderstandings which the Bill seeks to resolve, I doubt very much whether it is wise for your Lordships’ House or the 16 17 Dr S. Cretney QC, Royal Marriages : Some Legal and Constitutional Issues, Law Quarterly Review, April 2008, pp235-237
Dr S. Cretney QC, Royal Marriages : Some Legal and Constitutional Issues Law Quarterly Review, April 2008, pp238-239 7 other place either to bank on the timing of that reconciliation or to seek to bring pressure to bear on its achievement.
  
18 Also in the 2004-05 Session Ann Taylor introduced the Succession to the Crown (no 2) Bill in the Commons, but the bill did not make progress.

19 Edward Leigh presented his ten minute rule bill Royal Marriages (Freedom of Religion) Bill on Tuesday 8 March 2005. He argued that amending the law in relation to the spouse of a monarch was a much less complex process than removing the anti-Catholic nature of the Act of Settlement. The then Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer responded to Lord Dubss Bill. He stated that although the Act of Settlement and other associated Acts that exclude Roman Catholics from the succession could be seen as discriminatory, he remained opposed to what would be a complex and controversial procedure to change them : To bring about changes to the law would be a complex and controversial undertaking, raising major constitutional issues which would involve the amendment or repeal of a number of pieces of related legislation.
Legislation that would need to be reviewed includes the Bill of Rights 1688, the Coronation Oath Act 1688, the Union with Scotland Act 1707, the Princess Sophia’s Precedence Act 1711I hope no one will intervene on that one the Royal Marriages Act 1772, the Union with Ireland Act 1800, the Accession Declaration Act 1910, and the Regency Act 1937.
I recognise that my noble friend’s Bill deals with obvious aspects of the Union with Scotland Act and, indeed, the parallel Union with England Act of the pre-Union Scottish Parliament, but it has not addressed any of the issues raised by the other Acts to which I have referred. I should make it clear that this Government stand firmly against discrimination in all its forms, including discrimination against Catholics, and will continue to do so.
The Government would never support discrimination against Catholics, or indeed any others, on the grounds of religion. The terms of the Act are discriminatory, but we should be clear that for all practical purposes, its effects are limited There is a difference between applying new legislation such as the Human Rights Act to existing legislation, and altering legislation which is part of the backbone of our constitutional arrangements. Indeed, this legislation is interwoven within the very fabric of the constitution and has evolved over centuries. It is not a simple matter that can be tinkered with lightly. While we would wish to remove all forms of discrimination, for a variety of   
reasons that have been well understood in the course of this debate, this is not the appropriate form.
20 He said : There is an argument for amending the Act to remove the need for all descendants of George II having to obtain the Queen’s consent before marrying.
The longer the current provisions remain on the statute book, the more couples there will be who are covered by the requirements of the Act. Noble Lords should draw their own conclusions from the procedural description that I have just given. However, given the Government’s current legislative programme, the issue cannot be seen as urgent and would, again, have to be part of any larger examination of constitutional issues, such as the Act of Settlement. 18 19 20 HL Deb 14 January 2005 c501 Bill 36 of 2004-5 HL Deb 14 January 2005, cc510-511 8
The Government have not said that the laws we have considered today should never be changed. They do not rule out change in the future, but we have no immediate plans to legislate in this area. As has been pointed out in the past, it is a complex undertaking and we must be careful not to embark on it before proper consultation with all parties involved.
  
21 Lord Falconer pointed out that there are 22 people in the line of succession to the throne after the Prince of Wales who have not been affected by the Act of Settlements anti-Catholic provisions, so the chances of a successor being the victim of the Act are slight.

22 It is necessary to have victim status under the Human Rights Act 1998 to bring a case. In general, a hypothetical case would not be entertained by the courts, so would be very unlikely to progress to a hearing. Courts are not entitled to strike down primary legislation as a result of the Human Rights Act 1998. Instead courts will make a declaration of incompatibility in accordance with s4 of the Human Rights Act.
This does not force Parliament to amend the law, but Parliament runs the risk of having an offending piece of legislation brought before the European Court of Human Rights if it does not replace the piece of legislation. 4 The marriage of Prince Charles to Camilla Parker Bowles The marriage of Prince Charles to Mrs Parker Bowles in 2005 raised many questions about the constitutional issues involved in royal marriages. 4.1 Princess Consort The official announcement from Clarence House noted that if Charles were to succeed to the throne, Mrs Parker Bowles would become Princess Consort: Mrs Parker Bowles will use the title HRH The Duchess of Cornwall after marriage. It is intended that Mrs Parker Bowles should use the title HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne.
23 Although Prince Philip and Prince Albert were described as consorts to the British queens they married, this appears to be the first time that the title Princess Consort has been used. In response to a PQ from Andrew Mackinlay, the DCA has indicated that the marriage is not morganatic.
24 Another parliamentary answer indicated that permission for the marriage, under the Royal Marriages Act 1772 had been granted at a Privy Council meeting on 2 March 2005.

25 In 1820 Princess Caroline of Brunswick attempted to ensure that she would be crowned alongside George IV, her estranged husband. George IV persuaded the then Prime Minister, Lord Liverpool, to introduce a bill into the House of Lords to deprive her of her rank and dissolve the marriage. The Bill was withdrawn after it only received a narrow majority at 21 22 23 24 25 HL Deb 14 January 2005 c511 HL Deb 14 January 2005 c511 See Prince of Wales, Press Release, 10 February 2005 
  
http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/mediacentre/pressreleases/announcement_of_the_marriage_of_hrh_the_pri nce_of_wales_and__167.html (last viewed 22 August 2008) HC Deb 17 March 2005 c462w HC Deb 17 March 2005 c462w 9 second reading. Princess Caroline tried to enter Westminster Abbey for the coronation in July 1821, but was not successful. She died the following month.

26 David Pannick QC has noted possible legal implications if Camilla Parker-Bowles did not use the title of queen. His comments are as follows: Assuming that a valid marriage takes place, Mrs Parker Bowles may, in many years’ time, have an important constitutional function to perform. The Regency Act 1937 regulates what would happen if the Sovereign were to become incapacitated. If King Charles III were to spend all of his time talking to plants, so that he is “by reason of infirmity of mind or body incapable for the time being of performing the royal functions”, Prince William would become Regent. Charles could be declared to be so incapacitated by three or more of the following: his “wife”, the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls. There is no Act of Parliament regulating whether Camilla must be called Queen if and when Charles becomes King. But there are possible legal implications if she does not have that title. The Treason Act 1351 states that the offence of treason is committed if a person “doth compass or imagine the death of our lord the King, or of our lady his Queen”. Halsbury’s Statutes helpfully adds that there is an “alternative version of the original text”, substituting “wife” for “Queen”.There is a potential financial advantage for Camilla in becoming Mrs Wales. Section 6 of the Civil List Act 1952 states that in the event of the death during the present reign of the Duke of Cornwall (one of the Prince’s titles) his widow shall be paid during her life an annual sum (at present set at Pounds 60,000).
    
27 Dr Stephen Cretney has argued that Mrs Parker Bowless status will be that of queen, despite the use of the title princess consort.
28 The Department for Constitutional Affairs (as it was at the time) confirmed that no amendment is planned to the Civil List Act 1952.
29 A spokesman for Clarence House said that Mrs Parker Bowles may use the title Princess Consort rather than Queen without a change in the law. He said : Legislation would only be required if it was deemed necessary to confirm formally that that she should not have the title and status of queen.
30 It is likely that alterations to the royal succession would require consent from Commonwealth countries under the Statute of Westminster 1931.
31 However, no consent would seem necessary for a marriage which does not affect the succession. Prince Philip was not styled Prince Consort, but was granted the style and patent of a Prince of the United Kingdom by letters patent of the Queen on 22 February 1957.
32 Halsburys Laws notes that the common law relating to the husband of a queen is not as developed as the wife of a King, due to the rarity of a Queen regnant in British history. A Queen consort has distinct prerogatives, which are now largely of historical significance, but remains a private citizen and has no right to be crowned.
33 Following her divorce from Prince Charles, Princess Diana was no longer styled Her Royal Highness, but Diana, Princess of Wales. This indicates the extent to which the royal prerogative can be used to reach an acceptable official status, without parliamentary involvement. 26 27 28 29 30 31   
32 33 Ed John Cannon and Ralph Phillips The Oxford Illustrated History of the British Monarchy, 1988, pp537-8 Imagine it : Camilla calls a couple of judges and says, Let’s oust him, The Times, 22 February 2005, Dr Stephen Cretney The Times, 22 February 2005 HC Deb 17 March 2005 c461-2 Prince and Camilla do not want her to be called queen 23 March 2005 Daily Telegraph See Library Standard Note SN/PC/683 The Act of Settlement and the Protestant Succession for further details Halsburys Laws Vol. 12(1) para 28 Queen Carolines Claim to be Crowned (1821) 1 State Trials NS 949 10 The Regency Act 1953 specifically nominated the spouse of Queen Elizabeth, Prince Philip, to be Regent in the event that it was necessary and that either she has no child or grandchild, or all such persons are disqualified.
34 Similar arrangements might be expected for Prince Charles, should he succeed, but these are not necessarily automatic. 4.2 The Civil Ceremony In his book, King and Country, Robert Blackburn stated that : From a purely legal perspective, the most astonishing aspect of the royal events of spring 2005 was the decision for the Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker Bowles to get married in a civil register office in England.
  
This flew in the face of any conventional reading of the statute book on marriage law, which expressly excludes members of the royal family from marriage by way of civil registration. It flew in the face of the standard legal textbooks and works for reference, which also clearly state that members of the royal family are excluded from marriage by way of civil registration. It flew in the face of two famous royal occasions in living memory, 1936 and 1955, when everyone accepted that members of the royal family could not marry by way of civil registration.
This was, after all, an accepted legal position which had fuelled the abdication crisis and driven Edward III from the throne, and been a major factor in the painful termination of Princess Margarets high-profile romance with a divorcee. The proposal put forward in spring 2005 directly contradicted the official legal advice that members of the royal family could not contract a legal marriage through a civil registry service, which had been given by previous Lord Chancellors to previous Prime Ministers and monarchs.
35 Following some weeks of speculation about the applicability of the law on civil marriages to marriages contracted by the royal family, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, made the following written ministerial statement on 23 February 2005: The Government is satisfied that it is lawful for the Prince of Wales and Mrs Parker Bowles, like anyone else, to marry by a civil ceremony in accordance with Part III of the Marriage Act 1949. Civil marriages were introduced in England by the Marriage Act 1836. Section 45 said that the Act:  shall not extend to the marriage of any of the Royal Family.
But the provisions on civil marriage in the 1836 Act were repealed by the Marriage Act 1949. All remaining parts of the 1836 Act, including section 45, were repealed by the Registration Service Act 1953. No part of the 1836 Act therefore remains on the statute book. The Marriage Act 1949 re-enacted and re-stated the law on marriage in England and Wales. The Act covered both marriage by Church of England rite, and civil marriage. It did not repeat the language of section 45 of the 1836 Act. Instead, section 79(5) of the 1949 Act says that: Nothing in this Act shall affect any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal Family.
  
The change of wording is important, and the significance is not undermined by the fact that the 1949 Act is described as a consolidation Act.
The interpretation of any Act of 34 35 See Halsburys Laws Vol. 12(1) para 13 Robert Blackburn, King and Country: Monarchy and the Future King Charles III, 2006, p54 11 Parliament, even when it consolidates previous legislation, must be based on the words used in the Act itself, not different words used in the previous legislation.
In our view, section 79(5) of the 1949 Act preserves ancient procedures applying to Royal marriages, for example the availability of customary forms of marriage and registration. It also preserves the effect of the Royal Marriages Act 1772, which requires the Sovereign consent for certain marriages. But it does not have the effect of excluding Royal marriages from the scope of Part III, which provides for civil ceremonies.
As the heading to section 79 indicates (Repeals and savings) it is a saving, not an exclusion. We are aware that different views have been taken in the past; but we consider that these were over-cautious, and we are clear that the interpretation I have set out in this statement is correct. We also note that the Human Rights Act has since 2000 required legislation to be interpreted wherever possible in a way that is compatible with the right to marry (article 12) and with the right to enjoy that right without discrimination (article 14). This, in our view, puts the modern meaning of the 1949 Act beyond doubt.
  
  
36 A Clarence House spokesperson was quoted in newspapers at the time as stating that : Legal advice was taken from four different sources and all agreed that it is legal for a member of the Royal Family to marry in a civil ceremony in England.

37 A number of commentators had drawn attention to opinions suggesting that the Marriage Act 1949 did not apply to any royal marriage. Dr Stephen Cretney suggested that the , could render the Royal union illegal. In his view, the legislation which created civil marriages in English law did not permit members of the Royal Family to contract a civil wedding under the procedures originally created in 1836. While the act was amended by parliament in 1949, that statute makes no mention of the Royals.

38 However, in Dr Cretneys view it would be impossible to argue that the wedding was invalid : the decision whether to allow the ceremony to go ahead was entrusted by law to the Registrar-General and he decided to grant a licence. A 1956 Aide Memoire addressed to the Lord Chancellor noted that: Marriages of members of the Royal Family are not in the same position as marriages of other persons. The statutory facilities for civil marriages are not available in England, but are available in Scotland. In England such marriages are governed by the Common Law.

39 Similarly a Home Office memo in July 1964 stated :  marriages of members of the Royal Family are still not in the same position as marriages of other persons. Such marriages have always been expressly excluded from statutes about marriage in England and Wales and marriages abroad, and are therefore governed by the common law. This means that in England and Wales such a marriage can be validly celebrated only by a clergyman of the Church of England. A civil marriage before the registrar, and marriage according to the rites of any church other than the Church of England, are not possible.
  
40 36 37 38 39 40 HL Deb 23 February 2005 also available at http://www.dca.gov.uk/pubs/statements/royalmarriage.htm
Joshua Rozenburg, Princes civil marriage will be legal, say aides, Daily Telegraph, 15 February 2005 Ibid Royal Marriages Aide Memoire, 10 February 1956 The Royal Marriages Act 1772, 8 July 1964, para 3 12 The earlier statement followed discussions about Princess Margaret. At the time, there was speculation that she might marry Group Captain Peter Townsend, who had divorced his first wife.
In the event Princess Margaret decided not to marry him: The following personal message was issued by Princess Margaret from Clarence House last night:-I would like it to be known that I have decided not to marry Group Captain Peter Townsend.
I have been aware that, subject to my renouncing my rights of succession, it might have been possible for me to contract a civil marriage. But, mindful of the Churchs teaching that Christian marriage is indissoluble, and conscious of my duty to the Commonwealth, I have resolved to put these considerations before any others. I have reached this decision entirely alone, and in doing so have been strengthened by the unfailing support and devotion of Group Captain Townsend. I am deeply grateful for the concern of all those who have constantly prayed for my happiness. The message, signed Margaret, was dated Monday, October 31.
      
