Mortgage Deed: Fill & Download for Free

I love this question because every law student in a common law jurisdiction knows that the absurd cases are what really keep you alive.And thankfully, with centuries of case law and several macro-national as well as national sources of law to choose from, English law is particularly rife with these ludicrous cases.I’ll group up these interesting cases into several categories and leave out the Legalese where possible.LEVEL 1 (basic): CASES WITH ABSURD JUDGMENTSMiller v Jackson [1977] QB 966The Millers moved into a house next to a cricket pitch. Cricket balls kept falling into their backyard and they got so annoyed they decided to go to court to stop the cricket team from playing and get compensation for years of emotional distress.This case was made famous because of Lord Denning’s overly melodramatic judgment, which, if you were to summarise it in two lines, went like this: “I love cricket, everybody loves cricket (without cricket our young boys will become social degenerates), so sod off you stupid twats.” He then spends some time stating that the cows that grazed there before the houses were built ‘did not mind the cricket’.Another highlight of the case was how all the judges proceeded to call Mrs Miller ‘neurotic’ and ‘unreasonable’. Not quite the level of politeness I’d expect from the court, frankly-speaking.Judicial impartiality? Yeah, no way. Not when you’ve got a judge that begins his judgment by saying: “In summertime village cricket is the delight of everyone….” in front of a couple that literally came to court to protest this cricket pitch.R v Hayward [1908] 21 Cox 692Hayward got into a row with his wife, who later tried to run away. In the process, she collapsed and died from a heart condition. Hayward never touched her. Hayward was later charged with manslaughter.For those of you who are scratching their heads right now wondering WTF is going on, it’s because in English law we have this thing called the ‘thin skull rule’ ie. you MUST take the victim as you find them. This means the accused would be liable for the injuries of a person even though a ‘reasonably healthy’ person would not have suffered as a result of the accused’s actions.So yeah, serious stuff. So be warned.Roberts v Ramsbottom [1980] 1 WLR 823Ramsbottom was a driver who, having suddenly suffered a stroke whilst driving, accidentally ran over Roberts. The stroke came suddenly and Ramsbottom was an otherwise healthy man.The court ruled that Ramsbottom owed Roberts a duty of care since he should have stopped the car when he realised his motor functions and mobility were being impaired, which was what a ‘reasonable driver’ would have done. Because he didn’t, he was found to be liable for Roberts’ injuries.(I mean … I don’t know about you, but I don’t think that’s quite how a stroke works …)Caunce v Caunce [1969] 1 W.L.RThis one makes my blood boil. Basically, the husband and wife both contributed to the purchase price of a house, but only the husband’s name was registered. They got into a fight, and the husband decided to sell the land when he made sure the wife wasn’t at home.Now, here’s the thing. The wife contributed to the house so she had a stake in the land. According to land law, the potential buyers have to inquire about the existence of peoples with a possible stake in the land before they purchase it. The potential buyer in this case knew that a woman was living in the house, whom he presumed to be the wife. But he didn’t bother asking whether or not she had any stake in the property.The wife tried to enforce her rights, but was later told by the court that ‘it was perfectly reasonable not to ask whether or not the wife had an interest in the property’ because ‘a wife lives in the shadow of her husband’!LEVEL 2 (medium): CASES WITH BIZARRE FACTSDonoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100This Scottish case was so important that it completely spearheaded the development of the principle of ‘duty of care’ and tort law.The facts of the case are as follows. In the pub, Mrs Donoghue orders a ginger beer. She opens her bottle of ginger beer and pours it onto her ice cream. She consequently finds a decomposed snail lurking at the bottom of the bottle and suffers gastroenteritis as a result.Everyone goes on about Mrs Donoghue’s suffering but I can’t get over the poor snail (how on earth did it even manage to get into the bottle?!) and how it became a martyr for the development of law. Talk about Mother Nature giving back indeed.We will remember you forever, dear Snail. Up there with Martin Luther King, Elvis Presley, Gandhi … you have left your mark in history. Shame you didn’t get to enjoy your posthumous fame.Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256Another unbelievable case. Basically, this medical firm claimed that it had invented a new wonder drug, the smoke ball, that would cure the flu. They boasted on an advertisement that their carbolic smoke balls worked so well that if anyone were to use the product within a certain amount of time and contracted the flu as a result, they would receive £100 as an award (est. £10,000 today). Mrs Carlill used the smoke ball and contracted the flu. And of course Carbolic Smoke Ball Co tried to back away from their initial offer, and they went to court to sort it out.Lane v Holloway [1967] 3 WLR 1003This was basically a fight between an old gardener (Lane) and a 23-year-old (Holloway), who ended up punching him in the eye.Not necessarily the most interesting case from the get go, but the case judgment was amusing enough. Salmon LJ described Lane as a ‘rather cantankerous old man of 64 years of age and slightly infirm’ who yelled ‘shut up, you monkey-faced twat’ to Holloway’s wife. Holloway got angry and shouted ‘what did you call my wife?’ leading the aged Mr Lane to retort ‘I’ll take you on at any time’.Of course, all hell ensues.Van Duyn v Home Office [1974] C-41/74This was an EU case that involved the UK Home Office. Van Duyn was a Dutch national who was due to come to the UK to work in the Church of Scientology. The UK denied her entry on the grounds that Scientology was ‘harmful to mental health’ and they based their decision solely on her association to the church.This case later became incredibly important in developing freedom of movement rights in the EU, so if you’re looking for someone to thank for allowing you to live and work anywhere in the EU … send a little thank you note to the Church of Scientology. I’m sure they’ll appreciate it.Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 1 QB 439Mr Fagan accidentally ran over a police officer’s foot while parking. The police offer told him to move his car. When Fagan realised what he had done, he swore at the police officer, told him to wait, and basically did nothing.He was later charged with battery.Sayers v Harlow UDC [1958] 1 WLR 623This is the stuff of nightmares. A lady went to a public toilet and got stuck in her cubicle because she realised there was no door handle. She tried shouting for help for 20 minutes but no one came to her rescue. In the end, she attempted to use the loo roll holder as a foothold to try and climb over the cubicle and injured herself as a result.R v Tabassum [2000] 2 Cr App R 328Tabassum was an ICT lecturer who pretended to work for a hospital ‘compiling a database on breast cancer’. For that reason he needed to ‘inspect the breasts’ of different women and he also ‘taught them’ how to ‘conduct their own breast examinations’. He was later charged with sexual assault.R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212This one tends to be a favourite among law students. A group of homosexual sadomasochistic men were charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm (or even grievous bodily harm, I can’t remember now) for their activities with one another over a 10 year period.Look, I understand that consenting to violence in sex is one thing, but these men were really going at it—inserting fish hooks to penises, setting nipples on fire, sandpapering genitals, the whole shebang. It didn’t help that there was a minor among them.I don’t know how the judges reacted to that in court. Remember, these are old, elitist, men with stiff upper lips we’re talking about. What I wouldn’t give to see their faces as they read the facts.LEVEL 3 (extreme): CASES THAT MAKE YOU LOSE FAITH IN HUMANITYR v Collins [1973] 3 WLR 243Collins climbed a ladder to an open window where a woman was sleeping naked in her bed. He went down the ladder, stripped to his socks, and climbed up again. The woman woke up and thought that it was her boyfriend outside, so she invited him to come in. They proceeded to have sex. While having sex, the woman realised that Collins was in fact not her boyfriend and screamed at him to get off. Collins was later charged with burglary.(I just … have … so many questions...)Chhokar v Chhokar [1984] FLR 313Mr. Chhokar really really wanted to get rid of his wife. He tried to do it several times, most notably by attempting to abandon her in India while they went to visit their parents. Then while Mrs. Chhokar was in hospital giving birth to their baby, Mr. Chhokar went and sold their house behind her back.After coming back from hospital, Mrs. Chhokar went home only to find that the locks had been changed. She was forced out of the house and threatened by the new owner. Mrs Chhokar then went back into the house and refused to leave.City of London Building Society v Flegg [1988] 1 AC 54This was a truly, truly unfortunate case,, but it is a little difficult to explain, so I’ll do the best I can.Mr and Mrs Flegg had taken a mortgage for a property alongside their daughter and her husband (Mr and Mrs Maxwell-Brown). For some reason, the property was only held in Mr and Mrs Maxwell-Brown’s names (this means they have legal rights over the property). Mr and Mrs Maxwell-Brown had lots of financial difficulties and kept remortgaging the property. They ended up bankrupt, and Mr and Mrs Flegg tried to get their original money back.However, there were two legal owners of the property (two trustees), so because of a quirk in land law called overreaching, Mr and Mrs Flegg ended up losing all their money and the beneficial interest that came along with it.Osman v Ferguson [1993] 4 All ER 344This one was just creepy. A schoolteacher formed an unhealthy obsession with his 14-year-old pupil (Ahmet) —taking photos of him, following him home, accusing him of having a gay relationship with another pupil, and so forth. He even changed his name by deed poll to add the pupil’s name to his own! The school teacher ended up following Ahmet home one day and shooting him along with his father.R v Slingsby [1995] Crim LR 571Slingsby and his partner were having sex. In the process, Slingsby decided to engage in an elaborate sexual practice some of you might recognise as ‘fisting’. However, he, um, forgot that he was wearing a large signet ring when he proceeded to engage in said act. His partner suffered cuts that later got infected and died. Slingsby was charged with manslaughter.R v Kingston [1994] 3 WLR 519Kingston was a man with known ‘homosexual paedophiliac predilections’. He got into a fight with a business partner, Penn, who later got so angry he tried to blackmail him. Penn found a random 15-year-old boy, drugged him, stripped him, and took him to his bed. He then invited Kingston over and spiked his drink. Penn and Kingston then went and ‘committed gross sexual acts with the unconscious boy’, who woke up the next morning remembering nothing. Penn filmed the entire scene and took photos. Kingston was later charged with indecent assault on a youth.R v Aitken [1992] 1 WLR 1066The parties of the case were RAF officers, who decided to ‘take the mickey’ and test out the efficacy of their fire resistant clothing. Clearly the only sensible way to achieve this, or so they thought, was to set each other on fire. One of the officers ended up suffering serious burns and the other officers were charged with inflicting grievous bodily harm.Sykes v Taylor-Rose [2004] EWCA Civ 299Edit: This is my new favourite case. It is just … inexplicably fascinating.So what happened was this: a house was bought by Sykes from the Taylor-Roses, and one of the documents of purchase was something called a ‘Property Information Form’. At the end of the ‘Property Information Form’ there was question that stated ‘is there anything about the property that the buyer has the right to know?’ Having obtained legal advice saying it was okay to say no, the Taylor Roses answered ‘no’.The sale went well and Sykes moved into the house. Everything was all well and good until a couple months later when Sykes switched on the telly and watched a documentary … about their new house and the horrors that had unfolded within it. Apparently, a previous owner had murdered a girl within the house and buried her in the compound. When the police took interest in the whereabouts of this missing child, the murderer excavated her cadaver from the ground, chopped her up into little bits, and then hid her bits all around the house. Some bits were yet to be found. (I’m sorry, but WHAT)The Sykes household were undoubtedly traumatised about this and went to court arguing that Taylor-Rose had misrepresented the contract and that they clearly had the right to know about the murder in the property. But the court, while sympathetic, said that there was no requirement for the seller to impart information that they were not asked about!So there you have it. Cases that will keep you up at night, make you roll over in laughter or stop you dead in your tracks.Truth really is stranger than fiction.

No. Such a statement seemingly harbors a cynical view of the Founders.The Founding Fathers placed their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor in jeopardy in order to address the abuses of the government. They did NOT limit American democracy in order to “keep” their wealth — they generally had no wealth by 18th century standards. Ministers, teachers, lawyers, and even colonial officials often took their pay in cords of firewood. Many of the founders lived their entire lives in debt.The Constitution defines the U.S. as a Republic, Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. America's founders were wary of aristocracy and monarchy, and preferred a democratic republic. It is governed by rule of law not the will of the majority. The Founders chose a republican form of government rather than a “pure democracy”. No country or nation on earth has ever had an unlimited democracy without falling into chaos. “The key difference between a democracy and a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law, which has implications for minority rights. Both forms of government tend to use a representational system — i.e., citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and form the government. In a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a "pure democracy," the majority is not restrained in this way and can impose its will on the minority.” Democracy often allows for the tyranny of the majority over the minority. Democracy vs Republic - Difference and ComparisonDiscussion:The Revolution was no more about Tea and Taxes than it was