How the Vatican ‘Legally’ Gets Away With Child Abuse
Why Washington D.C. should be renamed ‘Virgin Mary Land’
By Greg Szymanski, JD
June 3, 2009
This three-part series of articles by Australian researcher Frank O’Collins starts today by asking the blunt question:
How can the Vatican continue to “legally” get away with child abuse?
His answer lies deep within the Western legal system, a system carved out by the Vatican centuries ago which conveniently places the Holy See above the law.
The second part of his series which will appear tomorrow focuses in on why Washington D.C. should be renamed “Virgin Mary Land” and why it is nothing more than Lucifer’s very special playground.
In the last article, appearing Thursday, O’Collins will tell us how the Vatican and Jesuits manufactured Shakespeare and how they used his writings to advance the legal system we live under today.
But now O’Collins tells us how the Vatican can legally get away with child abuse all over the world. Here is what he has to say:
Anyone who views the TV news, reads the papers or has heard from some friends knows that the Roman Catholic Church, controlled by the Vatican in Rome is guilty of at least covering up wholesale child molestation and abuse on an unprecedented scale. The recent events that have been unearthed in Ireland are a perfect example.
If for one moment we considered the Vatican to be a private services organization such as a chain of child care centres, then the whole network would have been shut down by the Justice department, all the executives would now be in jail and common law suits of millions of dollars would have been paid. So why hasn’t this happened in the case of the Vatican?
Why? for example have priests, nuns and bishops in Ireland been “let off the hook” for decades of systematic child abuse in Ireland—tantamount to serial torture—and not one priest is set to go to prison?
Why in places like the United States, Canada, Australia has so little been paid by the local arm of the Vatican for proven cases of child abuse in courts of law?
Most importantly, how come the Vatican continues to get away with hundreds of thousands of verifiable cases of evil child molestation across the planet and no one seems able to stop it?
Sadly, the answer lies not in a fear of the Vatican and the Roman Cult, but the inherit design of the very legal system of our countries that we think we know and trust. The weakness lies in the very fabric of the modern western legal system as first formed by the Jesuits of the College of English at the end of the 16th century and transmitted into common usage through such masterworks as the manufacture of William Shakespeare.
The weakness lies in the supreme lie concocted by Pope Innocent III in the 13th Century and the first formation of the Holy See that claimed the ancient (and false) right of supremacy above all secular laws of society by the terribly corrupted Codex Justinian and Pandects of previous Roman emperors.
So as much as a judge or magistrate may wish to hear a case against the Vatican for one of their many crimes against humanity, he or she may be stripped of all jurisdiction in the matter simply by the Vatican—the Roman Cult—exercising its ancient fraudulent right of supremacy both in the legal words and fabric of law and ancient forged documents.
How then might the church be forced to be held account? What cruel legal trickery is played upon the many hundreds of thousands of victims of the Vatican so that their right of remedy is stolen? And how might good individuals become better forewarned and forearmed in understanding the corrupt personality of the Vatican led New World Order?
The modern western legal system
The modern western legal system–first fully formed and launched at the end of the 16th century –is the system of legal terms, phrases and precedents by which 80% of the population of planet Earth are governed.
Its origin can be found from the works of the 1st Jesuit university and scriptorium in Rome known as the College of English by Papal Charter (Bull) by Gregory XIII (1572-1585) on 23 April 1579, appointing Jesuit Fr. Alphonsus Agazzari S.J. as its rector. This is in turn is the home and origin of the unmatched “Shakespeare Folio” of magnificent works of 37 plays, 154 sonnets and 2 narrative poems from no earlier than 1598 to no later than 1613–the first folio being published in 1623.
It is from the Jesuit written “Shakespeare Folio” that we see the use 884,000 words; contained in 34,896 lines; spoken by 1,211 characters; representing no less than 28,829 word forms—of which over 2,500 were new words to the English language for the first time (The Oxford English Dictionary attributes only around 2,000 new words to Shakespeare).
Again to put this in perspective, King James or Authorized Version of the Holy Bible, published in 1611 makes use of a mere 8,000 word forms; the playright Christopher Marlowe used around 7,000; the poet John Milton 6,000, Charles Dickens 8,000 word forms.