41 Lord Falconers statement suggests that this interpretation was unduly restrictive. The Human Rights Act 1998 applies to all existing legislation, not just legislation passed after 1998. S3 states : So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights. But section 3(2) (b) states: [this act] does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible primary legislation However, not all commentators accepted the position outlined by Lord Falconer.

David Pannick QC stated : Section 79(5) of the 1949 Act added that nothing in that legislation “shall affect any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal Family”. The whole of the 1836 Act was then repealed by the Registration Service Act 1953. The problem is that there was in 1949 a custom (based on previous law) of members of the Royal Family only marrying in church. It is very doubtful that this custom has ceased to exist, and so Section 79(5) of the 1949 Act still prevents a civil ceremony.
To avoid a royal flush of embarrassment, the Prince and Mrs Parker Bowles need to find an archbishop, or a 42 vicar, who is available at short notice. For Lord Falconer, the legal row over did not come as much of a surprise. His inner circle insisted last night that he had been prepared “early last week” to make a statement outlining his view that a civil ceremony was legitimate. After consulting Tony Blair and other senior Cabinet colleagues, the written statement was put out on Wednesday. The statement was a precis of Lord Falconer’s advice deemed fit for public consumption rather than the advice itself. In essence, it breezily argues that the Prince can marry Mrs Parker Bowles under the 1949 Marriage Act, which updated the law on civil marriages. If there were any doubt, he added, the Human Rights Act of 2000 gave any couple, Royal or commoner, the right to a civil ceremony “without discrimination”. 41
  
42 Statement by Princess Margaret, The Times, 1 November 1955 Camilla calls a couple of justices and says, Let’s oust him, The Times, 22 February 2005 13 Both Lord Falconer’s senior officials and Downing Street told The Sunday Telegraph that they could see “no need” for a simple two-clause Bill to “clear up” the confusion, although they admitted that, constitutionally, they were in “unknown territory” and that no one could pronounce with any certainty on the likely outcome of any legal challenge to the forthcoming wedding, were one to be launched.
43 Eleven objections to the wedding were made, under s29 of the Wedding Act 1949. Objections are made to the local registrars office,
44 or the office at which the ceremony will be officiated. The relevant superintendent general is duty bound to carry out an investigation. Reverend Paul Williamson of St Georges Church, Hounslow announced that he had completed an official caveat.
  
45 He is an outspoken representative of the evangelical wing of the Church of England. The superintendent registrar cannot issue the wedding certificate or proceed with the wedding until “he has satisfied himself that there is not sufficient evidence of the alleged impediment” or the caveat is withdrawn altogether. Caveats when received are examined by the Registrar General. An objector can seek judicial review if he disagrees with the decision of the Registrar General, but review would only be granted on fairly narrow grounds.
46 Len Cook, Registrar General found that the objections should not be sustained : The Superintendent Registrars for Chippenham and Cirencester have received and referred to me 11 caveats objecting to the marriage of The Prince of Wales and Mrs Parker Bowles. The principal grounds of objection are that the law does not allow The Prince of Wales to marry in a civil ceremony because: members of the Royal Family are a special category; special rules apply to this category; and, section 79(5) of the Marriage Act 1949 states that ‘Nothing in this Act shall affect any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal Family’ and the provisions of the 1949 Act governing civil marriages do not therefore apply to marriages of members of the Royal Family.
  
I have examined into this matter and I am satisfied that it ought not to obstruct the issue of a certificate because : the natural reading of section 79(5) is that it preserves, for example, the Royal Marriages Act 1772, and the custom of the Royal Family to maintain a Royal Marriage Register; but does not exclude members of the Royal Family from Part III of the 1949 Act (as amended, in particular by the Marriage Act 1994); a reading of the 1949 Act which prevented The Prince of Wales and Mrs Parker Bowles from contracting a civil marriage would interfere with their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’); and, section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which requires legislation to be interpreted and given effect to in a way which is compliant with Convention rights, is a strong 43 44 45 46 So whose head will roll? Daily Telegraph, 27 February 2005 For Camilla Parker-Bowles, this is Chippenham Charles: the British have no pity, Observer, 27 February 2005 Royal challenge, The Times, 5 March 2005 14 obligation which supports the conclusion that The Prince of Wales and Mrs Parker Bowles can rely on the provisions of Part III of the 1949 Act. A number of other points have also been mentioned in the caveats and I have investigated whether any of these amount to a legal impediment to marriage under the Marriage Act 1949. I am satisfied that none of these objections should obstruct the issue of a certificate.
47 The Shadow Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, said that the Opposition would support any legislation which might be necessary to clarify the status of the civil wedding.
48 The former Attorney General, Sir Nicholas Lyell called for such legislation and David Pannick stated that a legal challenge would be necessary to test the argument on the implications of human rights act legislation.
49 The date of the wedding was changed from 8 April 2005 to 9 April 2005 following the death of Pope John Paul II, to enable Prince Charles to attend the Popes funeral in Rome on 8 April.
50 47 48 49 50 Statement from Len Cook, Registrar General for England and Wales 8 March 2005 Tories back Bill to dispel legal doubts over royal wedding 25 February 2005 Times Charles relies on rights law he despised to validate marriage 24 February 2005 Times HRH Prince Charles to attend funeral of Pope John Paul II 4 April 2005 Prince of Wales website at http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/news/2005/04.apr/pope_funeral.php 15
  
  
  

  

  

  
  
  

  

  

  

  

    
  

So since everything has been  Privatised.
Since we came of the Gold Standard in 1931-32-33.
We the People have been paying into a Corrupt system ever since
HM Treasury own HMRC

