The real CONTROLLERS of CANADA

[rey2010]

Hello,people might not be ware as to who the real controllers of Canada are.

Some might say the Aspers,Bronfmans,Desmarais etc..if you go buy the Canadian Business magazines and their top 10o richest people/families...but appearances are deceiving..
Recently the Canadian club(hockey) franchise was sold back to the Molson family.(into beer-known as hte Molson-Coors conglomerate).What caught up my attention was the fact that suddenly all major players competing for this cash cow club suddenly started praising the new owner one Molson family..even the PM(of Quebec) approuved of it.

..Why would the Bronfmans(20th) ,Desmarais(8th),etc..known to be industrlal pirates bow to the Molson who barely made the 100th  position as the richest family in Canada

see  http://www.canadianbusiness.com   search Rich //100 for 2008

Also notice ow many are of JEWISH origin and have Jewish ties(family related) as well as to NOBILITY..Many do hide their Jewish ancestry like the MOLSONS do..Officially the Molsons are Anglicans from Britain..and can trace their original ancestors before 1066 ,in France..

But if you look up at various sources like Wikipedia ,ancestry etc..you come up with a mixture of bizarre omissions..Unlike other rich and famous like the Bronfmans the Molson are very secretive.
In fact they have NOBILITY in their family.Many have married cousins etc..
Perhaps if one has access to University libraries they could look up the following book "The Molsons;Their Lives & Times:1780-2000 by Karen Molson,$40, 416 pages,Firefly Books, ISBN 1-55209-418-9

What I was able to find on the net is that the Molsons have  some JEWISH roots and the only reference to that is at the Canadian War Museum as one of the Molson participated as an aviator in   the Battle of Britain in 1940-41..
This was Hartland de Montarville Molson
 see http://www.reference.combrowse/wiki/Hartland_Molson   notice that his daughter Zoe  married one Paul Hardinge -5th Viscount Hardinge and moved to JERSEY..

Young Hartland was sent to Paris in 1928 to train as an employee into finance  at a bank in Paris(-Banque Adam )..In 1931 he married one Helen Hogg.Hartland Molson died in 2002 at the age of 95..

Hartland divorced in 1938,married one  Magda Posner and when she died(1982) he married in 1990 one Margaret Meighen
See http://www.telegraphcp.uk do a search for obituaries in 2002 for Molson..
[incidentally the British press gives  more infos than the Canadian one..]

Notes 1- Karen Molson published a book about Hartland Molson "Hartland de Montarville Molson;Man of Honou"r,in 2006,176 pages,Firefly Books, ISBN-13 :978-155407-1500 (a biography of H. Molson 1907-2002)

2-To find out about the social activities of the Molsons go to:
http://blog.molson.com/community

[Note-any idiot from Canada  making a threath over the Net vs the Molson via their Blog expect the Federal police  at your door within 24 hrs..]

3-It is my contention that the Molson do control CANADA behind the scenes and they have ties in with the Rothschilds-their agents for Canada..

4-Read a quote from the Canadian War Museum  Archives that Hartland Molson had stated that it would be bad for him to be taken down over occupied Europe as he was a JEW..This quote seems to have been scrubbed off the "net"...However if you have university access(which I do not) you could look up the said archives..

5-The Molsons have always been friends of the Jewish establishment , etc..friendly relations wiht the Bronfmans,etc..

6-now GOOGLE tells you that using the word JEW is considered offensive ! Re "offensive Search Result "

7-a good site to start looking into the NOBILITY connection is called is called
http://www.thepeerage.com

[rey2010]

One of the ploy of those in control,in this case here the Molson's is NEVER use your money when making purchases or as little as possible and have the others-usually the tax payers foot the bill..

In recent news(re  http://www.cyberpresse.ca   in French.. infos can also be found in English about this as well    http://themontrealgazette.com   ),

but surprise(!) the Molson's are in negotiation with the provincial government of Quebec for a LOAN in order to help them purchase the very lucrative Canadien hockey club franchise(~ 20%(!?) of profits per year).
The loan would be around $100 millions,for many years  the current rate of 7-9% or so..