about the RIGHTS of Anglo-Americans “as Englishmen”. Principally, the revolutionary generation was tired of being treated as second class citizens of the empire simply because they lived “across the pond”. The precipitating event of the American Revolution was the attempt of government to take away the arms of the colonials (Lexington and Concord).Yet, money and finances were among the root causes of the revolution. Serious disagreements concerning the powers of government and the Rights of the governed have been and continue to be contested in the marketplace.The colonials were perfectly serious in their belief that taxation by Parliament—or any legislation that affected the colonies and not the general population of the empire without their consent or at least their sufferance — was a violation of their traditional rights and the concept of equality under the law. The dissolution of the New York legislature in 1766 over its negative response to the Stamp Tax seemed to verify America’s worst fears of an impending tyranny.However, many in London considered the colonial arguments simple fabrications designed to avoid paying taxes. Using the idea that the Americans would trump up novel arguments against external taxes as easily as they had against internal ones, Tories in Parliament pressed for new bills with unfortunate similarities to the Stamp Act. It seems certain, however, that everyone in Parliament understood the need to exercise the right to tax America at this time, and many foresaw the colonial ambition to become a nation of independent states creeping over the horizon.The idea that the Revolution was based on the defense of the Rights of Englishmen does not mean that there were not financial concerns among the issues at hand.The Land Bank ControversyIn 1739 a Land Bank was proposed in Massachusetts to help relieve the local cash shortage. The Land Bank was a little known and widely unreported cause of American unrest and dissatisfaction with British governance in Massachusetts and in Boston in particular. Building on the economic ideas of Scottish economist John Law, a number of landowners in Boston — among them Dean Samuel Adams, the elder, the father of Sam Adams, the radical — formed a company and mortgaged their estates to it in exchange for paper notes, giving each investor 3 per cent interest annually in domestically manufactured goods, and 5 per cent on the principal in the same currency. The notes were payable after twenty years, but not before, and circulated like money.Another bank was proposed to counteract the Land Bank. It was called the Specie Bank, and planned to issue ₤120,000 in paper notes redeemable in fifteen years, in silver, at 20s of paper per ounce. Both went into operation, but in 1740, Parliament declared them illegal under the Joint Stock Companies Act, passed after the financial crisis known as the South Sea Bubble (1720). Both banks were fashioned in a manner similar to the questionable South Sea Company (SSC), and therefore were required to wind up their business. [i] However, the directors of the Land Bank, with ₤36 thousands in uncallable notes outstanding, resisted its fate and by social and political intrigues continued its operation. The large merchants of Boston generally refused its notes. However, the small dealers accepted them, and they continued to circulate in lieu of cash. This became a political issue between the friends and enemies of the Land Bank directors, particularly Dean Adams and Lt. Gov. Hutchinson.[ii]After 1740 with the ruling of Parliament at his back, Governor Jonathan Belcher of Massachusetts made war on the Land Bank with all his energy. He declared it unlawful and pernicious, and contrary to the act of Parliament and to his instructions from the Board of Trade. Finding that some civil and military officers in the colony were engaged in the Land Bank, he removed them from service. This called forth protests from Samuel Adams, the younger and others, as an invasion of liberty and an attack on personal property. There also arose a dispute after the elder Adams’ death as to whether the Adams’ estate was indebted to the Land Bank Company, or the Company to the estate. The younger Adams believed that the case had never been fairly and legally heard. Meanwhile, the sheriff of the court, Stephen Greenleaf, considered a creature of Hutchinson, was threatening to auction off the house of the deceased Adams, the Elder — the house in which Sam Adams, the son now lived — to settle what he said were the estate’s obligations. It was from this point that Adams and Hutchinson became implacable opponents — one made penurious and the other prosperous by the acts of Parliament. [iii][i] William Graham Sumner, A History of American Currency, with Chapters on the English Bank Restriction and Austrian Paper Money, to which is appended “The Bullion Report” (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1884). Accessed June 2011. URL: Online Library of Liberty[ii] William Graham Sumner, A History of American Currency, with Chapters on the English Bank Restriction and Austrian Paper Money, to which is appended “The Bullion Report” (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1884). Accessed June 2011. URL: Online Library of Liberty[iii] Ira Stoll, 25.The Money SupplyThe 18th century has been called the long century of imperial scandal, a time when unbridled excess threatened the fundamentals of British politics, culture, and society. An imperial debt in excess of ₤150 millions sterling accumulated through many decades of domestic spending, wartime expenditures, and blatant corruption, especially in the three decades from 1750 to 1770. These imposed a dangerous burden on the British financial system, and Americans were being asked to pay their fair share of the consequences of a profligate and shameless lack of rectitude and integrity overseas in the form of new taxes and duties. Most Americans, and particularly the parsimonious New Englanders, refused to recognize this debt as of their making or within their responsibility to reconcile. They had worked hard and had been honest and abstemious in their business and personal dealings.[i]The British ministry — through specific acts involving coinage and currency, and through financial regulations hidden in other legislation — placed demands for specie payments (gold or silver coins) on the colonies with which the colonies simply could not comply without devastating their own economies. In addition the ministry had declared all paper currency illegal in America in 1751 and 1756 and reissued and expanded its prohibition in the Currency Act of 1764. It can be argued that the Boston Tea Party and the Revolution were less about taxation and the lack of representation and more about the value of money and the unfavorable balance of colonial payments.It is important that the reader realize that 18th-century Americans were novices at capitalism. They literally did not know what it was (even while they practiced and supported many of its fundamental tenets), but they had rather a feeling for the existence of an intrinsic freedom of trade and the liberty to form voluntary business contracts that was at its foundation. Smuggling was often called free trading by those who participated in it, but a marketplace totally free of government intrusion — a so-called free market — was a chimera that was neither identifiable in its characteristics nor totally desirable in its implications. It was, frankly, a largely untried economic system that proved to need some restriction. In a theoretical free market there is no intervention or regulation