Time to wake up and ask the questions 
Political corruption is the use of powers by government officials or their network contacts for illegitimate private gain. An illegal act by an officeholder constitutes political corruption only if the act is directly related to their official duties, is done under color of law or involves trading in influence.
Forms of corruption vary, but include bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, parochialism, patronage, influence peddling, graft, and embezzlement. Corruption may facilitate criminal enterprise such as drug trafficking, money laundering, and human trafficking, though is not restricted to these activities. Misuse of government power for other purposes, such as repression of political opponents and general police brutality, is also considered political corruption. Masiulis case is a typical example of political corruption.
The activities that constitute illegal corruption differ depending on the country or jurisdiction. For instance, some political funding practices that are legal in one place may be illegal in another. In some cases, government officials have broad or ill-defined powers, which make it difficult to distinguish between legal and illegal actions. Worldwide, bribery alone is estimated to involve over 1 trillion US dollars annually.[1] A state of unrestrained political corruption is known as a kleptocracy, literally meaning "rule by thieves".
Some forms of corruption – now called "institutional corruption"[2] – are distinguished from bribery and other kinds of obvious personal gain. A similar problem of corruption arises in any institution that depends on financial support from people who have interests that may conflict with the primary purpose of the institution.
Over time, corruption has been defined differently. For example, in a simple context, while performing work for a government or as a representative, it is unethical to accept a gift. Any free gift could be construed as a scheme to lure the recipient towards some biases. In most cases, the gift is seen as an intention to seek certain favors such as work promotion, tipping in order to win a contract, job or exemption from certain tasks in the case of junior employee giving the gift to a senior employee who can be key in winning the favor.
Effects on politics, administration, and institutions[edit]
Countries with politicians, public officials or close associates implicated in the Panama Papers leak on April 15, 2016
In politics, corruption undermines democracy and good governance by flouting or even subverting formal processes. Corruption in elections and in the legislature reduces accountability and distorts representation in policymaking; corruption in the judiciary compromises the rule of law; and corruption in public administration results in the inefficient provision of services. It violates a basic principle of republicanism regarding the centrality of civic virtue.[4] More generally, corruption erodes the institutional capacity of government if procedures are disregarded, resources are siphoned off, and public offices are bought and sold. Corruption undermines the legitimacy of government and such democratic values as trust and tolerance. Recent evidence suggests that variation in the levels of corruption amongst high-income democracies can vary significantly depending on the level of accountability of decision-makers.[4] Evidence from fragile states also shows that corruption and bribery can adversely impact trust in institutions.[5][6] Corruption can also impact government’s provision of goods and services. It increases the costs of goods and services which arise efficiency loss. In the absence of corruption, governmental projects might be cost-effective at their true costs, however, once corruption costs are included projects may not be cost-effective so they are not executed distorting the provision of goods and services.[7]
Economic effects[edit]
See also: Economics of corruption and Corporate crime
In the private sector, corruption increases the cost of business through the price of illicit payments themselves, the management cost of negotiating with officials and the risk of breached agreements or detection. Although some claim corruption reduces costs by cutting bureaucracy, the availability of bribes can also induce officials to contrive new rules and delays. Openly removing costly and lengthy regulations are better than covertly allowing them to be bypassed by using bribes. Where corruption inflates the cost of business, it also distorts the field of inquiry and action, shielding firms with connections from competition and thereby sustaining inefficient firms.[8]
Corruption may have a direct impact on the firm's effective marginal tax rate. Bribing tax officials can reduce tax payments of the firm if the marginal bribe rate is below the official marginal tax rate.[7] However, in Uganda, bribes have a higher negative impact on firms’ activity than taxation. Indeed, a one percentage point increase in bribes reduces firm’s annual growth by three percentage points, while an increase in 1 percentage point on taxes reduces firm’s growth by one percentage point.[9]
Corruption also generates economic distortion in the public sector by diverting public investment into capital projects where bribes and kickbacks are more plentiful. Officials may increase the technical complexity of public sector projects to conceal or pave the way for such dealings, thus further distorting investment.[10] Corruption also lowers compliance with construction, environmental, or other regulations, reduces the quality of government services and infrastructure, and increases budgetary pressures on government.
Economists argue that one of the factors behind the differing economic development in Africa and Asia is that in Africa, corruption has primarily taken the form of rent extraction with the resulting financial capital moved overseas rather than invested at home (hence the stereotypical, but often accurate, image of African dictators having Swiss bank accounts). In Nigeria, for example, more than $400 billion was stolen from the treasury by Nigeria's leaders between 1960 and 1999.[11]
University of Massachusetts Amherst researchers estimated that from 1970 to 1996, capital flight from 30 Sub-Saharan countries totaled $187bn, exceeding those nations' external debts.[12] (The results, expressed in retarded or suppressed development, have been modeled in theory by economist Mancur Olson.) In the case of Africa, one of the factors for this behavior was political instability and the fact that new governments often confiscated previous government's corruptly obtained assets. This encouraged officials to stash their wealth abroad, out of reach of any future expropriation. In contrast, Asian administrations such as Suharto's New Order often took a cut on business transactions or provided conditions for development, through infrastructure investment, law and order, etc.
Environmental and social effects[edit]
Further information: Human impact on the environment
Detail from Corrupt Legislation (1896) by Elihu Vedder. Library of Congress Thomas Jefferson Building, Washington, D.C.
Corruption is often most evident in countries with the smallest per capita incomes, relying on foreign aid for health services. Local political interception of donated money from overseas is especially prevalent in Sub-Saharan African nations, where it was reported in the 2006 World Bank Report that about half of the funds that were donated for health usages were never invested into the health sectors or given to those needing medical attention.[13]
Instead, the donated money was expended through "counterfeit drugs, siphoning off of drugs to the black market, and payments to ghost employees". Ultimately, there is a sufficient amount of money for health in developing countries, but local corruption denies the wider citizenry the resource they require.[13]
Corruption facilitates environmental destruction. While corrupt societies may have formal legislation to protect the environment, it cannot be enforced if officials can easily be bribed. The same applies to social rights worker protection, unionization prevention, and child labor. Violation of these laws rights enables corrupt countries to gain illegitimate economic advantage in the international market.
The Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has observed that "there is no such thing as an apolitical food problem." While drought and other naturally occurring events may trigger famine conditions, it is government action or inaction that determines its severity, and often even whether or not a famine will occur.[14]
Governments with strong tendencies towards kleptocracy can undermine food security even when harvests are good. Officials often steal state property. In Bihar, India, more than 80% of the subsidized food aid to poor is stolen by corrupt officials.[14] Similarly, food aid is often robbed at gunpoint by governments, criminals, and warlords alike, and sold for a profit. The 20th century is full of many examples of governments undermining the food security of their own nations – sometimes intentionally.[15]
Effects on humanitarian aid[edit]
The scale of humanitarian aid to the poor and unstable regions of the world grows, but it is highly vulnerable to corruption, with food aid, construction and other highly valued assistance as the most at risk.[16] Food aid can be directly and physically diverted from its intended destination, or indirectly through the manipulation of assessments, targeting, registration and distributions to favor certain groups or individuals.[16]
In construction and shelter there are numerous opportunities for diversion and profit through substandard workmanship, kickbacks for contracts and favouritism in the provision of valuable shelter material.[16] Thus while humanitarian aid agencies are usually most concerned about aid being diverted by including too many, recipients themselves are most concerned about exclusion.[16] Access to aid may be limited to those with connections, to those who pay bribes or are forced to give sexual favors.[16] Equally, those able to do so may manipulate statistics to inflate the number of beneficiaries and siphon off additional assistance.[16]
Malnutrition, illness, wounds, torture, harassment of specific groups within the population, disappearances, extra-judicial executions and the forcible displacement of people are all found in many armed conflicts. Aside from their direct effects on the individuals concerned, the consequences of these tragedies for local systems must also be considered: the destruction of crops and places of cultural importance, the breakdown of economic infrastructure and of health-care facilities such as hospitals, etc., etc.[17]
Effects on health[edit]
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Political corruption" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (June 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Corruption plays a huge role in health care system starting from the hospital, to the government and lifted to the other institutions that promote quality and affordable health care to the people. The efficiency of health care delivery in any country is heavily dependent on accountable and transparent systems, proper management of both financial and human resources and timely supply of services to the vulnerable populace of the nation.[18]
At the basic level, greed skyrockets corruption. When the structure of the health care system is not adequately addressed beginning from oversight in healthcare delivery and supply of drugs and tendering process, mismanagement and misappropriation of funds will always be observed.Corruption also can undermine health care service delivery which in turn disorients the lives of the poor. Corruption leads to violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms as people supposed to benefit from the basic health care from the governments are denied due to unscrupulous processes driven by greed. Therefore, for a country to keep citizens healthy there must be efficient systems and proper resources that can tame the evils like corruption that underpin it.
Effects on Education[edit]
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Political corruption" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (June 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Education forms the basis and the fabric in which a society is transformed and different facets of well-being are shaped.Corruption in higher education has been prevalent and calls for immediate intervention. Increased corruption in higher education has led to growing global concern among governments, students and educators and other stakeholders. Those offering services in the higher education institutions are facing pressure that highly threatens the integral value of higher education enterprise. Corruption in higher education has a larger negative influence, it destroys the relation between personal effort and reward anticipation. Moreover, employees and students develop a belief that personal success does not come from hard work and merit but through canvassing with teachers and taking other shortcuts.[19] Academic promotions in the higher education institutions have been disabled by unlimited corruption. Presently, promotion is based on personal connections than professional achievements. This has led to dramatic increase in the number of professors and exhibits their rapid status loss.[20] Utmost the flawed processes in the academic institutions has led to unbaked graduates who are not well fit to the job market. Corruption hinders the international standards of an education system. Additionally, Plagiarism is a form of corruption in academic research, where it affects originality and disables learning. Individual violations are in close relation to the operation ways of a system. Furthermore, the universities may be in relationships and dealings with business and people in government, which majority of them enrol in doctoral studies without the undergraduate program.Consequently, money, power and related influence compromise education standards since they are fueling factors. A Student may finish thesis report within a shorter time upon which compromises the quality of work delivered and questions the threshold of the higher education.[21]
Other areas:public safety, trade unions, police corruption etc.[edit]
See also: academic corruption
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Political corruption" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (August 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Corruption is not specific to poor, developing, or transition countries. In western countries, cases of bribery and other forms of corruption in all possible fields exist: under-the-table payments made to reputed surgeons by patients attempting to be on top of the list of forthcoming surgeries,[22] bribes paid by suppliers to the automotive industry in order to sell low-quality connectors used for instance in safety equipment such as airbags, bribes paid by suppliers to manufacturers of defibrillators (to sell low-quality capacitors), contributions paid by wealthy parents to the "social and culture fund" of a prestigious university in exchange for it to accept their children, bribes paid to obtain diplomas, financial and other advantages granted to unionists by members of the executive board of a car manufacturer in exchange for employer-friendly positions and votes, etc. Examples are endless.
These various manifestations of corruption can ultimately present a danger for public health; they can discredit specific, essential institutions or social relationships. Osipian summarized a 2008 "study of corruption perceptions among Russians ... .30 percent of the respondents marked the level of corruption as very high, while another 44 percent as high. 19 percent considered it as average and only 1 percent as low. The most corrupt in people's minds are traffic police (33 percent), local authorities (28 percent), police (26 percent), healthcare (16 percent), and education (15 percent). 52 percent of the respondents had experiences of giving money or gifts to medical professionals while 36 percent made informal payments to educators." He claimed that this corruption lowered the rate of economic growth in Russia, because the students disadvantaged by this corruption could not adopt better work methods as quickly, lowering thereby total factor productivity for Russia.[23]
Corruption can also affect the various components of sports activities (referees, players, medical and laboratory staff involved in anti-doping controls, members of national sport federation and international committees deciding about the allocation of contracts and competition places).
Cases exist against (members of) various types of non-profit and non-government organizations, as well as religious organizations.
Ultimately, the distinction between public and private sector corruption sometimes appears rather artificial, and national anti-corruption initiatives may need to avoid legal and other loopholes in the coverage of the instruments.
Types[edit]
Bribery[edit]
Main article: Bribery
In the context of political corruption, a bribe may involve a payment given to a government official in exchange of his use of official powers. Bribery requires two participants: one to give the bribe, and one to take it. Either may initiate the corrupt offering; for example, a customs official may demand bribes to let through allowed (or disallowed) goods, or a smuggler might offer bribes to gain passage. In some countries the culture of corruption extends to every aspect of public life, making it extremely difficult for individuals to operate without resorting to bribes. Bribes may be demanded in order for an official to do something he is already paid to do. They may also be demanded in order to bypass laws and regulations. In addition to their role in private financial gain, bribes are also used to intentionally and maliciously cause harm to another (i.e. no financial incentive).[citation needed] In some developing nations, up to half of the population has paid bribes during the past 12 months.[24]
The Council of Europe dissociates active and passive bribery and to incriminates them as separate offences:
One can define active bribery as "the promising, offering or giving by any person, directly or indirectly, of any undue advantage to any of its public officials, for himself or herself or for anyone else, for him or her to act or refrain from acting in the exercise of his or her functions" (article 2 of the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 173)[25] of the Council of Europe).
Passive bribery can be defined as "when committed intentionally, the request or receipt by any [...] public officials, directly or indirectly, of any undue advantage, for himself or herself or for anyone else, or the acceptance of an offer or a promise of such an advantage, to act or refrain from acting in the exercise of his or her functions" (article 3 of the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 173)).[25]
This dissociation aims to make the early steps (offering, promising, requesting an advantage) of a corrupt deal already an offence and, thus, to give a clear signal (from a criminal-policy point-of-view) that bribery is not acceptable.[citation needed] Furthermore, such a dissociation makes the prosecution of bribery offences easier since it can be very difficult to prove that two parties (the bribe-giver and the bribe-taker) have formally agreed upon a corrupt deal. In addition, there is often no such formal deal but only a mutual understanding, for instance when it is common knowledge in a municipality that to obtain a building permit one has to pay a "fee" to the decision maker to obtain a favorable decision. A working definition of corruption is also provided as follows in article 3 of the Civil Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 174):[26] For the purpose of this Convention, "corruption" means requesting, offering, giving or accepting, directly or indirectly, a bribe or any other undue advantage or prospect thereof, which distorts the proper performance of any duty or behavior required of the recipient of the bribe, the undue advantage or the prospect thereof.
Trading in influence[edit]
Main article: Influence peddling
Reformers like the American Joseph Keppler depicted the Senate as controlled by the giant moneybags, who represented the nation's financial trusts and monopolies.
Trading in influence, or influence peddling, refers a person selling his/her influence over the decision making process to benefit a third party (person or institution). The difference with bribery is that this is a tri-lateral relation. From a legal point of view, the role of the third party (who is the target of the influence) does not really matter although he/she can be an accessory in some instances. It can be difficult to make a distinction between this form of corruption and some forms of extreme and loosely regulated lobbying where for instance law- or decision-makers can freely "sell" their vote, decision power or influence to those lobbyists who offer the highest compensation, including where for instance the latter act on behalf of powerful clients such as industrial groups who want to avoid the passing of specific environmental, social, or other regulations perceived as too stringent, etc. Where lobbying is (sufficiently) regulated, it becomes possible to provide for a distinctive criteria and to consider that trading in influence involves the use of "improper influence", as in article 12 of the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 173)[25] of the Council of Europe.
Patronage[edit]
Main article: Patronage
Patronage refers to favoring supporters, for example with government employment. This may be legitimate, as when a newly elected government changes the top officials in the administration in order to effectively implement its policy. It can be seen as corruption if this means that incompetent persons, as a payment for supporting the regime, are selected before more able ones. In nondemocracies many government officials are often selected for loyalty rather than ability. They may be almost exclusively selected from a particular group (for example, Sunni Arabs in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the nomenklatura in the Soviet Union, or the Junkers in Imperial Germany) that support the regime in return for such favors. A similar problem can also be seen in Eastern Europe, for example in Romania, where the government is often accused of patronage (when a new government comes to power it rapidly changes most of the officials in the public sector).[27]
Nepotism and cronyism[edit]
Main articles: Nepotism and Cronyism
Favoring relatives (nepotism) or personal friends (cronyism) of an official is a form of illegitimate private gain. This may be combined with bribery, for example demanding that a business should employ a relative of an official controlling regulations affecting the business. The most extreme example is when the entire state is inherited, as in North Korea or Syria. A lesser form might be in the Southern United States with Good ol' boys, where women and minorities are excluded. A milder form of cronyism is an "old boy network", in which appointees to official positions are selected only from a closed and exclusive social network – such as the alumni of particular universities – instead of appointing the most competent candidate.
Seeking to harm enemies becomes corruption when official powers are illegitimately used as means to this end. For example, trumped-up charges are often brought up against journalists or writers who bring up politically sensitive issues, such as a politician's acceptance of bribes.
Gombeenism and parochialism[edit]
Main articles: Gombeen man and Parochialism
Gombeenism refers to an individual who is dishonest and corrupt for the purpose of personal gain, more often through monetary, while, parochialism which is also known as parish pump politics relates to placing local or vanity projects ahead of the national interest.[28][29][30][31] For instance in Irish politics, populist left wing political parties will often apply these terms to mainstream establishment political parties and will cite the many cases of Corruption in Ireland, such as the Irish Banking crisis, which found evidence of bribery, cronyism and collusion, where in some cases politicians who were coming to the end of their political careers would receive a senior management or committee position in a company they had dealings with.
Electoral fraud[edit]
Main article: Electoral fraud
Electoral fraud is illegal interference with the process of an election. Acts of fraud affect vote counts to bring about an election result, whether by increasing the vote share of the favored candidate, depressing the vote share of the rival candidates, or both. Also called voter fraud, the mechanisms involved include illegal voter registration, intimidation at polls, voting computer hacking, and improper vote counting.
Embezzlement[edit]
Main article: Embezzlement
Embezzlement is the theft of entrusted funds. It is political when it involves public money taken by a public official for use by anyone not specified by the public. A common type of embezzlement is that of personal use of entrusted government resources; for example, when an official assigns public employees to renovate his own house.
Kickbacks[edit]
Main article: Kickback (bribery)
See also: Anti-competitive practices, Bid rigging, Fraud, and Charbonneau Commission
A kickback is an official's share of misappropriated funds allocated from his or her organization to an organization involved in corrupt bidding. For example, suppose that a politician is in charge of choosing how to spend some public funds. He can give a contract to a company that is not the best bidder, or allocate more than they deserve. In this case, the company benefits, and in exchange for betraying the public, the official receives a kickback payment, which is a portion of the sum the company received. This sum itself may be all or a portion of the difference between the actual (inflated) payment to the company and the (lower) market-based price that would have been paid had the bidding been competitive.
Another example of a kickback would be if a judge receives a portion of the profits that a business makes in exchange for his judicial decisions.
Kickbacks are not limited to government officials; any situation in which people are entrusted to spend funds that do not belong to them are susceptible to this kind of corruption.
Unholy alliance[edit]
Main article: Unholy alliance (geopolitical)
An unholy alliance is a coalition among seemingly antagonistic groups for ad hoc or hidden gain, generally some influential non-governmental group forming ties with political parties, supplying funding in exchange for the favorable treatment. Like patronage, unholy alliances are not necessarily illegal, but unlike patronage, by its deceptive nature and often great financial resources, an unholy alliance can be much more dangerous to the public interest. An early use of the term was by former US President Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt:
"To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day." – 1912 Progressive Party Platform, attributed to Roosevelt[32] and quoted again in his autobiography,[33] where he connects trusts and monopolies (sugar interests, Standard Oil, etc.) to Woodrow Wilson, Howard Taft, and consequently both major political parties.
Involvement in organized crime[edit]
Montenegro's president Milo Đukanović is often described as having strong links to Montenegrin mafia.[34]
An illustrative example of official involvement in organized crime can be found from 1920s and 1930s Shanghai, where Huang Jinrong was a police chief in the French concession, while simultaneously being a gang boss and co-operating with Du Yuesheng, the local gang ringleader. The relationship kept the flow of profits from the gang's gambling dens, prostitution, and protection rackets undisturbed.[citation needed]
The United States accused Manuel Noriega's government in Panama of being a "narcokleptocracy", a corrupt government profiting on illegal drug trade. Later the U.S. invaded Panama and captured Noriega.

Exposed: All the Queen’s Agents and Corporations that Control the World

We may not realize it, but we are still subjects of the British Monarchy. American history books and classes indoctrinated (propaganda) us into believing we had won the American Revolution. But we didn’t. We are still subjects of Queen Elizabeth.

The history books were written by the victors and their big publishing houses. And it was much easier to control the new colonies by letting them think they had won their independence, while the British Crown carefully laid their tentacles throughout America, tentacles that grew longer and stronger with every passing year.

We aren’t the America we think we are. That’s the big red pill. Most of us on planet Earth are still under the Queen’s rule.

The Queen’s Prerogative

English law prohibits questioning the Monarchy about their personal holdings and business.

This is true of most of Europe’s royalty, whether enthroned or not. The wealth of the Monarchies is held outside of the countries that made the wealth.

The British Crown’s offshore banks hold the greatest personal wealth in the world estimated at $35 trillion. Perhaps the British Crown still owns and controls its Commonwealth Nations, including the American “colonies.”

Monarchies are not supposed to be warlord bankers who create conflict and chaos to turn a profit or destabilize an economy for personal gain. But they have been for some time now, and history is a string of immoral wars caused by monarchies, the Vatican and other religions.

Untold millions have died while kings and popes lived on to grab the wealth through well-established institutions that were created to control the commoner.

The Commonwealth of Nations, headed by Queen Elizabeth II, is made up of 53 nations, spanning the globe, accounting for one-fifth of the land mass of the Earth, and a very high percentage of its strategic resources and population.

The Queen is a Knight of Malta and has vowed allegiance to the Pope through the largest insider trading club on the planet. The British are, in fact, also agents of the Vatican’s Knights of Malta.

The Queen is a Knight of Malta

The Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM) took control of the power and wealth of the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon from within the Roman system. The SMOM controlled the banking and military power for the Vatican for hundreds of years through the first central bank, the Vatican Bank.

The Roman Catholic priestly order of the Jesuits (Society of Jesus) subordinated the SMOM in 1798 aided by Napoleon Bonaparte. This would eventually lead to the Jesuits installing British control over the Island Malta and the founding of a Jesuit College manned by British Jesuits.

The Jesuits became somewhat crippled by this suppression in Catholic controlled Europe, so in order for the Jesuits to secure South American wealth they used Protestant banking houses and formed an alliance with the Venetian influences over Britain like the Pallavicini family who control the Monarchy and Rothschilds.

The Jesuits in 1840 put the Haus Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha bloodline into the position of Monarchy of Great Britain. This house is known today as the Windsor House which still rules the UK and the Commonwealth Nations.

The same fate would eventually happen to the Vatican itself after suppressing the Jesuits in 1773. The Jesuit Order took control of the Papacy by 1814 and had enacted revenge once again for their persecution.

The Order of Malta and the recognized protestant divisions all play a role commanded by the Jesuit Order. This includes The Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem controlled by Queen Elizabeth II. If you look at the last Grandmasters of the Order of Malta you will notice they came from Britain.

Former-Grandmaster Andrew Willougby Ninian Bertie was a cousin to Queen Elizabeth II originated within the Grand Priory of England. The British arm of the Order of Malta controlling St John’s Wood is known as the Grand Priory of England.