Now considering that this interest can be deducted as expenses and fact that the Molson company is in fact owned by the MOLSON FOUNDATION which as per rules is exempt of paying any income taxes + other "marginal benefits"... so there you have it  as to HOW these people do business...

Will the political parties in opposition demand some explanations or the newspapers ?Well no, they will rejoice with glee at such an acute business deal (!)and us peosn ought to just grin and bea rit...

[LatinAmericanview]

"Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth."

Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom and of 31 other states and territories, is the legal owner of about 6,600 million acres of land, one sixth of the earth's non ocean surface.

Her main holdings are Canada, the 2nd largest country on earth, with 2,467 million acres,

Yjis always seems to confuse me. She owns a great deal of the country and pays no taxes. The Evil Jews just don't seem to have that kind of power. Maybe Rey you could start a thread about this curious fact?

[Wimpy]

I recall the Falkland Islands situation in the 80's where Britain, God Save The Queen, was challenged by Argentina.  How the papers reported for over a week on the slowly approaching Naval Armada from Britain to secure their precious Island.  I recall British victory but also their shock of losing a ship in the "battle" from a French Excocet missile.

Problem with land ownership is holding on to it and, if challenged, to what extent is one willing to sustain losses.  If the losses of maintaining ownership exceed the money producing or strategic value then perhaps it would be time to cut and run.

"The Evil Jews just don't seem to have that kind of power."-LAV

Defending your friends again? 8-)

[LatinAmericanview]

I recall the Falkland Islands situation in the 80's where Britain, God Save The Queen, was challenged by Argentina.  How the papers reported for over a week on the slowly approaching Naval Armada from Britain to secure their precious Island.  I recall British victory but also their shock of losing a ship in the "battle" from a French Excocet missile.

Problem with land ownership is holding on to it and, if challenged, to what extent is one willing to sustain losses.  If the losses of maintaining ownership exceed the money producing or strategic value then perhaps it would be time to cut and run.

"The Evil Jews just don't seem to have that kind of power."-LAV

Defending your friends again? 8-)

Np merely point out the limits of our current conceptualization.The friend comment is a weak shot.

[Wimpy]

Maybe a cheap shot but none the less poignant.

Officially the Queen is named the largest land owner but does that give her the power?  Does she secretly own and control the Banks of Europe and America?  Does she control the Media in the US, Pharmaceutical Industry etc. or does she control those that do?

If she is the most powerful and the "Evil Jews" are only her administrators then I welcome any proof that you have.  Otherwise, it is mere mental masturbation to put forth such speculation.

[LatinAmericanview]

Maybe a cheap shot but none the less poignant.

Officially the Queen is named the largest land owner but does that give her the power?  Does she secretly own and control the Banks of Europe and America?  Does she control the Media in the US, Pharmaceutical Industry etc. or does she control those that do?

If she is the most powerful and the "Evil Jews" are only her administrators then I welcome any proof that you have.  Otherwise, it is mere mental masturbation to put forth such speculation.

Basically, it appears that after the time of the reformation that all power structures changed. Look into the transformation if British society. What happened to the aristocratic power? Well, the political power for the nobles became the House of Lords. All government positions serve at the pleasure of the Queen. That is to say that if the Queens requests a power change it is in her power to request such a change it is her constitutional right. The illusion of her powerlessness is based on the fact that She does not request it formally and openly giving the impression of self rule. Another way of looking at the problem is the relation of rights and privileges. In America and everywhere else in the world people have the "right" to own property so long as the government does not usurp this inalienable right  for a just cause. However, an inalienable right is absolute meaning that it can not be taken away. The fact that we all understand that our property can be taken away implies that we never had an inalienable right but a privilege until the powers that be decided differently. Since the right of "freeman" usually does not come in conflict with government interest creates the illusion that we are free. During various Jewish pogroms the Rights of free Jews is trumped and their property reverts to the state. Hence it is only the recent developments of restitution for Jews that this become a little confusing. I feel that the thing that can clear these matters up is investigation of property rights. Only a Freemen has this right. The Queens and other monarchies seem to more of this right then the rest of us. The question is why? How does one enforce this type of ownership entailed in the deeds and tiles which these people have? This is not intellectual masturbation but rather a need for clarification of some of this property issues. In short the only difference between Freemen ans slaves is property ownership.