by the government except to collect taxes for its own support and defense, to provide for the enforcement of private contracts, and to guarantee the ownership of private property. Yet none but the most unsophisticated of partisans would wish to attempt to do business in a market with no guarantees, no structure, and no means of reconciliation. Certain ultra-libertarian groups continue to dismiss these needs today being unaware or oblivious to their ultimate consequences.High among the early foundations of free market concepts were free trade in goods and the absence of restrictions and monetary controls (on the money supply).The world of work in British North America was considerably different from that found in a large European city like London. For one thing the colonial workmen commanded real wages (adjusted for the level of consumer prices) that generally exceeded the wages of their contemporaries in Britain. This benefit was generally due to the lower cost of energy (i.e. firewood) and food in the colonies — not cash in hand. It was easier to pay a year’s rent with a single gold coin than to purchase a side of bacon of a bolt of cloth when there were no copper pennies in circulation and everyone owed money to everyone else with the balances kept on paper accounts. Ministers, teachers, lawyers, and even colonial officials often took their pay in cords of firewood.The poor were a natural source for anti-government sentiment. It was they who the sheriffs of the courts, the city constables, and other administrators of the law threw into jail. It was their property — if they had ever owned any — that the officers of the courts and deputies had seized in lieu of unpaid debts and taxes. Many persons had been thrown into jail for no other reason than a crushing mountain of debt or the fact that they could not produce the silver coins required under the concept of lawful money. Many of these — owed money on the account books by others — had languished there under the insane concept of a debtors’ prison while their friends and relations desperately scrounged about for cash that wasn’t there.Swarms of constables were dispatched to the waterfronts and slums of American cities to hunt out vagrants and loiterers so that they could keep down the cost of public charity. Orphans, abandoned children, and the capable infirmed were sent to the workhouses, if there was room in one, or bound out as indentures for a term of some years.The chief cause of these hard times in New England was attributed to the restrictive trade and currency regulations of 1764. The Boston Post Boy (June 5, 1765) reported that the number of trading vessels clearing for the West Indies was cut to one-fifth those employed before the legislation took effect. Coins had virtually disappeared from circulation, and those who came into possession of a coin hoarded it against the possibility of “bad times”. John Hancock, whose own trading connections were endangered, noted that “times are very bad … in short such is the situation of things here that we do not know who is and who is not safe.”[ii] The Hancock family’s commercial correspondence of this period contained a genuine sentiment bordering on despair, and the Philadelphia merchant, Stephen Collins, repeated the plaintive outlook in many letters to his London creditors, alleging that the wave of colonial bankruptcies were owing to the stagnation of trade brought on by the policies of the government.[iii][i] Nicholas B. Dirks, 9.[ii] Arthur M. Schlesinger, 57. “Colonial Merchants of the American Revolution, 1763-1776.” Internet Achieve. URL: Full text of "The colonial merchants and the American revolution, 1763-1776"[iii] Arthur M. Schlesinger, 68.The Proclamation of 1763The final defeat of the French in America, after four wars and more than seventy years of struggle, was widely celebrated in 1763 as the removal of a great burden on the colonies. Generations of colonial grandfathers, fathers, and sons had fought the French and their Indian allies on the frontiers. However, the thrill of victory was as short-lived. The end of the French and Indian War initiated a severe and unexpected economic crisis, and the attitude of the ministry in London to victory in America seemed incomprehensible. Settlers who had abandoned their frontier farms in panic were explicitly prohibited from returning to them by the Proclamation of 1763, and their property rights annulled.Colonial sensitivities were further assaulted when the line of frontier settlement proposed by the Proclamation of 1763 was “deliberately distorted” by Parliament into a permanent barrier to settlement in 1764. The “undeniable primary principle” of this line was to foster a market for British manufactures along the coastline and to prevent the development of any colonial industry in the interior. Americans soon began to realize that their own best interests were not always those of the Crown. James Otis, writing from the perspective of the seaboard colonials, noted, “The late acquisitions in America, as glorious as they have been, and as beneficial as they are to Great Britain, are only a security to these colonies against the ravages of the French and Indians. Our trade upon the whole is not, I believe, benefited by them one groat.”[i]Imagine the surprise on the frontiers when, no sooner than the French war had ceased, the settlers witnessed a paradox—English merchants’ wagons and pack trains under British licenses carrying arms and ammunition westward for sale to the same tribes who had destroyed their homes.[ii] Matthew Smith and James Gibson responded to this circumstance for the frontiersmen in an open letter to Parliament. Called A Remonstrance from the Pennsylvania Frontiersmen (1764), the letter was published and widely read in the colonies.[i] Samuel Eliot Morison, Sources and Documents Illustrating the American Revolution 1764-1788 and the Formation of the Federal Constitution (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965), xx.[ii] Neil Harmon Swanson, The First Rebel: Being a Lost Chapter of Our History and a True Narrative (New York: Farrar & Rinehart, 1937), 54-55.The Stamp Act CrisisThe French and Indian War created a vast debt estimated by the British Exchequer at an unprecedented ₤150 million. An additional annual appropriation of almost ₤2 million was needed for the imperial peace establishment—an army and navy to secure an empire that stretched from Hudson’s Bay in Canada to the Bay of Bengal in India half a globe away. Only ₤350 thousand of this annual expense (approximately 18 percent) was determined to be due to the administration of the American colonies. Although the Parliament expected to pay the lion’s share of future expenditures, the ministry of George Grenville—a Whig who carried over most of the personnel from the Tory government of Lord Bute into his own cabinet—decided to extract at least some of the money, estimated at about ₤60 thousand in 1765, from the colonies in the form of a stamp tax on all legal and business papers, newspapers, printed forms, playing cards, wall paper, and licenses. Different taxes were also specified for deeds or grants of land of less than 100 acres, of 100 to 200 acres, and of 200 to 320 acres.