This location was once also a Knights Templar headquarters in Britain. The Order of Malta even owned Londinium (TheCityofLondon).

TheCityofLondon was eventually rented out by the Order of Malta as their headquarters. The Jesuits took over Londinium in 1825 aided by the Rothschild family who had become the most powerful economic force in England.

When you take a look at many of the influential positions of power today, whether it is in banking, military, pharmaceutical or intelligence, you will always find Knights of Malta.

The Knights of Malta are mainly involved in working for and with the Black Nobility (royalty without an active throne), the Vatican, and the various Papal and Royal Orders, especially the Jesuits who are ultimately in control of the Vatican and the Military Order of Malta.

The SMOM’s most powerful controlling inner-cores are the Order of the Garter and the Pilgrim Society which are controlled by the Queen.

When you look at who controls the financial world you will find it is the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem, Order of Malta and Opus Dei through the City of London Corporation and The Worshipful Company of Mercers and the more recent The Worshipful Company of International Bankers.


3 Corporations Run the World: City of London, Washington DC and Vatican City

The Queen’s Offshore Kingdom

“One third of all world wealth is held offshore, and about half of all world trade flows through those tax havens.”   – The Tax Justice Network

James S. Henry, former chief economist at McKinsey & Company, estimates that wealthy individuals have approximately $35 trillion in private financial wealth tucked away in offshore havens with $6.1 trillion in UK dependent states.

As a result of this offshore accounting, it is estimated that 60% of global trade now consists of internal transactions within multinational companies.

In total, it is estimated that this complex corporate offshore accounting multinational corporations avoid paying about $240 billion per year in taxes

TheCityofLondonUK is now the money laundering capital of the world with UK firms aiding corrupt officials and criminals from across the globe to hide trillions of US dollars of ill-gotten gains. British-based banks have helped hide more than $6 trillion in nefarious payments and criminal proceeds since 2000.

Cayman Islands benefit from the added support of being a territory of the United Kingdom. The Caymans offer a number of tax-free incentives and little financial regulation and oversight.

Today the country is the world’s fifth largest financial services center. It plays host to over 10,000 mutual funds, over 200 banks, over 90,000 companies, and 140 trust companies. It’s the world’s top home for hedge funds and captive health insurance companies.

Bermuda is another piece of UK territory that has long been known as a tax haven. Bermuda’s tax system puts taxes on staff payrolls, but not on corporate earnings or investment income. Its largest customer for offshore transactions is the United States.

Guernsey belongs to the British Crown but makes its own laws on matters such as taxation. The island of 65,000 people has made a big push towards being an offshore finance destination, and its main street is lined with private banks, law firms, and accounting firms.

Jersey is another small British Crown dependency in the English Channel. Jersey prints its own banknotes and makes its own tax laws.

A culture of secrecy and non-disclosure in the island has resulted in Jersey housing an estimated $5 billion dollars of wealth per square mile. Half of Jersey’s tax avoidance trade comes from the UK.

The “British” U. S. Federal Reserve

 Using the first major corporation in England as their model, the British East India Company, warlord bankers start wars for profit. Slavery and the looting of mines, gold, diamonds, minerals, and land is all in a day’s work for an imperialist.

England’s imperialism has worked into the economic and banking practices worldwide and the Queen’s Crown Agents and Agencies have controlled global resources for centuries.

There is a linear connection between the Rothschilds, the Bank of England, and the London banking houses which ultimately links the stockholders of the Federal Reserve Banks to their subsidiary firms in New York and TheCityofLondonUK.

The two principal Rothschild representatives in New York, J. P. Morgan Co., and Kuhn, Loeb & Co. were the firms which set up the Jekyll Island Conference at which the Federal Reserve Act was created and directed the subsequent successful campaign to have the plan enacted into law by Congress, and who purchased the controlling amounts of stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 1914.

Case Closed: JFK Killed After Shutting Down Rothschild’s Federal Reserve


These firms had their principal officers appointed to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Advisory Council in 1914. In 1914, a few families (blood or business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks.

Examination of the charts and text in the House Banking Committee Staff Report of August, 1976 and the current stockholders list of the twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks show this same family control.


The Queen Loves War Spoils

Now let’s look at the top shareholders of the top military contractors for America, who we call the Corporate or Bankster Warlords to see what connections they might have to the British Crown’s investments.

Vanguard Group,
State Street Corp,
Capital Research Global Investors,
Templeton Investment Counsel LLC,
Barclays Bank Plc,
BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Ltd.,
Schroder Investment Management,
Capital World Investors,
Bank of America Corporation,
JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
Bank of New York Mellon Corp,
Black Rock Advisors,
Black Rock Fund Advisors,
Old Republic International,
Wellington Management Company,
BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N. A.,
Evercore Trust Company, N. A.,
FMR, LLC, ,
Invesco Ltd.,
Franklin Resources,
Goldman Sachs Group Inc.,
T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.


-- These 'Big Four' Companies Control the World, Yet You've Probably Never Heard of Them

What is worth noting about this list is that you can find some of the usual suspects:Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Morgans, Warburgs, and the rest of the Bankster Warlords behind some of these names.

To make things even more complex, so that we can never figure out who is in charge, every one of these corporations owns major shares in every other corporation.

They are intertwined like a grape vine. If we look closer we find that every one of these corporations conducts international business and is invested in international military ventures.

This type of “corporate warfare” is transnational. It is beyond being international or global. These companies work outside of the control of America as a nation and have stronger ties to Britain than to America. They work against Americans with their transnational economic warfare and make money from both sides of any conflict.

Essentially, these British and international corporations are war criminals just like Henry Schroder, the Brit who funded both Hitler and England. This type of banking warfare is common throughout British history.

These Were the 'Elite' Families Behind Hitler & Nazism: The Nazi War Machine Was Actually An American Business


The Crown’s Money-Making War Machine

Essentially, all the conspiracies about the Queen of England have some merit after following the money back to the warlord bankers who set up the U.S. Federal Reserve. But unlike most conspiracy theories suggest, the Federal Reserve regional banks are not the true culprits.

The true culprits are the original investors in the corporations, listed above, who serve the military through all types of wars – physical conflicts, cyberwarfare, and economic terrorism.

It is the interwoven fabric of the investments of the war-supporting corporations that have created a system that is inbred and tied to Britain…and then to Rome.

Simply through the association of the royal families of the world who are members of the Knights of Malta you have an economic intelligence community that is comprehensive insider trading at a transnational level.

The monarchies must protect their financial interests and pass wealth onto their family members. That is why so many of the richest families intermarry – to keep it “all in the family.”

The richest and most powerful people in the world belong to the Knights of Malta, the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem, the Order of the Garter, the Teutonic Knights and other orders that vow allegiance to the British Crown and subsequently to the Vatican.

If we wish to broaden the perspective, one can add that the Society of Jesus, the Jesuits, are involved at all levels and have worked tirelessly as the soldiers of the Pope to create the ultimate “insider spy network” for the Vatican Bank.

British Private Intelligence Agencies

The UK has many private intelligence agencies who are devoted to the collection, analysis, and exploitation of information for a profit. Christopher Steele, the author of the Carter Page Dossier was a former British spy, which shows you the unethical nature of “British spying.”

Sixty3, Orbis Business International, Cambridge Analytica, and many other British private intelligence agencies sell propaganda as intelligence.

Often these corporations have private contracts with the U. S. military and government and maintain top secret security clearances with the United States. Britain has not shown itself to be “honest spies” as is evidenced in the Iraq “weapons of mass destruction” lies and the current British disinformation coming out of Syria.

Some US $56 billion or 70% of the US $80 billion national intelligence budget of the United States was in 2016 earmarked for the private sector.

Functions previously performed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Agency (NSA), and other intelligence agencies are now outsourced to private British intelligence corporations. Some prominent British intelligence agencies who maintain military and government contracts with America are:

AEGIS (UK-based)
Black Cube (Israel & UK-based)
Control Risks Group (UK-based)
Hakluyt & Company (UK-based)
Oxford Analytica (UK-based)
Serco Group PLC (UK-based)

Can we really trust intelligence from a country that has provided false intelligence many times? It was British intelligence itself that spied on Trump from the NSA’s headquarters in Fort Mead. “Lie to me once, shame on you. Lie to me twice, shame on me.

Who Really Owns and Runs the Bank of England?

When the Jesuits were suppressed by the Pope in 1773, they used their covert power over England to have the Rothschild family become guardians over the Jesuit South American stolen wealth instead of depositing it in the Vatican Bank.

This action started a banking war between the Vatican and the Jesuits who used the Rothschild family as the anti-Vatican Bank.  The Rothschild’s eventually became the guardians of the Jesuit treasury in TheCityofLondon.

The Rothschild’s used The Worshipful Company of Mercers to create the Bank of England which now held the Jesuit wealth stolen from South America. The Bank of England’s efforts were focused on taking over TheCityofLondonUK from Vatican control.

The Knights of Malta have never been favorites of the Jesuit Order. This hatred of the Knights of Malta increased even further in 1768 when the Knights removed the Jesuits from the Island of Malta. The Jesuits sought their revenge one year later in 1798 using Napoleon.

The Jesuits subordinated the Knights of Malta in the same year and that was the true start of the take-over of TheCityofLondonUK which was still ruled covertly by the Knights of Malta.

If you look at St. John’s Wood where the Order of Malta are based, you will see it is the old haunt of the Knights Templar in England since the time that TheCityofLondonUK became a sovereign Nation.

If you look at one of the four of the most powerful Order of Malta headquarters in Rome, you will see that the Aventine Hill is another old Templar haunt which was their original World Headquarters.

The control of the Bank of England through The Worshipful Company of Mercers is what controls the global economy. The U.S. economy is fully controlled by the Mercers and Bank of England and has been since 1868.

TheCityofLondonUK controls the U.S. Economy through the Royal Institute for International Affairs which subsequently controls the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR has set U. S. foreign policy since its inception.

TheCityofLondonUK controls the  which subsequently controls the Federal Reserve of New York, World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. TheCityofLondonUK controls the U.S. Treasury monetary policy which commands all three of those globalist organizations through the Exchange Stabilization Fund.


Queen Lizzy’s Imperial Control of America

The British Crown and the British East India Company have never left America, and in fact, the Crown Agents still do their business to this very day.

They have a death grip on the U. S. economy. From data management, to corporate banking, to the rip-off of American resources of gas, uranium, gold, and every other valuable asset in the United States, American wealth feeds directly into Britain, the Bank of England, TheCityofLondonUK, and ultimately to the British Monarchy – Queen Elizabeth II herself.

The American corporate mechanism for the continued enrichment of the British Crown is the same one used for the corporate sell-out of the American Republic: corporate lobbyists controlling Congress, corporate pay-to-play through the executive branch (Department of State, etc.), and the Senior Executive Service (SES) to maintain the bureaucratic status quo that sells out to global corporatism at every turn with no-bid contracts and cronyism that clearly shows that we are subjects of the British Monarchy.

The Senior Executive Service hides in plain sight, but operates in a manner that aligns with the imperialistic intents of Serco and the numerous other corporations like British Petroleum, Shell, ICAP, British American Tobacco, SABMiller, American Standard Life, Rio Tinto, and Ixstrata among many others.


The History of Crown Agents

A Crown Agency was an administrative body of the British Empire, distinct from the Civil Service Commission of Britain or the government administration of the national entity in which it operated.

These enterprises were overseen from 1833 to 1974 by the Office of the Crown Agents in London, thereafter named the Crown Agents for Overseas Governments and Administration. Crown Agents for Overseas Governments and Administrations Ltd became a private Limited company providing development services in 1996.

Crown Agencies nominally reported directly to (and were wholly owned by) the Crown, but in practice, reported to the Crown Agency Office in London, thus independent of the Colonial Office.

This office became, in the late 19th century, the sole official British commercial and financial agent of all British protectorates and Crown colonies.

The Colonial Office enforced a policy of sole usage of crown agencies for all purchases of goods for government use, creating a virtual monopoly over government retail supply within the colonies of the British Empire.

The Crown Agencies also became financial institutions, supplying capital, routes for investment, and pensions to all public works and government in British dependent colonies.

Is it even reasonable to believe that after the American Revolution, American companies did not continue to do business with these crown companies for resources, goods and services? Life went on.

Crown Agencies trace their founding to the time of the British Empire and in 1833 the British government, hived off from the Colonial Office as a financing, stores, transport, and development office.

Historians have argued that crown agencies, whose organizations operated across the British Empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, were the de facto administrators of British colonies.

Crown Agencies wielded governmental powers through a maze of British territories, protectorates, dependencies, Mandates, and Crown Colonies which made up the British Empire of the late 19th century.

After this, their mandate was reduced to “dependent” colonies (most of British Africa, India, and the West Indies), but they were given near monopoly rights over finance and supply of non-local manufactures for any public or government use.

With the dissolution of the British Empire, many of these agencies reverted to control by their respective governments, became parts of the British government, or became non-governmental organizations (NGOs).


New World Order's Stealthy Tool of Subversion: NGOs

The British government incorporated the Crown Agency as a government mandated corporation tied to the Minister of Overseas Development, called the Crown Agents for Overseas Governments and Administration. In 1997, the Crown Agency was privatized.

As a private limited company, the CAOGA has a number of contracts to provide governmental or para-governmental services throughout the world. Even though these organizations were “privatized” on paper, the power generally did not shift, it merely transformed into shareholder holdings and boards of directors.

The term “Golden Share” developed to describe special rights given to the Queen in a stock company that gave her special preferential rights over voting and profit distribution—and thus ultimate control—like she had before.

While privatization allowed more shareholders, the Queen generally continued to control votes and profit distribution in wild disproportion to her single 10 pence voting share (Golden Share) in the mining mega company Rio Tinto PLC, for example.

In addition, whenever one sees that British royalty populate a company’s board of directors, remember that these are people who pledged an oath of allegiance to the Queen first, company second.

The legal category of crown agencies still exists in some nations of the former British Empire.

In most places, these have been replaced by government agencies, state-controlled companies, and (in parts of the Commonwealth) Crown Corporations. Canada and New Zealand maintain the category of government managed or owned entities called Crown Agencies.


Crown Agents International

Crown Agents International (CAI) is an international development company that works with governments, aid agencies, NGOs and companies in nearly 100 countries.

Through consultancy, supply chain management and financial services, they help countries grow their economies, strengthen their health systems and improve financial management.

CAI is headquartered in Sutton, Surrey but has an established network of international offices, project offices or representatives in 40 countries.

CAI is one of the world’s leading experts in public procurement and supply chain management and they provide financial services to facilitate development, focusing on international payments and cash management, trade finance and investment management for donors, NGOs and financial institutions.