What is directly relevant to the modern western legal system in the Jesuit written “Shakespeare Folio” of works is that over 1,700 of the newly created words released as a whole model by the beginning of the 17th Century remain the cornerstones of meaning of our modern legal system including: accused, addiction, assassination, bandit, bar, case, contract, courtship, creditor, crown, debt, employer, investments, law, bond, lawyer, majestic, marriage, negotiate, obligation, secure, submit, vessel, understand.
Yet if the creation of a complete legal lexicon embedded within the Jesuit “Skakespeare Folio” is impressive, it is the unique and complete demonstration of legal precedence, legal procedure and function resulting in the Holy See remaining above the laws of man that is the crowning achievement.
Simply, from the time of James I, the Crown (of England) treated Shakespeare as if it were an extension of its own legal statutes–required reading for all judges, lawyers and men involved in trade. Why? Because it was common knowledge up until the 20th Century that Shakespeare remained the most comprehensive reference of legal statutes and procedures for English and common law for nearly 400 years.
The essential structure of the modern legal system
As complex as the legal system may appear, its basic structure and function is very simple. Our western legal system by its primary nature is a system of consent, precedence and judgment.
Unlike dictatorships and places having authoritarian, sometimes absolute religious rule, the modern western legal system requires constent of an individual to the system, not their forced compliance.
Modern western law can therefore be most simply described as “A set of accepted traditions (orthodoxies) validated by their consent use under an agreed authority”.
Therefore a law for a small community, represents no less a valid law than a law agreed amongst nations—except that international laws are generally regarded to have precedence over local laws, through treaties (surrendering of rights) to the larger community of law.
A person may claim a law contrary to national or international law. That in itself may not render a law invalid. Instead, it is encumbered upon that individual to demonstrate – non consent, and a legal alternative that is greater in validity to the present law being contested.
This is where such arguments become tricky. Validity is a gladiatorial battle between ideas, words, definitions and systems whereby only the most comprehensive, the largest, the strongest win. It is why claiming a new precedent to a court requires enormous effort to have it accepted in common law, not because the claim may be unproven, but it must also be valid (equal or stronger to a contrary argument).
This is demonstrated through the skill of lawyers, who use words to present such cases for and against fundamental propositions of assumed guilt or innocence—lack of, or existence of doubt.
The trickery of consent
The consent of a living individual man, woman or group of men and/or women is one of the fundamental principles of Western Law. Unlike some older forms of law, which provided almost no opportunity for an individual to agree (consent) to the proceedings against them, Western law is predicated on the Roman Cult philosophy of the surrender of individual free will—thereby abdicating fundamental rights before proceedings with the dispute of legal action.
This consent and surrender of free will is done through the oration and documentation of key legal terms designed to transfer an individual’s rights by consent including PERSON, UNDERSTAND, STATEMENT, DECLARATION.
In all legal cases brought against an individual in modern western law, the legal system begins by first requiring an individual consent to be treated as a PERSON by:
· Writing their name in CAPITALS according to the legal principle of and a legal recognition of a PERSON
· Witnessing an oath to the effect that an individual consents to themselves being treated as a PERSON
· Openly declaring as a PERSON that person UNDERSTANDS their RIGHTS, thereby surrendering all extraneous common law rights not ascribed to a PERSON and placing an individual (by their own consent) into the limited rights prescribed by law for a PERSON of your CHARACTER.
When a POLICE OFFICER asks an individual do they UNDERSTAND? He/she is asking literally to CONSENT TO “To stand under the authority of the Church (Roman Cult)”—the literal meaning of the word. Therefore, in such a simple word as UNDERSTAND, individuals unwittingly give their consent to be treated as a SUSPECTED PERSON, not as an individual who by common law rights possesses a superior number of rights over and above any challenge by authority. By right, an individual by ancient common law right has the freedom of passage—that is to travel freely unencumbered on the highways of the land.
The word LAW itself comes from the ancient Latin cultural laws of LARES from 3rd Century BCE Latin meaning “a group ancient Roman deities (gods) defining localized activities, customs and practices accumulated over time including (but not limited to) home, family, the state, the sea, land and travel”. But it was under the Jesuit Shakespeare embedded legal system that we first see the modern word LAW appear meaning “A collection of rules (doctrines), customs and practices (accumulated over time) enjoining or prohibiting certain action; also the individual rules themselves”. In contrast, Roman civil law was founded on lēx/lēgis (statutes) and later (under Constantine) ilex (universal statutes). The modern western legal systems of nations are therefore based on inferior lāres –religious doctrines and concepts designed by the Roman Cult–while the Roman Cult reserved the formal structure of superior lēx/lēgis in the form of covenants and agreements such as Concordats, Official Church Councils and Papal Charters (Bulls).