[i]In 18th century an income tax was unthinkable—even for the revenue starved British Empire. Many people in Britain and America opposed an income tax, on principle, believing that the disclosure of personal income was an unacceptable intrusion of government into their private matters, and a potential threat to their personal liberty. Moreover, in Anglo-America the legislation laying internal taxes had always come from the local colonial assemblies. Anglo-Americans were familiar with paying taxes, but even the imperial ministers of the Crown had not proposed the modern expedient of a profit-killing, economy-enervating tax on personal income. That would take the action of a wartime federal government dedicated to resolving the financial crisis brought on by the American Civil War. Not until 1862 would a personal income tax be instituted under Abraham Lincoln as a war measure, and it was done when the southern states had no meaningful representation in Congress to fight it. In 1895 the Supreme Court decided that the income tax was unconstitutional. With progressive politics then in vogue, social reformers demanded the enhanced revenue, and the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system in 1913. The stamp tax was clearly the first attempt to levy an internal tax from outside the colonies. “Looking back it is clear that such a tax, being internal instead of external, might raise a storm of protest.”[ii] Along with the passage of the Stamp Act, Parliament renewed the Mutiny Act, which required the colonial assemblies to house and support the troops sent to America. These provisions of the Mutiny Act were known as quartering.[i] Ira Stoll, 40.[ii] James Truslow Adams and Charles Garrett Vannest, The Record of America (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1935), 83.Pin Money as a Classic ExampleOn the same day that it repealed the Stamp Act, Rockingham passed the Declaratory Act, which stated that Parliament had the total right to legislate any laws governing the American colonies in all cases whatsoever. Seen as a face-saving device, the Declaratory Act seems to have produced little colonial reaction at the time, and the boycott of English goods was generally relaxed. However, at least some of the more radical thinkers in the colonies saw the Declaratory Act as “a statue, laid up for future use, like a sword in a scabbard.” [i]In 1766 Charles Townshend became Lord of the Exchequer, the department of government that levied and collected taxes and duties. Townshend was directly opposed to any policy of caution or moderation with respect to the colonies. He proposed a series of revenue measures to help pay for the administration and security of the colonies and thereby relieve the burden on the British taxpayer in England.The demands made on America might not have been as great had London extended these measures to the entire empire and tapped its resources in India. However, Townshend was a champion of the charter rights of the East India Company and a friend to many of the directors of the company who also served on the Board of Trade. He declared all revenues derived from India to be the property of the company and free from taxation. [Emphasis added]. He further materially reduced the tax burden on landlords in Britain, who he considered “harassed country gentlemen.” This was the 18th century equivalent of giving tax breaks to 21st century millionaires and billionaires. These decisions further increased the portion of the revenues to be derived from America. No course of action by the government in London could have been calculated to more arouse colonial resentment. [ii]There was a good deal of resistance to the passage of the bill in England, and although Townshend died suddenly in 1767, the Townshend Revenue Act “stole through the House; no man knew how.” [iii] The duties were reissued and expanded in 1769 over the protests on a vociferous Whig minority in Parliament, which generally supported the colonial position on taxation for its own political purposes. The duties set taxes on a vast number of “goods and commodities of growth, produce, or manufacture of the British Colonies.” These fell into two groups distinguished as enumerated or non-enumerated.Reams of paper were made so expensive by the duty that colonial newspapers resorted to making their newssheets physically smaller, and the Pennsylvania Chronicle noted that a simple paper of dressmakers’ pins had gone from 10d to 2s (24d), a 140 percent increase, “and other articles were equally high in proportion.” Pins were to be taxed even if they moved across colonial borders. A card of pins would be taxed going from Manhattan to New Jersey that could be clearly seen across the Hudson River. [iv][i] Richard N. Current and John A. Garraty, Words That Made American History, Colonial Times to the 1870’s ( Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1965), 111.[ii] Charles A. Beard and Mary R. Beard, 216; also see John C. Miller, Origins of the American Revolution (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1943), 244-246.[iii] James Truslow Adams and Charles Garrett Vannest, 250.[iv] Arthur M. Schlesinger, 211.See:Amazon.com: From Whence the Silver, The Role of Money in Colonial America (Traditional American History Series Book 3) eBook: James M. Volo: Kindle Store

INTRODUCTION: The “Council of Inclusive Capitalism” (CIC) is spearheaded by a strange combination of Lynn Forester de Rothschild (from the powerful family of the Rothschild business empire), Pope Francis I (the Jesuit theocrat of over 1.3 billion people), and 27 core leaders of Fortune 500 companies (whose market capitalization totals the cumulative worth of $2.1 trillion). The total assets of this council are valued at over $10.1 trillion. This council seems to surpass the power of even most government leaders.The CIC comprises twenty-seven core members known as the ‘Guardians of Inclusive Capitalism’. A few of the members are:Brian Moynihan (Bank of America CEO),Alex Gorsky (Johnson & Johnson CEO),Marc Benioff (Salesforce CEO),Ajay Banga (Mastercard CEO),Alfred Kelly (Visa CEO),Fiona Ma (California State Treasurer), → California alone is the fifth-largest economy in the world as of 2019Rajiv Shah (The Rockefeller Foundation President),Mark Carney (UN Finance Adviser to the Prime Minister),2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) and Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance), and many others.PART I: The Jesuit Pontificate and the New World EconomyNote: Part I is adapted from Wendy Goubej from Amazing Discoveries™A. The Jesuit Papacy, the CIC, and the UN:The two main goals of the CIC is to [1] manage climate change and [2] promote “social equality” while in adherence to the United Nations’s (UN) sustainable development goals which so happens to match Pope Francis’ commitment to [1] managing climate change and [2] promoting “social justice” as recorded in his most recent encyclicals and papal campaigns.This Council heavily adheres to the moral counsel of Pope Francis I, the first Jesuit pope, by giving him an authoritative role in the council’s decision-making, especially when it comes to determining what exactly comprises the ‘common good’ (as you read on, you will notice that this ‘common good’ will be instituted based on certain religious laws which appear to promote aspects of secular humanism that even atheists would embrace).//ABOVE: Vatican currency with a woman with a cup who is called “Fides”.Pope Francis’s encyclical, “Fratelli Tutti” (Italian for “all brothers”), outlined the tenants of Catholic social doctrine by calling upon the world’s business and political leaders as well as many other influential people to come together to promote the ‘common good’ for everyone and the planet through solidarity of a new world establishment focused on fraternity (fides) and elevating the ‘common good’ above any individual rights (individualism), freedoms, or property. Pope Francis even went as far as to say that individual freedoms can be a source of great evil.