Crown Agents USA Inc.

The following descriptions of the corporation, Crown Agents USA Inc., are taken from their website, found at: CrownAgents.com.

Our story begins in the 1700s, when colonial administrations employed agents to recruit people and procure and ship supplies to the colonies. Some agents had been authorized to manage British Treasury grants and they had become known (unofficially) as crown agents.

On April 1, 1833, the British government appointed the first Joint Agents General for Crown Colonies, George Baillie and Edward Barnard. Although appointed by the British Treasury‚ the Joint Agents General were accountable only to the governors of the 13 crown colonies that they served. They managed grants, raised capital, recruited personnel and shipped supplies for their clients.

Since our incorporation in the United States, we have provided technical assistance services and support to U.S. Government agencies, including the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), Department of State (DOS), Department of Defense (DOD), and the United States Trade and Development Agency (USTDA).

We are an international development company that partners with governments, aid agencies, NGOs and companies in nearly 100 countries. We help countries grow their economies, strengthen their health systems and improve financial management. We have permanent offices in 22 countries and presence in another 18 through our project offices and representatives.

We are a limited company owned by a non-profit-making foundation. The Crown Agents Foundationis our sole shareholder and oversees our ethos and activities. The Crown Agents Board is responsible for the company’s corporate governance. We were founded in 1833 and operated as a British statutory corporation for many years before being privatized in 1997.”


Contracts with USAID

As an implementing partner of USAID, Crown Agents USA Inc. provides expertise in the areas of procurement, public financial management, logistics, health systems strengthening, private sector development, monitoring and evaluation, and agriculture.

Here is a list of contracts that Crown Agents USA Inc. has with America that American’s themselves could easily accomplish:

United States Agency for International Development (USAID) contracts:

• Worldwide: Public Financial Management IDIQ, 2012-2017 ($700 million)

For example, here are three Crown Agents USA Inc. contracts with USAID associated with this single “Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite QUANTITY” USAID Public Financial Management contract (Read: a blank check):

Crown Agents USA Inc. Washington DC Federal Vendor Contracting Profile[1]

AIDOAAI1200038 $23.7m[2]

AIDOAAI1200038-AID391TO1500001 $6.6m[3]

AIDOAAI1200038-AIDOAATO1400007 $19m[4]

Worldwide: Supply Chain Management System  2005-2015
Worldwide: Farmer to Farmer Special Program Support  2008-2014
Worldwide: USAID – Deliver I & II Project, 2006-2015
Worldwide: Agribusiness & Agriculture Value Chain Development Assessment 2010-2014
Worldwide: Agricultural Knowledge and Program Support Work, 2010-2015
Worldwide: Climate Economic Analysis for Development, Investment, and Resilience 2014
Worldwide: Business Growth Initiative, 2006-2011
Worldwide:  Evaluation Services IQC, 2010-2015, subcontractor to AMEX International
Worldwide: Macroeconomic Foundations for Growth IQC, 2011-2016
Worldwide: Policy, Planning and Learning-Learning, Evaluation and Research 2015-2020,
Worldwide: Rule of Law IQC, 2013-2015, subcontractor to Democracy International
Worldwide:  Rural Agricultural Income and Sustainable Environment 2004-2015
Africa: Indoor Residual Spraying I and II IQC, 2006-2012
Africa (COMESA countries + Tanzania):  Support for Food Security Activities
Asia and Middle East: Asia and Middle East Growth Best Practices Project
Bangladesh: Feed the Future Design and Initiation Project, 2012-2014
Bangladesh: Trade Facility Activity, 2013 – 2018, subcontractor to IBI International
Bangladesh, Haiti, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, U.S.: Feed the Future System 2011-2013
Egypt: Technical Assistance for Policy Reform II, 2006-2009, subcontractor to Bearingpoint
El Salvador: Access to Financial Services Program, 2011-2014
Ethiopia: Health Center Renovation and Coordination Project, 2006-2009
Ethiopia: Agriculture Growth Program – Agribusiness and Market Development 2011-2016,
Guatemala: Policy & Regulatory Support for Economic Growth Project, 2011-2015
Liberia: Roberts International Airport Equipment Procurement Program 2008-2010
Malawi:  National Distribution and Management of Long Life Insecticide Treated Nets to Public Health Facilities Nationally in Malawi, 2011-2015

Nigeria: Nigeria Expanded Trade and Transport Program, 2012-2016
Pakistan:  Support for Privatization Activity 2014
Rwanda:  Private Sector Driven Agricultural Growth 2014-2019
Tanzania: Strategies for the Prevention of Corruption Bureau, 2007
Tanzania: Staples Value Chain 2011-2016
Turkmenistan: Agriculture Technology Program, 2012-2015
Zambia: Production, Finance and Improved Technology Plus Program, 2012-2016
Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) contracts:

Ghana: Financial Management and Procurement Assessment Services Project, 2005-2006
Honduras: Procurement Oversight/Advisory Services, 2006-2011
Kenya: MCC Kenya Threshold Program, 2007-2009
Mongolia: Procurement AgentServices, 2008-2013
Morocco: Procurement Services Agent and Procurement Oversight Advisor, 2009-2014
Namibia:  Procurement Agent Services, 2009-2010
Tanzania:  Procurement Agent Services and Oversight Advisory Services, 2008-2014

Department of State (DoS) contracts:

Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs Impact Evaluation for Small Business Development Centers, 2012-2015
Middle East, Africa, and Asia: Impact Assessment for the Global Innovation through Science and Technology Initiative, 2012-2013
Sustainable Buildings Initiative, 2012-2013
Evaluation of the International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs Transnational Crime and Rule of Law Programs in the Russian Federation, 2012-2013
Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs M&E of Bureau Programs, Projects, and Activities Agricultural Biotechnology Outreach Funds, 2012-2013
Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement, Bureau of Political Military Affairs Program Evaluation, Balkans, 2012-2013
Office of Environmental Quality and Transboundary Issues Mercury Program Evaluation, 2013-2014
Evaluation of the Nexus Dialogue on Water Infrastructure Solutions, 2014-2015
El Salvador and Mexico: Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs Impact Evaluation for Small Business Development Centers, 2012-2015

Department of Defense (DoD) & United States Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) contracts:

Vietnam:  USTDA National Single Window Customs Project, 2012
Global: DOD’s Cooperative Threat Reduction Integration Contract II IDIQ, Subcontractor to Raytheon, 2011-2016
Botswana: USTDA Procurement Advisory Services to the Ministry of Minerals, Energy and Water Resources, 2015

British Control of American Uranium Enrichment

Another British corporation that has taken over the uranium enrichment market in America is the URENCO Group that has gone to great extremes to hide the fact that Britain, Holland and Germany own and run the largest uranium plant in America.

The URENCO Group is a nuclear fuel company operating several uranium enrichment plants in Germany, the Netherlands, United States, and United Kingdom.

It supplies nuclear power stations in about 15 countries, and has a 29% share of the global market for enrichment services in 2011. URENCO uses centrifuge enrichment technology in New Mexico subsidized by U. S. tax payers.

In July 2012, it was reported that a sale of the government interests of URENCO was being sought.

URENCO, headquartered in Stoke Poges in Buckinghamshire and registered in the UK, is one third owned by the UK government, one third by the Dutch government, the rest by two major German utilities, E.ON and RWE (one sixth each).

URENCO also owns a 50% interest in Enrichment Technology Company (ETC), a company jointly owned with Areva.

ETC provides enrichment-plant design services and gas-centrifuge technology for enrichment plants through its subsidiaries in the UK (Capenhurst), Germany (Gronau and Jülich), the Netherlands (Almelo), France (Tricastin) and the U.S. (Eunice, New Mexico).


URENCO USA

Somehow, the British owned URENCO company has the uranium market cornered in America. Located in southeastern New Mexico, the URENCO USA facility began operations on June 11, 2010. URENCO USA is the first enrichment facility to be built in the United States in 30 years and the first ever using centrifuge enrichment technology.

URENCO uses the U. S. National Enrichment Facility (NEF) as its plant for the enrichment of uranium in Eunice, New Mexico. The NEF is operated by Louisiana Energy Services (LES), which is in turn owned by the URENCO Group, just to make sure it looks like an American company.

Notice the elaborate ownership of this facility hides who actually owns and benefits from this facility. Foreign nations directly benefit through the profits after U. S. tax payers pay two/thirds of the cost of building it.

Since the Dedication Ceremony in October 2008, the company has grown to 236 employees with an annual payroll of USD $23 million. At full capacity, NEF can provide 50% of the current enriched uranium demand for civilian nuclear power plants in the U.S. The NEF began operations in June 2010.

The original proposed budget was USD $1.5 billion, but this increased to USD $3 billion for an enlarged facility capable of 5.9 million SWU at full capacity.

URENCO USA’s New Mexico Enrichment Facility


URENCO Corruption

In the 1970s, Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan who worked for a subcontractor of URENCO in Almelo, brought stolen drawings of the centrifuges operated by URENCO to Pakistan.

In the early 1974, Dr. Khan joined the uranium enrichment program and, within a short span of time, established a highly advanced uranium enrichment facility near Islamabad.

In May 1985, the United Nations Council for Namibia decided to take legal action against URENCO for breaching UNCN Decree No. 1, which prohibited any exploitation of Namibia’s natural resources under apartheid South Africa, because URENCO had been importing uranium ore from the Rössing mine in Namibia.

According to Greenpeace, URENCO has a standing contract with Russia for the disposal of radioactive waste. In reality, these contracts do not relate to the disposal of waste, but to the sale of depleted uranium tails, which are re-enriched to natural uranium equivalent. As the enricher, Russia would be the owner of any radioactive waste that results from this process.

In March 2009, there were protests about the largest-ever load of depleted uranium hexafluoride being transported from Germany to the Siberian town Seversk.


British Petroleum’s U.S. Retail

BP might as well stand for “British Pirates” if you look at the record of a company that flourishes in America, the home of the largest oil companies in the world, and pollutes and destroys environment in a country they don’t live in. BP has a poor safety record and it looks like they just don’t care about America’s ecosystem.

These British Pirates, along with Shell, have fleeced America in every way concerning oil, from drilling to gas stations.

From New York to San Francisco, British Petroleum has a network of retail stations that provide Americans with fuels, lubricants and other products essential to modern transportation.

The company’s nationwide retail presence includes over 7,100 BP and ARCO branded gas stations, along with close to 1,000 convenience stores.

In 2016, BP delivered 7.3 billion gallons of BP-branded fuel to its U.S. customers. BP’s upstream operating segment includes production from Prudhoe Bay area in Alaska and four production platforms in deep-water Gulf of Mexico, where BP is the leading leaseholder.

In 2016, BP produced 676,000 barrels of oil per day, making the company one of America’s largest oil and natural gas producers.

How is it possible in America that U. S. governmental agencies allow the British invasion of our land, waters, and streets.

There is no reason that U. S. oil rights should go to a foreign country for their profit. American oil should be processed and sold by American companies not added to the portfolio of the Queen of England.


BP Crimes

BP PLC is the company responsible for the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. BP paid a record $20.8 billion to the US government to cover damages caused by the disaster.

It is considered the largest settlement with a single entity in American history. Apart from this settlement, BP has spent a reported $28 billion on cleanup and compensation for their criminal negligence.

The Deepwater Horizon disaster is considered by many to be the worst oil spill in US history.

The spill occurred when an offshore oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, dumping 4.9 million barrels of oil into the surrounding waters. The explosion killed 11 people and devastated marine wildlife in the area.

BP was found to be in gross negligence for not testing the only safety measure they had available for deep-water drilling accidents. BP continued to lie about their unpreparedness and criminal cover-up.

The massive oil slick still exists and has yet to be properly managed or cleaned up. America will never fully recover from this disaster. BP (British Pirates) carelessness for gross profits cost America more than money can recover.


Shell Oil Company

Shell Oil Company is the United States-based wholly owned subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell, a multinational oil company of Anglo-Dutch origins, which is amongst the largest oil companies in the world. Shell Oil is wholly owned by British interests.

Approximately 22,000 Shell employees are based in the U.S. The U.S. headquarters are in Houston, Texas. Shell Oil Company, including its consolidated companies and its share in equity companies, is one of America’s largest oil and natural gas producers, natural gas marketers, gasoline marketers and petrochemical manufacturers.

Shell is the market leader through approximately 25,000 Shell-branded gas stations in the U.S. which also serve as Shell’s most visible public presence. At its gas stations Shell provides diesel fuel, gasoline and LPG.

Shell Oil Company was a 50/50 partner with the Saudi Arabian government-owned oil company Saudi Aramco in Motiva Enterprises, a refining and marketing joint venture which owns and operates three oil refineries on the Gulf Coast of the United States.

Shell products include oils, fuels, and car services as well as exploration, production, and refining of petroleum products. The Shell Oil Refinery in Martinez, California, the first Shell refinery in the United States, supplies Shell and Texaco stations in the West and Midwest.

After Texaco merged with Chevron in 2001, Shell purchased Texaco’s shares in the joint ventures. In 2002, Shell began converting these Texaco stations to the Shell brand, a process that was to be completed by June 2004 and was called “the largest retail re-branding initiative in American business history.”


Shell’s Crimes

Shell Puget Sound Refinery, Anacortes, Washington, was fined $291,000 from 2006 to 2010 for violations of the Clean Air Act making it the second most-fined violator in the Pacific Northwest. As of 2011, it was listed as “high priority violator” since 2008.

In 2008, a lawsuit was filed against Shell Oil Company for Clean Air Act violation. Shell Deer Park facility, 20 miles east of Houston, was the nation’s eighth-largest oil refinery and one of the world’s largest petrochemical producers.

The facility was also the second largest source of air pollution in Harris County, which ranked among the lowest in the nation in several measures of air quality.

Between 1978 and 1995, Shell Oil produced polybutylene pipes, which corrode when exposed to chlorine. A class action lawsuit was filed in 1995 against Shell Oil when the polybutylene pipes caused flooding in many households in the U.S. and Canada.

The settlement required Shell Oil to pay for the re-installation of piping for millions of houses for claims filed through May 2009.


British American Tobacco

British American Tobacco plc (BAT) is a British multinational tobacco company headquartered in London. It is the largest publicly traded tobacco company in the world. BAT has a primary listing on the London Stock Exchange.

BAT has a market-leading position in over 50 countries and operations in around 180 countries. Its four largest-selling brands are its native brand Dunhill and US brands Lucky Strike, Kent and Pall Mall, others the company markets include Benson & Hedges and Rothmans.

The company was formed in 1902, when the United Kingdom’s Imperial Tobacco Company and the United States’ American Tobacco Company agreed to form a joint venture, the British-American Tobacco Company Ltd. In 1911, the American Tobacco Company sold its share of the company.