By ancient common law right, an individual has the basic freedom of their body not to be subject to arrest without a properly notarized document that in itself must demonstrate consent to be a PERSON. If no consent is given, then even a court warrant to search a building is a fraudulent document—an illegal document. When an individual is asked are they the PERSON on a warrant and say yes, then they CONSENT to the document being properly notarized and they having the limited rights of a PERSON.
Of course, an authority figure may ignore the law and arrest and individual without their consent, including an unlawful warrant to search. Yet the system is careful to maintain a continual flow of consent. For when an individual reaches the prison as a prisoner, they are required to sign (consent) to entering the building—making such consent the legal equivalent to a VESSEL consenting to MASTER of the ships they are under BOND (their jurisdiction and control).
Yet an individual that refuses consent, even upon the threat of violence and intimidation retains a fundamental common law right—which under the western legal system has always applied. An individual who does not consent to the fiction of a PERSON retains the common law right of HABAES CORPUS and may apply immediately to be freed and presented to the nearest court to hear why they should be kept in custody.
In most cases, where an individual can demonstrate that at no time was their arrest or imprisonment lawful, must immediately release an individual under HABAES CORPUS as the court has no power to enforce an illegal act.
The trick of legal status
Legal status is the most important form of legal precedence. Legal status is the status of the individual before the courts. An individual that surrenders their rights to become a PERSON must then rely not on common law principles, but their PERSONAL STATUS within (the laws) of society.
This is why—in spite of all claims to the contrary—that the modern western legal system will forever favour the rich and the powerful over the poor and dispossessed, because that is how it is designed in the first place.
However, there exists a group of individuals that have higher status before a court, regardless of their personal wealth or position in society—they are individuals that exercise an awareness of legal precedence in relation to court jurisdiction.
The first group is the Roman Catholic Church, the Vatican and also known as Holy See. The Holy See continues to avoids countless legal cases brought against it by demonstrating key legal precedence in relation to its STATUS before the courts of a nation, state or community. In many cases, the court has no choice but to dismiss all cases, simply because the status of the Vatican in modern western law is superior to any secular court. Only the courts of the Vatican themselves, the CURIA (from which the word COURT comes) is higher than the body of the church. So unless the CURIA headed by the POPE as supreme JUDGE decides to surrender their rights to a secular court, the court has no authority legally whatsoever over the church.
Another group of individuals who occasionally demonstrate a superior status before a court are those individuals who understand the power of not consenting to be subjected as PERSON. These individuals are few and far between, and usually are targeted to be avoided from the courts, lest their knowledge become common knowledge and the jurisdiction of courts be tested and found fundamentally flawed.
Pulling it all together so the Vatican always walks away free
When an individual lodges a criminal or civil case against the Vatican they are encouraged and forced to lodge it as a PERSON. However, the Vatican by law cannot, nor ever will accept the jurisdiction of a court as a PERSON (a corporation being a type of person), because by definition of the words themselves, the HOLY SEE is the superior entity that owns all PERSONS.
Occasionally, the Vatican will permit an arm to make a remedy to a claim of child abuse, almost always as a settlement whereby the legal status of the Catholic Church is not contested in court. Very occasionally, a Vatican priest will be convicted as a child molester and be sent to prison. But you might be interested to know in the summary of such proceedings that again the legal status of the Catholic Church was never questioned—the priest eventually consented to be put in prison. Nor does a Roman Catholic Priest lose their priestly status as a convicted child rapist.
However, in the case of attempt to get the Vatican to divulge its treasury of stolen loot such as the Nazi gold and the stolen gold from Croatia during World War II, the Vatican legal representatives merely have to cite their legal status and the court can do nothing but drop the case.
Don’t blame the courts, nor the judges—they are powerless. Don’t even blame the police who enforce this deliberately “unjust” system in favour of the Jesuits and the Holy See. Instead, blame the graduates from Catholic and Jesuit colleges who weasel their way into politics and then grovel for favour in the eye of the Roman Cult by never permitting the corrupt system to function on the basis of time honoured natural law—that to sexually molest a child is a crime, no matter what organization you belong to. Until people realize how the Vatican maintains control on a daily basis, we will continue to see our children abused by the Vatican and its true adherents without justice ever being served.