[Anonymous]

12 years after the hang over and this statute remains on the books.

from the crimes ordinance

either HK people are lazy or they know something i don't

Chapter 200 section 2

PART I

TREASON

(1) A person commits treason if he-

                  (a) kills, wounds or causes bodily harm to Her Majesty, or imprisons or restrains Her;
                  (b) forms an intention to do any such act as is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests such intention by an overt act;
                  (c) levies war against Her Majesty-
                        (i) with the intent to depose Her Majesty from the style, honour and royal name of the Crown of the United Kingdom or of any other of Her Majesty's dominions; or
                        (ii) in order by force or constraint to compel Her Majesty to change Her measures or counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon, or to intimidate or overawe, Parliament or the legislature of any British territory; (d) instigates any foreigner with force to invade the United Kingdom or any British territory;
                  (e) assists by any means whatever any public enemy at war with Her Majesty; or
                  (f) conspires with any other person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a) or (c).

(2) Any person who commits treason shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life. (Amended 24 of 1993 s. 2)
[cf. 1351 c. 2 U.K.; 1795 c. 7 s. 1 U.K.; 1817 c. 6 s. 1 U.K.]

Chapter 200 section 3 Treasonable offenses

(1) Any person who forms an intention to effect any of the following purposes, that is to say-

                  (a) to depose Her Majesty from the style, honour and royal name of the Crown of the United Kingdom or of any other of Her Majesty's dominions;
                  (b) to levy war against Her Majesty within the United Kingdom or any British territory in order by force or constraint to compel Her Majesty to change Her measures or counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon, or to intimidate or overawe, Parliament or the legislature of any British territory; or
                  (c) to instigate any foreigner with force to invade the United Kingdom or any British territory,

and manifests such intention by an overt act or by publishing any printing or writing, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction upon indictment to imprisonment for life. [cf. 1848 c. 12 s. 3 U.K.]
(2) It shall be no defence to a charge under this section that any act proved against the person charged amounts to treason under section 2; but no person convicted or acquitted of an offence under this section shall afterwards be prosecuted for treason under section 2 upon the same facts. [cf. 1848 c. 12 s. 7 U.K.]

ch 200 section 5

Any person who wilfully-

                  (a) produces or has near Her Majesty any arms or destructive or dangerous thing with intent to use the same to injure Her Majesty;
                  (b) with intent to alarm or to injure Her Majesty, or to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be caused-
                        (i) discharges, or points, aims or presents any arms at or near Her Majesty;
                        (ii) causes any explosive substance to explode near Her Majesty;
                        (iii) assaults Her Majesty; or
                        (iv) throws anything at or upon Her Majesty,

shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction upon indictment to imprisonment for 7 years.

PART II

OTHER OFFENCES AGAINST THE CROWN

Any person who knowingly attempts-

                  (a) to seduce any member of Her Majesty's forces from his duty and allegiance to Her Majesty; or (Amended 54 of 1992 s. 19; 20 of 1997 s. 25)
                  (b) to incite any such person-
                        (i) to commit an act of mutiny or any traitorous or mutinous act; or
                        (ii) to make or endeavour to make a mutinous assembly,

shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction upon indictment to imprisonment for life.

(1) Any person who knowingly attempts to seduce-

                  (a) any member of Her Majesty's forces;
                  (b) (Repealed 20 of 1997 s. 25)
                  (ba) any member of the Government Flying Service; (Added 54 of 1992 s. 19)
                  (c) any police officer; or
                  (d) any member of the Royal Hong Kong Auxiliary Police Force,

from his duty or allegiance to Her Majesty shall be guilty of an offence. [cf. 1934 c. 56 s. 1 U.K.]
(2) Any person who-