Imperial Tobacco gradually reduced its shareholding, but it was not until 1980 that it divested its remaining interests in the company.

In July 2004 the U.S. business of British American Tobacco (Brown & Williamson) was combined with that of R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (R. J. Reynolds), under the R. J. Reynolds name.

R. J. Reynolds and Brown & Williamson were the second and third-ranking U.S. tobacco companies prior to the combination. When they combined, R. J. Reynolds became a subsidiary of Reynolds American, with BAT holding a 42% share.

In 2017, BAT bought the remaining 57.8 percent of U.S. cigarette maker Reynolds American in a $49.4 billion takeover that would create the world’s biggest listed tobacco company with brands including Newport, Lucky Strike and Pall Mall.

Over six million people worldwide die to tobacco death each year. The British don’t seem to mind that this industry kills more people per year than all the wars combined. There have been no class action suit against BAT in the UK.


ICAP – the World’s Largest Interdealer Broker

ICAP was the world’s largest interdealer broker for over-the-counter (OTC) trading.

In 2016, ICAP sold its global broker business to the British brokerage firm Tullett Prebon, which retained the “ICAP” brand, and ICAP rebranded the remaining, non-brokerage part of the business as NEX Group.

ICAP had daily transaction volume of more than $2.3 trillion at 50 locations in 32 countries, and offered both voice-driven and electronic brokerage systems plus post-trade services.

It provided wholesale brokerage on a range of interest rates, credit derivatives, commodities, foreign exchange, emerging markets, equities and equity derivatives.

More than 40 percent of its trading occurred on its two electronic trading platforms, BrokerTec and EBS, which merged to become EBS BrokerTec.

ICAP offers a range of OTC (over-the-counter) financial products and services in energy, foreign exchange, interest rates, credit and equity markets and indices.

For each of these asset classes, ICAP’s electronic capability gives customers the choice to enter prices and execute trades electronically, directly via one of ICAP’s electronic trading systems, or to engage with brokers to identify and help negotiate trades.

According to its 2013 Annual Report. Its electronic broking volume for 2013 reached $728.3 billion.

ICAP Becomes TP ICAP

TP ICAP plc is a global firm of professional intermediaries that operates in the world’s financial, energy and commodities markets. It is listed on the London Stock Exchange and is a constituent of the FTSE 250 Index.

In November 2015, the company agreed to terms with ICAP (now known as NEX Group) to acquire their global hybrid voice broking and information business. Using the name of the acquired business the company changed its name from Tullett Prebon plc to TP ICAP plc on 30 December 2016.

ICAP Crimes

On September 25, 2013, ICAP was fined a total of $87 million, including a $65 million settlement with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and a $22 million settlement with Britain’s Financial Conduct Authority as part of an investigation into the manipulation of the LIBOR benchmark interest rate.

The ICAP fine was in addition to settlements paid by British lenders Barclays and the Royal Bank of Scotland, as well as UBS, of Switzerland, of a combined $2.5 billion related to the LIBOR scandal. ICAP was the first interdealer broker fined for rigging the Libor.

In June 2014 ICAP received an antitrust complaint from the EU’s antitrust arm alleging it facilitated a cartel to manipulate yen Libor.

The complaint alleged that “ICAP acted as a facilitator to breaches of EU competition law by certain banks in relation to yen Libor for isolated periods between 2007 and 2010.”


The UK and Silicon Valley

The UK is the leading European destination for Silicon Valley investors, with British tech companies raising more venture capital from Bay area VCs than any other European country.

According to the investment data released by London & Partners, over the last five years UK tech companies have received more venture capital investment from West Coast investors than France, Germany and Ireland combined.

Silicon Valley investors continue to pump large sums of money into UK tech companies despite Brexit, with 2017 already seeing a record $1.13 billion raised since the beginning of the year.

The findings have been released to mark the start of Silicon Valley Comes to the UK, a week-long series of events bringing together leading figures from the Bay area and UK tech scenes.

Further analysis of the investment data reveals that London tech companies received the majority of venture capital investment from the Bay area, accounting for over 90% ($1.04bn) of the total amount raised by UK tech companies this year.

Over the last five years, London tech firms have also raised considerably more capital ($2.5bn) than their European counterparts.

London’s thriving VC market has been boosted by the number of unicorn companies based in the capital, with separate research from investment firm GP Bullhound revealing that London is home to more unicorns than any other European city.

Fresh analysis of its 2017 Titans of Tech report found that London accounts for almost one third of all unicorns in Europe. With 17 out of the 53 unicorns founded in London.


Rio Tinto and Resource Fleecing

Rio Tinto Energy America (RTEA) was a wholly owned American subsidiary of the England and Australia-based mining giant, the Rio Tinto Group, headquartered in Gillette, Wyoming, United States.

The company, previously known as Kennecott Energy after another of Rio Tinto’s American subsidiaries, was formed in 1993 when Rio Tinto purchased NERCO and placed that company’s Spring Creek coal mine and Antelope coal mine under the RTEA umbrella.

Subsequent acquisitions included the Cordero Mining Company, the Colowyo Coal Company, and the Jacobs Ranch coal mine. RTEA operated four mines  in Wyoming and Montana, supplying fuel for the generation of approximately 6% of the United States’ electricity consumption. The RTEA mines were spun off to Cloud Peak Energy in 2010.

Boron

The heart of Rio Tinto Borates’ business is the open-pit mine in Boron, California, one of two world-class borate deposits on the planet. Company founders began mining borates in 1872. What began as an underground mine was transformed into an open pit mine in 1957.

Resolution

The Resolution Copper project is a proposed copper mine that can supply the world with the copper it needs to support ongoing technological and environmental innovation.

The project will generate sustainable benefits for Arizona, creating several thousand direct and indirect jobs and is expected to have an economic value of several billion dollars over the estimated life of the mine.


Rio Tinto Kennecott

Rio Tinto Kennecott is a fully integrated mining operation located just outside Salt Lake City, Utah, US. Kennecott is a wholly owned subsidiary of Rio Tinto.

For more than 110 years, Kennecott has been mining and processing minerals from the rich orebody of the Bingham Canyon Mine. In 1989, Rio Tinto acquired the Bingham Canyon Mine and other facilities in the Salt Lake Valley.


Rio Tinto Crimes

The top U.S. securities regulator rejected arguments by Rio Tinto Plc and two former top executives that its civil lawsuit claiming they concealed the plunging value of coal assets owned by the big Anglo-Australian mining company should be dismissed.

In letters filed with the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, the Securities and Exchange Commission said its complaint adequately alleged that fraud occurred, and that Rio Tinto, former Chief Executive Thomas Albanese and former Chief Financial Officer Guy Elliott intended to deceive investors.

The SEC accused Rio Tinto of ignoring the need to write down most of the value of Mozambique coal assets it had bought for $3.7 billion in April 2011, while it was raising roughly $5.5 billion from U.S. investors.

Rio Tinto wrote off most of the value in January 2013, and sold the assets in late 2014 for just $50 million. It said that had Rio Tinto properly written down the assets, its net earnings for the first half of 2012 would have been reduced by more than 50 percent.


Canadian CGI Group Inc.

The total price tag for ObamaCare’s main enrollment portal cost American’s more than $2 billion, according to an analysis by Bloomberg Government. The new total includes efforts to construct and then fix HealthCare.gov after serious technical problems threatened to shutter the site last fall.

Who was the pathetic corporation that gouged Americans? A Canadian company called CGI – Consultants to Government and Industries.

Don’t forget, the British Crown owns large stakes in most Canadian national businesses due to being part of the British Commonwealth. The Queen always has her first choice of stocks in any Commonwealth Country – especially Canada.

Americans were not happy with the exorbitant costs charged by CGI, nor the fact that a Canadian company ripped-off U. S. tax-payers and created an ineffective portal that a high school student could have done a better job creating. Congressman Issa had this to say about the debacle:

“Two billion dollars is an awful lot to pay for a website with lingering security issues that transfers the costs of healthcare from customers to taxpayers,” said House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) in a statement.

“If this were private enterprise, the CEO would have been fired and company shareholders would be suing,” he added.

“But in this Administration, there’s no high-level accountability and the focus remains fixated on signing up as many Americans as possible regardless of the cost, the security risks, or the impact on the quality of healthcare for all Americans.”

CGI Group Inc. (Consultants to Government and Industries), more commonly known as CGI, is a Canadian global information technology consulting, systems integration, outsourcing, and solutions company headquartered in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

CGI purchased American Management Systems (AMS) for $858 million in 2004, which grew CGI’s presence in the United States.

CGI Federal’s 2010 acquisition of Stanley, Inc. for $1.07 billion almost doubled CGI’s presence in the United States, and expanded CGI into defense and intelligence contracts.

In 2012, CGI acquired Logica for $2.7 billion Canadian, making CGI the fifth-largest independent business processes and IT services provider in the world, and the biggest tech firm in Canada.

In 2016 CGI ranked No. 955 on the Forbes Forbes Global 2000. At the time CGI had assets worth CAD $20.9 billion, annual sales of $10.7 billion, and a market value of $9.6 billion.

As of 2017, CGI is based in forty countries with around 400 offices, and employs approximately 70,000 people. As much as 29% of CGI’s business comes from the United States.


Serco – British Control Our Sensitive Data

Queen Elizabeth II, owns and controls U. S. data management, corporate banking, resources of gas, uranium, gold, and many strategic resources and systems in the United States. This system of control is called SERCO, and it is essentially a Crown Agent.

Serco is not only an enemy of the United States, but an enemy of countries and people around the world. For example, did you know that the U. S. Patent Office is controlled by Serco?

That’s right, a BRITISH based company controls the creative efforts of American entrepreneurs and creators. Serco was the company awarded the Obamacare data management system that cost America’s over $2 billion.

That’s right. SES employees in charge of selecting contracts for this lucrative data management system couldn’t find any U.S. based companies to do the work. Instead they cherry-picked their buddies at British owned and controlled Serco to deliver Obamacare management.

Here are a few highlights of what Serco does already in our government. To our friends in other parts of the world, don’t be surprised when you see similar structures in your own country run by the British Monarch through Serco:

Serco manages all patents for the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office. Brits have the first shot at stealing American’s intellectual property rights. This is shocking but true.
Serco controls the most sensitive data management systems in all branches of the military, federal government, and state and local municipalities.
Serco controls air traffic management, airlines security, airport management and all aspects of ticketing, visa data management, and timetable management.
Serco is called, “the largest company no one has ever heard of.”
Serco’s efficiency rating in England, Canada, and Australia is below 65% and many lawsuits have been filed against the company for egregious fraud and mismanagement.
Serco was paid $1.2 billion to management the data of Obamacare — British company handling American’s private medical information.

Serco goes by many names, so always look under the hood in their corporate documents to find its trail back to Queen Lizzie. In America, it operates as Serco Inc. and claims on its website that it “is a leading provider of professional, technology, and management services for the federal government.”

Headquartered in Reston, Virginia, Serco Inc. has approximately 10,000 employees, annual revenue of $2.5 billion, and is ranked in the top 35 of the largest federal prime contractors.

Piercing the corporate veil, we find that Serco Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Serco Group plc, a $7 billion international business that works with government and public services around the world.

Many researchers say that Serco runs the United Kingdom (UK), the United States, Canada, and Australia.

Serco has over 60,000 people in 35 countries across the world. To our international readers, it is highly doubtful that they are not operating in your country.

Serco is a leading provider of public services of all types. Serco operates internationally across five sectors and four geographies: defense, justice, immigration, transportation, health and human services. Its services are delivered in UK, Europe, North America, Asia Pacific, and the Middle East.


Serco delivers records management and processing support services for many U. S. government agencies.

Major programs include processing and classifying of patent applications for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; records management and process of applications and petitions at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Service Centers; processing visa applications at the U.S. Department of State’s National Visa Center and Kentucky Consular Center; and, records management services at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ National Benefits Center, among many others.

Ninety percent of Serco’s business is with the federal government with 10,000 workers across 45 states. Serco’s experience is in paper pushing, records management, processing applications, processing visas, handling patents with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.


There are more than 60 million records that Serco handles for the Department of Homeland Security.

Serco Inc. is indeed part of Serco Group, an international contracting firm headquartered near London and partly owned by the UK government itself. Serco Inc. is the North America division of Serco Group, plc. In North America, Serco Inc. serves federal, state and local governments, along with the Canadian government and commercial customers, and over 14,000 in North Americas.

Digest that for a moment: U.S. federal records, personal medical records, patents, and visas are held by a company owned and directed by the British Monarch. Its “soldiers on the ground” are employees of SES. These SES employees guarantee that Serco gets the contracts and then manages and oversees their continued involvement.

Th UK is suing Serco for the alleged theft of $80 billion dollars. UK officials have been investigating Serco and found that the company is only effective 65% of the time. Serco has been found out to be corrupt from top to bottom.

Many mistakes of data management have also happened in the United States that have caused terrible disasters and multiple deaths. Serco manages services for the military and government that are incredibly sensitive and should be trusted to no one else but the United States of America.


Finally Winning the American Revolution

We are not a sovereign nation with our arrangement with the British government and UK based corporations. It seems that we are still subjects of the British Monarchy in many ways.

The American corporate mechanism for the continued enrichment of the British Crown is the same one used for the corporate sell-out of the American Republic – corporate lobbyists controlling Congress, corporate pay-to-play through the executive branch (such as Hillary’s Department of State), and the Senior Executive Service (SES) to maintain the bureaucratic status quo, selling out to global corporatism at every turn with no bid contracts and cronyism.

The Senior Executive Service and Serco are the people and organizational systems that the British Monarchy uses to control America through economic cronyism that bolsters the continued economic slavery of Americans to foreign powers.

The Senior Executive Service aligns with the imperialistic intents of Serco and the numerous other corporations that we have described in this intelligence report (BP, Shell, ICAP, British American Tobacco, Rio Tinto, etc).

It is time to send the Red Coats running home to Queen Lizzie and finally end the American Revolution against British tyranny. It is time to notice that the UK is not our friend and we should not be sharing intelligence in the Five Eyes Community (UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, USA).

We need to bring our wealth back home to America and stop using tax payer dollars to fund Crown Agents in whatever form they take. American freedom and independence does not need the dead weight of archaic monarchies that believe they should always get their “golden share” before the commoners get their crumbs.

​We must throw off the shackles that have tied the British Crown to American economic affairs. We do not need to pay taxes to the Crown any longer. We simply must choose American companies to do American work and stop the Senior Executive Service from giving higher priority to Crown Agents and British corporate interests.