“The human person, with his or her inalienable rights, is by nature open to relationship. Implanted deep within us is the call to transcend ourselves through an encounter with others. For this reason, “care must be taken not to fall into certain errors which can arise from a misunderstanding of the concept of human rights and from its misuse. Today there is a tendency to claim ever broader individual – I am tempted to say individualistic – rights. Underlying this is a conception of the human person as detached from all social and anthropological contexts, as if the person were a “monad” (monás), increasingly unconcerned with others… Unless the rights of each individual are harmoniously ordered to the greater good, those rights will end up being considered limitless and consequently will become a source of conflicts and violence”—Pope Francis I, “Fratelli Tutti”, Vatican.va, Section 111 (October 3, 2020)“The principle of the common use of created goods is the “first principle of the whole ethical and social order”; it is a natural and inherent right that takes priority over others.”—Ibid, Section 120Pope Francis’s earlier encyclical (published 5-years prior), ‘Laudato Si’, focused on our need to take care of our common home (Earth) by taking action against the threat of climate change. Take note as well that this encyclical is also embedded with a call for Sunday-observance as a key requirement in promoting a sustainable future.“And so the day of [Sunday] rest, centered on the Eucharist, sheds it light on the whole week, and motivates us to greater concern for nature [Earth] and the poor [socio-economic justice].”—Pope Francis I, “Laudato Si”, Vatican.va, Section 237 (May 24, 2015)B. The World Economic Forum: The union of the Papacy, the world’s top businessmen, and their mega-corporations should be a major concern for those who believe in freedom. This threat to freedom becomes more clear when we understand that the CIC runs off the principles of the World Economic Forum (WEF). From the CIC website, we can read:“Council members make actionable commitments aligned with the World Economic Forum International Business Council’s Pillars for sustainable value creation—People, Planet, Principles of Governance, and Prosperity—and that advance the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.”—The Council for Inclusive Capitalism, “What is Inclusive Capitalism?” (2020)The WEF has an initiative called ‘The Great Reset.’ The WEF made a video whose leading remark was that “you’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy” and they also stated, “whatever you want you’ll rent.”Furthermore, one is forced to ask these questions in response to the WEF:Should we expect that “owning nothing” to be “happy” only applies to the average person and not these business leaders?If we do not own anything, then who does? Of course, there must be someone who controls and manages this wealth.Who are we renting from?How do we know that we are guaranteed to receive what we ask for?What rules and restrictions or expectations will we need to meet to be eligible to rent our goods?What if we are not acting in the way that they believe is for the ‘common good,’ will we still be treated as equally deserving?”In 2011, the WEF made this video statement:“We are living in a completely new reality. So we want to know, what is this reality? What is different now after the [world economic] crisis from before the crisis? Because our assumption is that this crisis was a structural one. Many things have changed and we should not go back to the old recipes. We [the World Economic Forum] want to make a strong contribution to the G20 process. We are working together with the French Presidency. The G20 has become a major element of the global governments. Business has to be integrated into this process because the problems which we face cannot be solved by governments alone. They need PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS. They need the support of the business community and of civil society (emphasis added).”—Statement by the World Economic Forum, World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2011 (video).According to Historian and Journalist, Joan Veon:“Through public-private partnerships, the balance of power shifts from the people to the partner who has the most money. As the power shifts to the deepest pockets (the corporation), we have then moved into fascism—rule by big (reinvented) government and big business.”—Joan Veon, Prince Charles, The Sustainable Prince (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone Publishing, 1997).Veon says that these are the two key elements in introducing fascism:“(1) the downsizing of federal government in order to fit into the future global governance(2) the government's shift to privatization of public services through public-private partnerships.”—IbidFurthermore, the New York Observer published an interview with former Congressman John Hall who warns us that fascism could be next for America:“Hudson Valley Congressman John Hall warned that the nation could quickly descend into Fascism if more is not done to curb the influence of corporate money in politics. Speaking about the Citizen's United decision, which allowed unregulated flow of cash into campaign coffers, Hall said, "I learned when I was in social studies class in school that corporate ownership or corporate control of government is called Fascism. So that's really the question—is that the destination if this court decision goes unchecked?"—David Freedlander, "Soon To-Be Ex-Congressman John Hall Warns Against Creeping Fascism," New York Observer (December 28, 2010).C. The Bottom Line: The purpose of the Council of Inclusive Capitalism (CIC), “…will follow the warning from Pope Francis to listen to ‘the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor’ and answer society’s demands for a more equitable and sustainable model of growth.”PART II: The Political and Economic Policy of the Papacy ExposedNote: Part II is adapted from Wendy Goubej from Amazing Discoveries™A. Political Policy of the Papacy“For today Rome considers the Fascist regime the nearest to its dogmas and interest. We have not merely the Reverend (Jesuit) Father Coughlin praising Mussolini's Italy as ‘a Christian Democracy,’ but Civilita Cattolica, house organ of the Jesuits [official periodical of the Society of Loyola], SAYS QUITE FRANKLY ‘Fascism is the regime that corresponds most closely to the concepts of the Church of Rome.’"—Pierre van Paassen, Days of our Years (New York: Hillman-Curl, 1939): 465.B. The Economic Policy of the PapacyThe Catholic Church considers Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) to be her greatest theologian.Aquinas’s thinking is“foundational for understanding the economic thought of the Roman Church-State.”—Henry William Spiegel, “The Growth of Economic Thought”, Revised (Durham: Duke University Press, 1983): 29.Aquinas taught the socialist idea of communal property, using the same political buzzwords we are seeing in today's papal statements:In Summa Theologiae, Aquinas makes these shocking statements:“The possession of all things in common is the natural law…‘the possession of all things in common and universal freedom’ are said to be of the natural law because, to wit, the distinction of possessions and slavery were not brought in by nature, but devised by human reason for the benefit of human life.The community of goods is ascribed to the natural law, not that the natural law dictates that all things should be possessed in common and that nothing should be possessed as one’s own, but because the division of possessions is not according to the natural law, but rather arose from human agreement...the ownership of possessions is not contrary to the natural law, but an addition thereto devised by human reason...Hence, whatever certain people have in superabundance is due, by natural law, to the purpose of succorring the poor (emphases added).”