Queen Elizabeth’s Oath

Elizabeth’s Oath
June 2nd., 1953

On February 6th., 1952 Elizabeth became Queen; head of the Tribe of Judah.

16 months later, at Westminster, she signed the Oath of Allegiance.

Based upon her genealogy; Judah, the time lapse between the time she became head of the Tribe of Judah and the signing of the Oath of Allegiance, and the necessity thereof, several questions arise. But, before we go further it is important to analyze the oath itself.

The first paragraph sets out how she swears to govern the People of several nations … “… according to their respective laws and customs.”

The second paragraph describes justice to be administered with mercy.

The third paragraph joins the Laws of God and the gospel. It goes on to confirm the rights, customs and traditions, by law, of the churches, Church of England, Bishops etc.

If Elizabeth; “Judah”, was in power as of February 6th., 1952, why the need to be coronated? I would like to suggest the 1213 “deal” with King John and pope would be binding on all other rulers except Judah. In Judah, there must be a contract to gain control over her signet ring and powers.

I would also like to suggest the Oath of June 2nd., 1953 forms the basis of a single signature contract recognizing the Church of England and it’s staff’s ancient rights and traditions. Wiki yields the Church of England was established at the time of Augustine commencing in the year 597. Though Henry VIII tried to take it away from pope it is safe to say it is still in papal hands.

At the time of the formation of the “witan” one of the first laws passed was to exempt the ecclesiasts from taxation thus the clause dealing with the Bishops, church etc. their customs by law. We do note, throughout the document the differentiating “Law” and “law” etc. Therefore, the oath would maintain a “duality” between the pope and the Judahite ruler with the pope the trustee. It would be incumbent upon the trustee to effect the Laws per Deuteronomy 4:2 as Judah’s trustee. However, under the contract, the ecclesiasts were allowed to carry on with their commercial enterprises without taxation and other benefits.

From the first paragraph we find Elizabeth agrees to respect the laws and customs of the various nations. As the ruler of these lands the laws of those lands are in conflict with the Laws attached to her. When we compare the first paragraph with the start of the third paragraph we see the duality; the laws of the countries and the 5 Scrolls of Moses. Unfortunately, Judah can’t serve 2 masters therefore this vitiates the contract or a finding of contempt of the Most High for this violation.

The next violation involves recognizing the laws of men insofar as they apply to the ecclesiasts; the Bishops, Protestants, Church of England, etc. and as absent from the ancient Scripture.

Another point of contention is found in the reference to the Gospel. Is there is a distinction between the Ancient Scriptures and Holy Bible and Holy Bible and Gospel? Since she references the Laws of God, and she is of Judah, we can only assume the Laws referred to would be written in the paleo-Hebrew. The Holy Bible was forged, or plotted, and not in the paleo-Hebrew. The paleo-Hebrew is God’s language and perfect language with each character telling a story so it can’t be played with. While there are many truths in scriptures written in language other than paleo-Hebrew, there are many inconsistencies and inventions.

From this oath it is plausible some of those “laws” referred to may have over ridden the Law. However, Elizabeth is commanded to comply with the Law per Deuteronomy 4:2. Elizabeth has given away Judah’s right to rule therefore Judah’s reign is over and has been over since June 2nd., 1953. That is to say, If Genesis 49:10 is to come to its complete end, and the Messiah shows up, did June 2nd., 1953 start the clock for His appearance? Or, does this fall of Judah come when the people catch Judah in the snare?

Next, if the judges etc. have sworn an oath to the Queen, yet the Queen is actually the ecclesiasts, but the Queen, aka Judah, has ceased to rule, then Judah becomes a mere figure head and no longer the ruler.

I believe the oath of allegiance must be challenged or amended insofar as its inconsistencies with the Scriptures are concerned. In the alternative, it should be recognized for the snare, fraud and contempt of God it really is thus a treason. But, with the judges making an oath to the Queen, which is the pope, with the court denying the Laws attached to Judah it must be advanced the court is in compliance with the laws of the ecclesiasts. The laws giving the ecclesiasts come from inferior legislation of the pagan rulers and have sucked the life blood out of their laws. They don’t come from Judah’s O. K. That is to say when Judah became ruler she must have given full effect to Command Deuteronomy 12 to destroy the ecclesiasts.

According to scripture when Judah rises to power it is based on merit and tribality. Uncertain of the order of events Judah is to ride on a donkey and have oils poured over him or her. The stone of scone thing refers to if the correct Judahite ruler was selected the stone would emit music of some sort.

If the contract can be voided then Elizabeth would still be head of state but the Laws would not be of the papacy. However, the next factor one must consider is where the Indians fit in to the equation regarding Treaties.

If the oath is nullified then Elizabeth then the Treaties devolved to her. If the oath binds Judah to Vatican, can Vatican then Lawfully claim to rule as God’s agent? Normally I would say “yes”. However, I would have to say no as the foundation of Vatican and the papacy is all commercial non-flesh and blood; fictions.

If the test proves in Judah’s favor then other issues arise.

Judah’s authority purportedly flows from the Royal Proclamation 1763. The Royal Proclamation speaks of land sales and Treaties. Treaties are contracts. When we search the Queen’s Laws we find she is prohibited from engaging in contracts and the land is not to be sold for ever as it belongs to God. This would exclude Jerusalem which was bought, under God’s blessings, by David from the Hivites and their threshing floor. So, those are 2 strikes against Elizabeth. The 3rd., strike is found in the fact the Royal Proclamation, except the sale of the land, has yet to be implemented.

So, Elizabeth is negated for fraud and the land devolves to the Anishinabe. For the time being, because Judah is head of state, and she can’t enter into Treaties, the Morris, Robinson and other “Canadian” Treaties are negated with the Royalties being rolled into the Common Wealth Trust; entitled to all.

Elizabeth signed her oath to the Vatican on June 2 1953. She should have relied on her signet ring! Therefore, the oath to Vatican is nul ab initio.

More thought and research is required.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s