Source: Aim4truth.org / References:

[1] Crown Agents USA Inc. Washington DC. (Accessed Apr. 17, 2018). Federal Vendor Contracting Profile via GovTribe. USAID.

[2] Crown Agents USA Inc. Wasington DC. (Sep. 30, 2012). Contract No. AIDOAAI1200038, $23.7m, thru Sep. 29, 2020 (7 years), PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGMENT: PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT (PFM) INDEFINITE DELIVERY INDEFINITE QUANTITY (IDIQ) CONTRACT – TO CROWN AGENTS via GovTribe. USAID.

[3] Crown Agents USA Inc. Washington DC. (Dec. 24, 2014). Contract No. AIDOAAI1200038-AID391TO1500001, $6m, thru Feb. 22, 2018 (3 years), SUPPORT FOR PRIVATIZATION ACTIVITY: IN SEPTEMBER 2013, THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN (GOP) AND THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND (IMF) REACHED AGREEMENT ON A THREE-YEAR, $ 6.68 BILLION EXTENDED FUND FACILITY (EFF). Vendor Contacts: Anne C. Sattgast, Joe G Lentini. Via GovTribe. USAID.

[4] Crown Agents USA Inc. Washington DC. (May 19, 2014). Contract No. AIDOAAI1200038-AIDOAATO1400007, $19m, thru Sep. 29, 2018 (4 years), PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGMENT: THIS ACTION PROVIDES GCC OFFICE FUNDING FOR A NEW EP-MANAGED TASK ORDER NAMED CEADIR – CLIMATE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS FOR DEVELOPMENT, INVESTMENT AND RESILIENCE UNDER THE PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT (PFM) IDIQ. Vendor Contacts: Anne C. Sattgast, Joe G Lentini. Via GovTribe. USAID.








APOSTOLIC LETTER
ISSUED MOTU PROPRIO
BY THE SUPREME PONTIFF
FRANCIS
“VOS ESTIS LUX MUNDI”

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden” (Mt 5:14). Our Lord Jesus Christ calls every believer to be a shining example of virtue, integrity and holiness. All of us, in fact, are called to give concrete witness of faith in Christ in our lives and, in particular, in our relationship with others.
The crimes of sexual abuse offend Our Lord, cause physical, psychological and spiritual damage to the victims and harm the community of the faithful. In order that these phenomena, in all their forms, never happen again, a continuous and profound conversion of hearts is needed, attested by concrete and effective actions that involve everyone in the Church, so that personal sanctity and moral commitment can contribute to promoting the full credibility of the Gospel message and the effectiveness of the Church’s mission. This becomes possible only with the grace of the Holy Spirit poured into our hearts, as we must always keep in mind the words of Jesus: “Apart from me you can do nothing” (Jn 15:5). Even if so much has already been accomplished, we must continue to learn from the bitter lessons of the past, looking with hope towards the future.
This responsibility falls, above all, on the successors of the Apostles, chosen by God to be pastoral leaders of his People, and demands from them a commitment to follow closely the path of the Divine Master. Because of their ministry, in fact, Bishops, “as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular churches entrusted to them by their counsel, exhortations, example, and even by their authority and sacred power, which indeed they use only for the edification of their flock in truth and holiness, remembering that he who is greater should become as the lesser and he who is the chief become as the servant” (Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, 27). What more closely concerns the successors of the Apostles concerns all those who, in various ways, assume ministries in the Church, or profess the evangelical counsels, or are called to serve the Christian People. Therefore, it is good that procedures be universally adopted to prevent and combat these crimes that betray the trust of the faithful.
I desire that this commitment be implemented in a fully ecclesial manner, so that it may express the communion that keeps us united, in mutual listening and open to the contributions of those who care deeply about this process of conversion.
Therefore, I decree:
TITLE I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Art. 1 – Scope of application
§1. These norms apply to reports regarding clerics or members of Institutes of Consecrated Life or Societies of Apostolic Life and concerning:
a) delicts against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue consisting of:
i.        forcing someone, by violence or threat or through abuse of authority, to perform or submit to sexual acts;
ii.       performing sexual acts with a minor or a vulnerable person;
iii.      the production, exhibition, possession or distribution, including by electronic means, of child pornography, as well as by the recruitment of or inducement of a minor or a vulnerable person to participate in pornographic exhibitions;
b) conduct carried out by the subjects referred to in article 6, consisting of actions or omissions intended to interfere with or avoid civil investigations or canonical investigations, whether administrative or penal, against a cleric or a religious regarding the delicts referred to in letter a) of this paragraph.
§2. For the purposes of these norms,
a) “minor” means: any person under the age of eighteen, or who is considered by law to be the equivalent of a minor;
b) “vulnerable person” means: any person in a state of infirmity, physical or mental deficiency, or deprivation of personal liberty which, in fact, even occasionally, limits their ability to understand or to want or otherwise resist the offence;
c) “child pornography” means: any representation of a minor, regardless of the means used, involved in explicit sexual activities, whether real or simulated, and any representation of sexual organs of minors for primarily sexual purposes.

Art. 2 – Reception of reports and data protection

§1. Taking into account the provisions that may be adopted by the respective Episcopal Conferences, by the Synods of the Bishops of the Patriarchal Churches and the Major Archiepiscopal Churches, or by the Councils of Hierarchs of the Metropolitan Churches sui iuris, the Dioceses or the Eparchies, individually or together, must establish within a year from the entry into force of these norms, one or more public, stable and easily accessible systems for submission of reports, even through the institution of a specific ecclesiastical office.  The Dioceses and the Eparchies shall inform the Pontifical Representative of the establishment of the systems referred to in this paragraph.
§2. The information referred to in this article is protected and treated in such a way as to guarantee its safety, integrity and confidentiality pursuant to canons 471, 2° CIC and 244 §2, 2° CCEO.
§3. Except as provided for by article 3 §3, the Ordinary who received the report shall transmit it without delay to the Ordinary of the place where the events are said to have occurred, as well as to the Ordinary of the person reported, who proceed according to the law provided for the specific case.
§4. For the purposes of this title, Eparchies are equated with Dioceses and the Hierarch is equated with the Ordinary.
Art. 3 – Reporting
§1. Except as provided for by canons 1548 §2 CIC and 1229 §2 CCEO, whenever a cleric or a member of an Institute of Consecrated Life or of a Society of Apostolic Life has notice of, or well-founded motives to believe that, one of the facts referred to in article 1 has been committed, that person is obliged to report promptly the fact to the local Ordinary where the events are said to have occurred or to another Ordinary among those referred to in canons 134 CIC and 984 CCEO, except for what is established by §3 of the present article.
§2. Any person can submit a report concerning the conduct referred to in article 1, using the methods referred to in the preceding article, or by any other appropriate means.
§3. When the report concerns one of the persons indicated in article 6, it is to be addressed to the Authority identified based upon articles 8 and 9. The report can always be sent to the Holy See directly or through the Pontifical Representative.
§4. The report shall include as many particulars as possible, such as indications of time and place of the facts, of the persons involved or informed, as well as any other circumstance that may be useful in order to ensure an accurate assessment of the facts.
§5. Information can also be acquired ex officio.
Art. 4 – Protection of the person submitting the report
§1. Making a report pursuant to article 3 shall not constitute a violation of office confidentiality.
§2. Except as provided for by canons 1390 CIC and 1452 and 1454 CCEO, prejudice, retaliation or discrimination as a consequence of having submitted a report is prohibited and may constitute the conduct referred to in article 1 §1, letter b).
§3. An obligation to keep silent may not be imposed on any person with regard to the contents of his or her report.
Art. 5 – Care for persons
§1. The ecclesiastical Authorities shall commit themselves to ensuring that those who state that they have been harmed, together with their families, are to be treated with dignity and respect, and, in particular, are to be:
a) welcomed, listened to and supported, including through provision of specific services;
b) offered spiritual assistance;
c) offered medical assistance, including therapeutic and psychological assistance, as required by the specific case.
§2. The good name and the privacy of the persons involved, as well as the confidentiality of their personal data, shall be protected.

TITLE II
PROVISIONS CONCERNING BISHOPS
AND THEIR EQUIVALENTS
Art. 6 – Subjective scope of application
The procedural norms referred to in this title concern the conduct referred to in article 1, carried out by:
a) Cardinals, Patriarchs, Bishops and Legates of the Roman Pontiff;
b) clerics who are, or who have been, the pastoral heads of a particular Church or of an entity assimilated to it, Latin or Oriental, including the Personal Ordinariates, for the acts committed durante munere;
c) clerics who are or who have been in the past leaders of a Personal Prelature, for the acts committed durante munere;
d) those who are, or who have been, supreme moderators of Institutes of Consecrated Life or of Societies of Apostolic Life of Pontifical right, as well as of monasteries sui iuris, with respect to the acts committed durante munere.
Art. 7 – Competent Dicastery
§1. For the purposes of this title, “competent Dicastery” means the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, regarding the delicts reserved to it by the norms in force, as well as, in all other cases and as far as their respective jurisdiction is concerned, based on the proper law of the Roman Curia:
- the Congregation for the Oriental Churches;
- the Congregation for Bishops;
- the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples;
- the Congregation for the Clergy;
- the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.
§2. In order to ensure the best coordination, the competent Dicastery informs the Secretariat of State, and the other Dicasteries directly concerned, of the report and the outcome of the investigation.
§3. The communications referred to in this title between the Metropolitan and the Holy See take place through the Pontifical Representative.
Art. 8 – Procedure applicable in the event of a report concerning a Bishop of the Latin Church
§1. The Authority that receives a report transmits it both to the Holy See and to the Metropolitan of the Ecclesiastical Province where the person reported is domiciled.
§2. If the report concerns the Metropolitan, or the Metropolitan See is vacant, it shall be forwarded to the Holy See, as well as to the senior suffragan Bishop by promotion, to whom, if such is the case, the following provisions regarding the Metropolitan apply.
§3. In the event that the report concerns a Papal Legate, it shall be transmitted directly to the Secretariat of State.
Art. 9 – Procedure applicable to Bishops of Eastern Catholic Churches
§1. Reports concerning a Bishop of a Patriarchal, Major Archiepiscopal or Metropolitan Church sui iuris shall be forwarded to the respective Patriarch, Major Archbishop or Metropolitan of the Church sui iuris.
§2. If the report concerns a Metropolitan of a Patriarchal or Major Archiepiscopal Church, who exercises his office within the territory of these Churches, it is forwarded to the respective Patriarch or Major Archbishop.
§3. In the preceding cases, the Authority who receives the report shall also forward it to the Holy See.
§4. If the person reported is a Bishop or a Metropolitan outside the territory of the Patriarchal, the Major Archiepiscopal or the Metropolitan Church sui iuris, the report shall be forwarded to the Holy See.
§5. In the event that the report concerns a Patriarch, a Major Archbishop, a Metropolitan of a Church sui iuris or a Bishop of the other Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris, it shall be forwarded to the Holy See.
§ 6. The following provisions relating to the Metropolitan apply to the ecclesiastical Authority to which the report is to be forwarded based on this article.
Art. 10 – Initial duties of the Metropolitan
§1. Unless the report is manifestly unfounded, the Metropolitan immediately requests, from the competent Dicastery, that he be assigned to commence the investigation. If the Metropolitan considers the report manifestly unfounded, he shall so inform the Pontifical Representative.
§2. The Dicastery shall proceed without delay, and in any case within thirty days from the receipt of the first report by the Pontifical Representative or the request for the assignment by the Metropolitan, providing the appropriate instructions on how to proceed in the specific case.
Art. 11 – Entrusting the investigation to a person other than the Metropolitan
§1. If the competent Dicastery considers it appropriate to entrust the investigation to a person other than the Metropolitan, the Metropolitan is so informed. The Metropolitan delivers all relevant information and documents to the person appointed by the Dicastery.
§2. In the case referred to in the previous paragraph, the following provisions relating to the Metropolitan apply to the person charged with conducting the investigation.
Art. 12 – Carrying out the investigation
§1. Once he has been appointed by the competent Dicastery and acting in compliance with the instructions received, the Metropolitan, either personally or through one or more suitable persons:
a) collects relevant information regarding the facts;
b) accesses the information and documents necessary for the purpose of the investigation kept in the archives of ecclesiastical offices;
c) obtains the cooperation of other Ordinaries or Hierarchs whenever necessary;
d) requests information from individuals and institutions, including civil institutions, that are able to provide useful elements for the investigation.
§2. If it is necessary to hear from a minor or a vulnerable person, the Metropolitan shall adopt appropriate procedures, which take into account their status.
§3. In the event that there are well-founded motives to conclude that information or documents concerning the investigation are at risk of being removed or destroyed, the Metropolitan shall take the necessary measures for their preservation.
§4. Even when making use of other persons, the Metropolitan nevertheless remains responsible for the direction and conduct of the investigation, as well as for the timely execution of the instructions referred to in article 10 §2.
§5. The Metropolitan shall be assisted by a notary freely appointed pursuant to canons 483 §2 CIC and 253 §2 CCEO.
§6. The Metropolitan is required to act impartially and free of conflicts of interest. If he considers himself to be in a conflict of interest or is unable to maintain the necessary impartiality to guarantee the integrity of the investigation, he is obliged to recuse himself and report the circumstance to the competent Dicastery.
§7. The person under investigation enjoys the presumption of innocence.
§ 8. The Metropolitan, if requested by the competent Dicastery, informs the person of the investigation concerning him/her, hears his/her account of the facts and invites him/her to present a brief in defence. In such cases, the investigated person may be assisted by legal counsel.
§9. Every thirty days, the Metropolitan sends a status report on the state of the investigation to the competent Dicastery.
Art. 13 – Involvement of qualified persons
§1. In accordance with any eventual directives of the Episcopal Conference, of the Synod of Bishops or of the Council of Hierarchs regarding how to assist the Metropolitan in conducting the investigation, the Bishops of the respective Province, individually or together, may establish lists of qualified persons from which the Metropolitan may choose those most suitable to assist in the investigation, according to the needs of the individual case and, in particular, taking into account the cooperation that can be offered by the lay faithful pursuant to canons 228 CIC and 408 CCEO.
§2. The Metropolitan, however, is free to choose other equally qualified persons.
§3. Any person assisting the Metropolitan in the investigation is required to act impartially and must be free of conflicts of interest. If he considers himself to be in a conflict of interest or be unable to maintain the necessary impartiality required to guarantee the integrity of the investigation, he is obliged to recuse himself and report the circumstances to the Metropolitan.
§4. The persons assisting the Metropolitan shall take an oath to fulfil their charge properly.
Art. 14 – Duration of the investigation
§1. The investigation is to be completed within the term of ninety days or within a term otherwise provided for by the instructions referred to in article 10 §2.
§2. Where there are just reasons, the Metropolitan may request that the competent Dicastery extend the term.
Art. 15 - Precautionary measures
Should the facts or circumstances require it, the Metropolitan shall propose to the competent Dicastery the adoption of provisions or appropriate precautionary measures with regard to the person under investigation.
Art. 16 – Establishment of a fund
§1. Ecclesiastical Provinces, Episcopal Conferences, Synods of Bishops and Councils of Hierarchs may create a fund, to be established according to the norms of canons 116 and 1303 §1, 1° CIC and 1047 CCEO and administered according to the norms of canon law, whose purpose is to sustain the costs of the investigations.
§2. At the request of the appointed Metropolitan, the funds necessary for the purpose of the investigation are made available to him by the administrator of the fund; the Metropolitan remain duty-bound to present an account to the administrator at the conclusion of the investigation.
Art. 17 – Transmission of the documents and the votum
§1. Having completed the investigation, the Metropolitan shall transmit the acts to the competent Dicastery, together with his votum regarding the results of the investigation and in response to any queries contained in the instructions issued under article 10 §2.
§2. Unless there are further instructions from the competent Dicastery, the faculties of the Metropolitan cease once the investigation is completed.
§3. In compliance with the instructions of the competent Dicastery, the Metropolitan, upon request, shall inform the person who has alleged an offence, or his/her legal representatives, of the outcome of the investigation.
Art. 18 – Subsequent measures
Unless it decides to provide for a supplementary investigation, the competent Dicastery proceeds in accordance with the law provided for the specific case.
Art. 19 – Compliance with state laws
These norms apply without prejudice to the rights and obligations established in each place by state laws, particularly those concerning any reporting obligations to the competent civil authorities.
The present norms are approved ad experimentum for three years.
I establish that the present Apostolic Letter in the form of Motu Proprio be promulgated by means of publication in the Osservatore Romano, entering into force on 1 June 2019, and then published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
Given in Rome, at Saint Peter’s, on 7 May 2019, the seventh year of my Pontificate.
 