—Thomas Aquinas, “Summa Theologiae”, articles 2, 5, and 7.In other words, the papacy considers property to be for the common good meaning that you may own property, but it is for common good. Whatever you own that exceeds your necessities, which of course they would define, will be given to others.Does this mean in practical terms that if you own anything, you will be taxed to death so that the state may collect revenues to support those who have not? Let’s ask Pope Pius XI:Pope Pius XI tells us this in his 1931 encyclical Quadragesimo Anno:“Under Fascism, property owners may keep their property titles and deeds, but the use of their property is, as Leo XIII wrote, ‘common’. Fascism is a form of socialism that retains the forms and trappings of capitalism, but not its substance. Under Fascism, property titles and deeds are intact, but the institution of private property has disappeared. Government regulations and mandates have replaced it. For this distinction between legal ownership and actual use, the fascists owe a debt to the Roman Church-State (emphases added).”—Pope Pius XI, “Quadragesimo Anno” (1931): 58.According to the Second Vatican (Vatican II) Council document Gaudium et Spes,“The complex circumstances of our day make it necessary for public authority to intervene more often in social, economic and cultural matters.”—Second Vatican Council, “Gaudium et Spes” (1965): 75.C. The Papacy’s Economic Thoughts Today:“Whoever needs property ought to possess it. Need makes another’s goods one’s own. Need is the ultimate and only moral title to property. Neither possession, nor creation, nor production, nor gift, nor inheritance, nor divine commandment (with the exception of Roman Church-State property1) grants title to property that is immune to the prior claim of need.”—John W. Robbins, Ecclesiastical Megalomania: The Economic and Political Thought of the Roman Catholic Church (The Trinity Foundation, 1999): 32.Catholic Canon Law 1254: “The Catholic Church has an innate right to acquire, retain, administer and alienate temporal goods in pursuit of its proper ends independently of civil power.”—”Code of Canon Law”, Book V (Vatican.va)Catholic Canon Law 1260: “The Church has an innate right to require from the Christian faithful whatever is necessary for the ends proper to it.”—”Code of Canon Law”, Book V, Title I (Vatican.va)Pope Pius XI says in his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno (1931) that the work of "picked men" to indoctrinate people and governments with Catholic economic views since the late 1800s, had a profound effect on 20th-century politics:“Under the guidance and in light of Leo’s encyclical was thus evolved a truly Christian social science, which continues to be fostered and enriched daily by the tireless labours of those picked men whom we have named the auxiliaries of the Church...The doctrine of Rerum Novarum began little by little to penetrate among those who, being outside Catholic unity, do not recognize the authority of the Church; and these Catholic principles of sociology gradually became part of the intellectual heritage of the whole human race...Thus too, we rejoice that the Catholic truths proclaimed so vigorously by our illustrious Predecessor [Leo XIII in 1891’s Rerum Novarum], are advanced and advocated not merely in non-Catholic books and journals, but frequently also in legislative assemblies and in courts of justice” (emphasis added).”—Pope Pius XI, “Quadragesimo Anno” (1931): 48.That quote is key proof that Roman Catholic policies, principles, and doctrine have penetrated secular venues to such a subtle extent that individuals who otherwise have no allegiance to the Roman Catholic Church are promoting its agenda. This involves the work of secret societies.How many of those individuals don’t even know that they have been influenced to think as someone else would have them think?These so-called "picked men” and "auxiliaries of the Church" can be none other than the Jesuits of Loyola who have sworn allegiance to the Pope. This order of cunning priests swore oaths to take any guise, even that of the Protestant, in order to achieve the Catholic Church’s aims.Fyodor Dostoyevsky puts the role of the Jesuits into perspective for us:“The Jesuits...are simply the Romish army for the earthly sovereignty of the world in the future, with the Pontiff of Rome for emperor...that’s their ideal…It is simple lust of power, of filthy earthly gain, of domination—something like a universal serfdom with them as masters—that’s all they stand for. They don’t even believe in God perhaps (emphasis added).”—Fyodor Dostoyevsky and Constance Black Garnett (trans.), “The Brothers Karamazov”, Volume 1 (Plain Label Books, 1973) (written in 1880) [Note: Dostoyevsky died less than four months after the publication of his book]According to Pope Benedict’s encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Populorum Progressio “deserves to be considered ‘the Rerum Novarum of the present age’”—Pope Benedict XVI, “Caritas in veritate” (2009).Rerum Novarum is one of the Roman Church-State’s most influential statements on economic matters, in which it lays down“unerring rules for the right solution of the difficult problem of human solidarity.”—Pope Pius XI, “Quadragesimo Anno” (1931)So what does Populorum Progressio have to say that is so pivotal for our day?“...each man has therefore the right to find in the world what is necessary for himself. The recent [Vatican II] Council reminded us of this: “God intended the earth and all that it contains for the use of every human being and people. Thus, as all men follow justice and unite in charity, created goods should abound for them on a reasonable basis.” All other rights whatsoever, including those of property and of free commerce, are to be subordinated to this principle (emphasis added).”—Paul VI, “Populorum Progressio, On the Progress of Peoples” (1967): 22.In that Vatican statement, stealing is clearly endorsed. Pope Benedict also tells us that this document and its principles codified at Vatican II Council are to be considered today’s definitive statement on social doctrine for everyone in the world.Pope John Paul II echoed this statement in 1981 and again in 1987:“[all men must have] access to those goods which are intended for common use: both the goods of nature and manufactured goods.”—Pope John Paul II, “Laborem Exercens” (1981): 46.“...the goods of this world are originally meant for all. The right to private property is valid and necessary, but it does not nullify the value of this principle. Private property, in fact, is under a ‘social mortgage’, which means that it has an intrinsically social function, based upon and justified precisely by the principle of the universal destination of goods.”—Pope John Paul II, “Sollicitudo Rei Socialis” (1987).Notice what Thomas Aquinas has to say,“In cases of need, all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another’s property, for need has made it common... it is lawful [not a crime] for a man to succor his own need by means of another’s property by taking it either openly or secretly; nor is this, properly speaking, theft and robbery...It is not theft, properly speaking, to take secretly and use another’s property in a case of extreme need; because that which he takes for the support of his life becomes his own property by reason of that need...In a case of a like need, a man may also take secretly another’s property in order to succor his neighbour in need.