Practical Guige to Free Energy Devices

There was one group of landowners who operated more by trickery than by sheer force of arms.
Going under the general title of the “Church” their influence came from telling people that when
they die that they would not go to “heaven” if they were not servants of the Church. That
technique worked very well and even influenced the head honcho of the landowners - the
Monarch who was the ultimate “landowner”. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that it is wrong
to worship God, follow a moral code, live an upright and blameless life, but, doing that has
nothing whatsoever to do with being subject to any human or human organisation.
A point which you have probably missed is that the ‘landowners’ considered the serfs to be subhuman
“things” and not people at all. Unfit to, and incapable of, owning land under any
circumstances. Considered to be ‘goods and chattels’ owned by the landowners. At that time,
“serf” was an alternative word for “slave”.
It is not possible for one human to genuinely “own” another human. Parents do not own the
children born to them. They have a duty and a responsibility to nurture them and care for them
and ideally, love them, but they do not own them. The weird notion which landowners have that
they “own” humans is as false as anything can get. Slavery is another act of violence. Only a
very ill-informed person believes that slavery has been ‘abolished’ as it is more widespread today
than at any other time in all of recorded history, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with skin
colour.
In the well-known year of 1066, another violent ‘landowner’ arrived in England and by force of
arms, imposed Roman law on all of England. You will recall that Rome was very heavily into
slaves and the slaves had no rights or privileges, no possessions and no protection, in spite of
the fact that in reality, every one of them actually had equal entitlement to the rights claimed by
their so-called “owners”, both slaves and masters being human beings. So, please understand
clearly, that Roman law encompassed the notion of people being called slaves, and owned as
“things”.
In 1213, King John was excommunicated and that frightened him so much that he signed a
contract with the Pope. The contract is known as the “Treaty of Verona” and it undertook to
introduce Rome’s canon law to England, which made Archbishop Stephan Langton, the effective
ruler of all of the country. The contract was supposed to give the Pope ownership of all of the
lands, people, animals, etc. of all of King John’s kingdom. According to this contract, the Vatican
owns all of England and all of the British Commonwealth countries.
This is, of course, a rubbish document. Firstly, King John did not genuinely own any land of any
description and never could have. Secondly, King John did not and never could have owned any
of the people living on that land. Thirdly, a contract cannot be signed on behalf of a third party, so
his signature could never, ever have any genuine effect on the people of the land. If that were
not the case, then I could sign a contract on your behalf, guaranteeing that you would pay me a
million pounds. It couldn’t happen and if it did, it would be meaningless. The Treaty of Verona
contract only applies to the signing parties, to have any effect on the people of the land would
require them to be fully informed of the consequences and give their consent to the contract, and
that never happened.
In an attempt to be cunning, the treaty was worded so as to make it appear to apply to the direct
descendants of both the English monarch and the direct descendents of the Pope, namely, his
successors. Personally, that seems highly doubtful to me as that would make it, in effect, a
contract between people who have not agreed to it or signed it, and it is by no means obvious
how a contract could be binding on people who are not party to it and who have not signed it.
However, just two years later in 1215 the landowners forced King John to sign a contract called
the “Magna Carta”. It is highly doubtful that a contract where one of the parties is intimidated into
signing, has any actual validity, but that aside, the contract was made under the conditions
15 - 2