FRANCIS

© Copyright - Libreria Editrice Vaticana





APOSTOLIC LETTER
ISSUED MOTU PROPRIO
BY THE SUPREME PONTIFF
FRANCIS
COMMUNIS VITA
WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE MODIFICATION OF SEVERAL NORMS OF THE CODE OF CANON LAW

Life in community is an essential element of religious life, and “religious are to live in their own religious house and are not to be absent from it except with the permission of their superior” (Can. 665 §1 CIC). The experience of recent years has, however, demonstrated that situations occur that are related to illegitimate absences from the religious house, during which religious distance themselves from the jurisdiction of the legitimate Superior and at times cannot be located.
The Code of Canon Law requires the Superior to seek out the illegitimately absent religious in order to help him or her to return and persevere in his or her vocation (cf. can. 665 §2 CIC). Quite often, however, it may happen that the Superior is unable to locate the absent religious. Pursuant to the Code of Canon Law, after at least six months of illegitimate absence (cf. can. 696 CIC), it is possible to begin the process of dismissal by the institute, according to the established procedure (cf. can. 697 CIC). However, when the religious’ place of residence is unknown, it becomes difficult to accord juridical certainty to the de facto situation.
Therefore, notwithstanding what is established by the law on dismissal following six months of illegitimate absence, in order to help institutes apply the necessary discipline and be able to proceed to the dismissal of the illegitimately absent religious, especially in cases in which his or her location is unknown, I have decided to add to can. 694 §1 CIC, among the reasons for dismissal ipso factofrom the institute, also a prolonged illegitimate absence from the religious house lasting at least 12 consecutive months, with the same procedure described in can. 694 §2 CIC. In order to produce juridical effects, the statement of the case by the Major Superior must be confirmed by the Holy See; for institutes of diocesan right, the confirmation rests with the Bishop of the principal See.
The introduction of this new article to §1 of can. 694 requires, moreover, a modification of can. 729 with regard to secular institutes, for which the application of discretionary dismissal for illegitimate absence is not provided.
Considering the foregoing, I now dispose as follows:
Art. 1. Can. 694 CIC is entirely replaced by the following text:
§1. A religious must be held as dismissed ipso facto from an institute who:
1) has defected notoriously from the Catholic faith;
2) has contracted marriage or attempted it, even only civilly;
3) has been illegitimately absent from the religious house, pursuant to can. 665 §2, for 12 consecutive months, taking into account that the location of the religious himself or herself may be unknown.
§2. In such cases the Major Superior, with his or her Council and without hesitation, having gathered the evidence, must issue the statement of the case so that the dismissal may be juridically constituted.
§3. In the case envisaged by §1 n. 3, in order to be juridically constituted, this statement must be confirmed by the Holy See; for institutes of diocesan right the confirmation rests with the Bishop of the principal See.
Art. 2. Can. 729 CIC is entirely replaced by the following text:
Dismissal of a member of the institute proceeds pursuant to cann. 694 §1, 1 and 2; and 695. The constitutions may also define other causes for dismissal, provided that they be commensurately serious, external, attributable and juridically proven, and that the procedure established in cann. 697-700 also be observed. The provisions of can. 701 are applicable to the dismissed member.
As deliberated with this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio, I dispose that it take firm and permanent effect, despite any matters to the contrary even if worthy of special mention, and that it be promulgated by publication in L’Osservatore Romano, entering into force on 10 April 2019, and thereafter be published in the official commentary Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
Given in Rome at Saint Peter’s on 19 March 2019 Solemnity of Saint Joseph seventh year of my Pontificate.

FRANCIS



APOSTOLIC LETTER
ISSUED «MOTU PROPRIO»
BY THE SUPREME PONTIFF
FRANCIS
ON THE PONTIFICAL COMMISSION
"ECCLESIA DEI"


For over 30 years the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, instituted with the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei Adflicta of 2 July 1988, has carried out with sincere solicitude and praiseworthy concern the task of collaborating with the Bishops and the Dicasteries of the Roman Curia, in facilitating the full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, communities or individual men and women religious connected with the Fraternity founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who wished to remain united to the Successor of Peter in the Catholic Church, preserving their own spiritual and liturgical traditions.[1]
In this way, it was able to exercise its own authority and competence in the name of the Holy See over these societies and associations, until otherwise provided.[2]
Subsequently, by virtue of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum of 7 July 2007, the Pontifical Commission extended the authority of the Holy See to those Institutes and Religious Communities which had adhered to the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite and had assumed the precedent traditions of religious life, supervising the observance and application of the provisions established.[3]
Two years later, my Venerable Predecessor Benedict XVI, with the Motu Proprio Ecclesiae Unitatem of 2 July 2009, reorganized the structure of the Pontifical Commission, in order to make it more suited to the new situation created by the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated without pontifical mandate. And, furthermore, considering that after this act of grace, the questions addressed by the same Pontifical Commission were of a primarily doctrinal nature, he connected it more systematically to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, while maintaining its initial aims, but modifying its structure.[4]
Now, as the Feria IV of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of 15 November 2017 formulated the request that dialogue between the Holy See and the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X be conducted directly by the aforementioned Congregation, as the matters being addressed are of a doctrinal nature, to which request I gave my approval in Audientia with the Prefect on 24 November 2017 and this proposal was accepted by the Plenary Session of the same Congregation celebrated from 23 to 26 January 2018, after ample reflection, I have arrived at the following decision.
Considering that today the conditions which led the holy Pontiff John Paul II to institute the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei have changed;
noting that the Institutes and Religious Communities which customarily celebrate in the extraordinary form have today found proper stability of number and of life;
recognizing that the aims and questions addressed by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei are of a predominantly doctrinal order;
and wishing that these aims be made ever more evident to the conscience of the ecclesial communities,
with this Apostolic Letter ‘Motu Proprio data’,
I decree that
1. The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, instituted on 2 July 1988 with the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, is decommmissioned.
2. The tasks of the Commission in question are assigned entirely to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, within which will be established a special Section committed to continue the work of supervision, promotion and protection conducted thus far by the decommissioned Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.
3. The financial report of the Pontifical Commission returns to the ordinary accounting of the aforementioned Congregation.
Furthermore, I establish that this Motu Proprio — to be observed notwithstanding anything to the contrary, even if worthy of specific mention — be promulgated by publication in the 19 January 2019 issue of L’Osservatore Romano, entering immediately into force, and that it be inserted thereafter into the official register of the Holy See, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
Given in Rome, at Saint Peter’s on 17 January 2019 Sixth Year of My Pontificate

Francis
[1] Cf. Ioannes Paulus PP. II, Litterae Apostolicae ‘Motu proprio datae’, Ecclesia Dei adflicta, 2 Iulii 1988,AAS, LXXX (1988), 12 (15 Nov. 1988), 1495-1498, 6a.
[2]  Cf. Rescriptum ex Audientia Sanctissimi, 18 Oct. 1988, AAS, LXXXII (1990), 5 (3 Maii 1990), 533-534, 6.
[3] Cf. Benedictus PP. XVI, Litterae Apostolicae ‘Motu proprio datae’, Summorum Pontificum, 7 Iulii 2007, AAS, XCIX (2007), 9 (7 Sept. 2007), 777-781, 12.
[4] Cf. Benedictus PP. XVI, Litterae Apostolicae ‘Motu proprio datae’, Ecclesiae unitatem, 2 Iulii 2009, AAS, CI (2009), 8 (7 Aug. 2009), 710-711, 5.

© Copyright - Libreria Editrice Vaticana



APOSTOLIC LETTER
ISSUED «MOTU PROPRIO»
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
FRANCIS
“LEARN TO TAKE YOUR LEAVE”
GOVERNING THE RESIGNATION, FOR REASONS OF AGE, OF HOLDERS OF CERTAIN OFFICES 
SUBJECT TO PAPAL APPOINTMENT

“Learn to take your leave” is what I asked, in commenting on a reading of the Acts of the Apostles (cf. 20:17-27), in a prayer for pastors (cf. Homily in the Mass at Santa Marta, 30 May 2017). The conclusion of an ecclesial office must be considered an integral part of the service itself, since it calls for a new form of amenability.
This interior attitude is necessary when, for reasons of age, one must prepare to leave his position, or when one is called to continue that service for a longer period, even though the age of 75 has been reached (cf. Address to rectors and students of the Pontifical Colleges and Residents of Rome, 12 May 2014).
One who prepares to submit his resignation needs to prepare himself appropriately before God, stripping himself of any aspiration to power and of the claim of being indispensable. This will allow him to calmly and trustingly take this step, which would otherwise be painful and discordant. At the same time, one who truly realizes the need to step down must discern in prayer how to experience the stage that is about to begin, by making a new plan of life, marked as much as possible by austerity, humility, prayers of intercession, time dedicated to reading, and willingness to provide simple pastoral services.
On the other hand, if exceptionally one is asked to continue to serve for a longer period, this entails generously giving up one’s new personal project. This situation, however, must not be considered a privilege or a personal triumph, or a favour due to presumed obligations deriving from friendship or closeness, nor as gratitude for the effectiveness of services rendered. Every eventual deferment can only be understood in line with certain reasons that are always linked to the common good of the Church. This pontifical decision is not an automatic act but an act of governance; consequently it entails the virtue of prudence which will help one, through appropriate discernment, to take the suitable decision.
I cite only as examples some of the possible reasons: the importance of appropriately completing a very fruitful project for the Church; interest in ensuring the continuity of important works; difficulties related to the composition of the Dicastery in a period of transition; the importance of this person’s contribution may lead to the application of directives recently issued by the Holy See or to the implementation of new magisterial directions.
With the provisions for the resignation of diocesan Bishops and holders of offices subject to papal appointment, contained in theRescriptum ex audientia of 3 November 2014, granted to the Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, I wished to integrate the canonical legislation and introduce several modifications, which I confirm entirely, with the exception of the sections that are explicitly reformulated by the following provisions.
Given the generous commitment demonstrated and the valuable experience accumulated by those who have for many years played several roles of particular responsibility, whether in the particular Churches or in the Roman Curia or as Pontifical Representatives, I recognize the need to update the norms regarding the times and methods of resignation from office for having reached the age limit. After having held the necessary consultations, I think it necessary to proceed as follows:
a. to further clarify art. 2 of the aforementioned Rescriptum relative to diocesan Bishops, Coadjutor and Auxiliary Bishops (cf. cc. 401-402, 411 cic, and 210-211, 218, 213 cceo);
b. to modify the canonical norms regarding the resignation from office, for reasons of age, of non-Cardinal Dicastery Heads and of Superior Prelates of the Roman Curia (cf. Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus, 28 June 1980, art. 5 § 2: aas 80 [1988], 860; General Regulations of the Roman Curia, 1999 art. 3; Rescriptum ex audientia, 3 November 2014, art. 7), of Bishops holding other offices subject to papal appointment (cf. Rescriptum ex audientia, 3 November 2014, art. 7) and of Pontifical Representatives (cf. c. 367 cic; General Regulations of the Roman Curia, 1999, art. 8, § 2.; Regulations for Pontifical Representatives, 2003, art 20, § 1).
With this Motu Proprio I establish:
Art. 1. Upon reaching 75 years of age, diocesan and eparchial Bishops, and those deemed equivalent to them according to canons 381 § 2 cic and 313 cceo, as well as Coadjutor and Auxiliary Bishops or holders of special pastoral responsibilities, are invited to present to the Supreme Pontiff their resignation from pastoral office.
Art. 2. Upon reaching 75 years of age, non-Cardinal Dicastery Heads of the Roman Curia, Superior Prelates of the Roman Curia and Bishops holding other offices of the Holy See, do not ipso facto cede their office, but must present their resignation to the Supreme Pontiff.
Art. 3. Likewise, Pontifical Representatives do not ipso facto cede their office upon reaching seventy-five years of age, but in this circumstance must present their resignation to the Supreme Pontiff.
Art. 4. To be effective, resignation pursuant to articles 1-3 must be accepted by the Supreme Pontiff, who will decide by evaluating the concrete circumstances.
Art. 5. Once the resignation is presented, the office relative to articles 1-3 will be extended until acceptance of the resignation is communicated to the interested party, for a fixed or unspecified time, contrary to the general terms established by canons 189 § 3 cic and 970 § 1 cceo.
All that I have deliberated with this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio I order be observed in all its parts, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, even if worthy of particular mention; and I establish that it be promulgated by way of publication in the daily newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, entering into force on the same day of promulgation and that, subsequently, it be published in the official Commentary Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
Given in Rome at Saint Peter’s, on 12 February 2018, fifth of my Pontificate

Francis


© Copyright - Libreria Editrice Vaticana
Download

Steele dossier

Download

Nunes Memo

Download