—Thomas Aquinas, “Summa Theologiae” ii-ii, article 7.According to this statement, your neighbor determines whether they need your stuff. According to Thomas Aquinas’ article, it is even lawful for you to steal for your neighbor’s need.Stealing property on the basis of “need” is not only supported by a 13th-century mystic. In relatively more modern times, Pope Paul VI made this point quite clear in his 1967 encyclical:“…each man has therefore the right to find in the world what is necessary for himself. The recent Council [Vatican II] reminded us of this: ‘God intended the earth and all that it contains for the use of every human being and people. Thus, as all men follow justice and unite in charity, created goods should abound for them on a reasonable basis.’ All other rights whatsoever, including those of property and of free commerce, are to be subordinated to this principle.”—Pope Paul VI, “Populorum Progressio”, On the Progress of Peoples (1967).This Catholic principle of collective property on the basis of “need” is being paralleled and espoused by secular government thought and policy all around the world.For example, in the late 1960s, American President Lyndon Johnson said:“We are going to try to take all the money that we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it from the "haves" and give it to the "have nots" that need it so much.”—President Lyndon B. Johnson (36th President of the U.S.A), as quoted in "Remembering Barry Goldwater," The New American (July 6, 1998): 52.“It is a big idea: a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause... only the United States has both the moral standing and the means to back it up."—President George H. W. Bush (41st President of the U.S.A), in his State of the Union address (Los Angeles Times, February 28, 1991).[Note: He is an initiate of the Skull and Bones secret society, which is a chapter of the Bavarian Illuminati. The Illuminati was founded by the Jesuit-trained Adam Weishaupt.]Pope Paul VI wrote in a section entitled: "Toward and Effective World Authority":"This international collaboration on a worldwide scale requires institutions that will prepare, coordinate, and direct it until finally there is established an order of justice which is universally recognized... Who does not see the necessity of thus establishing progressively a world authority capable of acting effectively in the judicial and political sectors."—Pope Paul VI, "Popolorum Progressio” (1976)"The best way to honor Pope John Paul II, truly one of the great men, is to take his teaching seriously; is to listen to his words and put his words and teaching into action here in America. This is a challenge we must accept."—President George W. Bush (43rd President of the U.S.A), ”President Welcomes Catholic Leaders to White House”, (March 21 2001, 5:18 P.M. EST)[Note: He is also an initiate of the Skull and Bones secret society.]PART III: The Papacy in the Bible ProphecyRevelation 18:3“For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.“Revelation 18:15-19“The merchants of these things, who became rich by her, will stand at a distance for fear of her torment, weeping and wailing, 16 and saying, ‘Alas, alas, that great city that was clothed in fine linen, purple, and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls! 17 For in one hour such great riches came to nothing.’ Every shipmaster, all who travel by ship, sailors, and as many as trade on the sea, stood at a distance 18 and cried out when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, ‘What is like this great city?’ 19 “They threw dust on their heads and cried out, weeping and wailing, and saying, ‘Alas, alas, that great city, in which all who had ships on the sea became rich by her wealth! For in one hour she is made desolate.’”Revelation 13:16–17“He [the beast power] causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, 17 and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”~OLD TESTAMENT~It is the Roman Catholic Church who says in her heart, “…‘I AM, and there is [1] NO ONE ELSE BESIDES ME; I shall not sit as a [2] WIDOW, Nor shall I know the [3] LOSS OF CHILDREN [the Protestants]’” (Isaiah 47:8).Notice in Isaiah 47:8, the woman calls herself “I am” which is a title that belongs to Jesus (compare this to John 8:58, Exodus 3:14, John 14:6).[1] “There is no one else besides me” (Her Political Power).“We have constantly sought during the whole course of Our Pontificate and striven, as far as it was possible, by teaching and action, to bind every Nation and people more closely to Us, and make manifest everywhere the salutary influence of the See of Rome…We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.”—Pope Leo XIII, “Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae” (June 20, 1894).[2] “I shall not sit as a widow” (Power over Kings/Governments).Revelation 17:2“With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.”[3] “I shall not know the loss of children” (Her Power over Churches).“It must be always clear that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic universal church is not the sister, but the mother of all the churches.”—“Dominus Iesus” (August 6, 2000).~NEW TESTAMENT~“In the measure that she glorified herself and lived luxuriously, in the same measure give her torment and sorrow; for she says in her heart, ‘[1] I SIT AS A QUEEN, and [2] AM NO WIDOW, and [3] WILL NOT SEE SORROW.’” (Revelation 18:7)[1] “I sit as a queen” (Her Political Power).“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”—Pope Boniface VIII, “Unam Sanctam” (Rome: 1302).[2] “I am not a widow” (Power over Kings/Governments).“The vicar of the incarnate Son of God, anointed high priest and supreme temporal ruler, (the Pope) sat in his tribunal impartially to judge between nation and nation, between people and prince, between sovereign and subject.”—Henry Edward Manning, “The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Jesus Christ” (1862): 46. [this source is a Catholic functionary][3] “I will not see sorrow” (Her Power over Churches).The Catechism of the Catholic Church calls the Church, “Mother and Teacher” (Article 3, “Catechism of the Catholic Church”).The Mark of the Papacy’s AuthorityRead: Sunday RestThe Historical Significance of SundayRead: Constantine’s ChristianityPART IV: The Esoteric Secrets RevealedRead: The Esoteric Thread and the Tower of Babel//ABOVE: [Left] Artist depiction of the Biblical Tower of Babel (notice the spiral shape), [Middle] A poster made by the European Council in 1992, [Right] The EU Parliament (Louise Weiss) Building completed in 1999.PART V: SUMMARYThe Unifying thread of all the problems of the world, which will ultimately prop up the Roman Pontiff as the supreme moral and political authority of the World, is a universal Sunday law that will be embraced by secular governments, businesses, and individuals to combat certain international problems similarly as to how Sunday-laws were used to unite the Roman Empire in the Days of Constantine when papists whispered flatteries into his ear.SOURCES/RESOURCES:The Merchants of the Earth7 crucial developments from the UN's sustainability summit, and what they will mean for businesses and our environmentWhat is the Mark of the Beast?Economic Thought of the Roman Catholic ChurchWealth Redistribution | Roman Catholic Church-State | Fascist FeudalismGlobal Warming or Global ControlThe Jesuits and the Nazi Party