                  (a) knowing that any member or officer mentioned in subsection (1) is about to desert or absent himself without leave, assists him in so doing; or
                  (b) knowing such member or officer to be a deserter or absentee without leave, conceals him or assists him in concealing himself or assists in his rescue from custody,

shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) Any person who, with intent to commit or to aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence under subsection (1), has in his possession any document of such a nature that the dissemination of copies thereof among the members or officers mentioned in subsection (1) would constitute such an offence, shall be guilty of an offence. [cf. 1934 c. 56 s. 2(1) U.K.]
(4) Any person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction upon indictment to a fine of $5000 and to imprisonment for 2 years. [cf. 1934 c. 56 s. 3(1) U.K.]
(5) The court by or before which a person is convicted of an offence under this section may order any documents connected with the offence to be destroyed or dealt with in such other manner as may be specified in the order; but no documents shall be destroyed before the expiration of the period within which an appeal may be lodged, and if an appeal is lodged no document shall be destroyed until after the appeal has been finally determined or abandoned. [cf. 1934 c. 56 s. 3(4) U.K.]
(6) No prosecution for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Secretary for Justice. (Amended L.N. 362 of 1997) [cf. 1934 c. 56 s. 3(2) U.K.]

(1) A seditious intention is an intention-

                  (a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the person of Her Majesty, or Her Heirs or Successors, or against the Government of Hong Kong, or the government of any other part of Her Majesty's dominions or of any territory under Her Majesty's protection as by law established; (Replaced 28 of 1938 s. 2)
                  (b) to excite Her Majesty's subjects or inhabitants of Hong Kong to attempt to procure the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any other matter in Hong Kong as by law established; or
                  (c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Hong Kong; or
                  (d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst Her Majesty's subjects or inhabitants of Hong Kong; or
                  (e) to promote feelings of ill-will and enmity between different classes of the population of Hong Kong; or
                  (f) to incite persons to violence; or (Added 30 of 1970 s. 2)
                  (g) to counsel disobedience to law or to any lawful order. (Added 30 of 1970 s. 2)

(2) An act, speech or publication is not seditious by reason only that it intends- (Amended 28 of 1938 s. 2)

                  (a) to show that Her Majesty has been misled or mistaken in any of Her measures; or
                  (b) to point out errors or defects in the government or constitution of Hong Kong as by law established or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying of such errors or defects; or
                  (c) to persuade Her Majesty's subjects or inhabitants of Hong Kong to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Hong Kong as by law established; or
                  (d) to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters which are producing or have a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different classes of the population of Hong Kong. (Amended 28 of 1938 s. 2)

(3) (Repealed 74 of 1992 s. 2)
(13 of 1938 s. 3 incorporated)

[Anonymous]

"All property reverts to the crown for want of a competent heir"
I don't think this statement made by the BAR members is in reference to the Queen.
I think it's the other crown.....THE CITY and The Inns of Court.
All citizens of CANADA are considered "PERSONS" under the law.
A person is a legal entity and not flesh and blood.
A person cannot walk, talk fart or even shit their diaper and therefore are 100% incompetent before the crown and thats...THE LAW!!
Maybe you guys in the UK should check your status.
You just may find it to be the same.

[Anonymous]

"All property reverts to the crown for want of a competent heir"
I don't think this statement made by the BAR members is in reference to the Queen.
I think it's the other crown.....THE CITY and The Inns of Court.
All citizens of CANADA are considered "PERSONS" under the law.
A person is a legal entity and not flesh and blood.
A person cannot walk, talk fart or even shit their diaper and therefore are 100% incompetent before the crown and thats...THE LAW!!
Maybe you guys in the UK should check your status.
You just may find it to be the same.

I have searched for interpretation of the term and it is non-existent. Do have the term defined in Black's or some other legal dictionary?

[Anonymous]

The term is in the esheats act.
Some may have it worded slightly different with the same results.
Which governs the transfer of all property in the Commonwealth.
Here is B.C.'s as an example:
http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/fre ... l#section3

[LatinAmericanview]

Now here is the kicker- The financial institutions are all subject to those laws because it is a rule set established in part after the Marshall plan. It is a shell game but if one were to look at who is ultimately protected by law we can gain some understanding of the power structure. Wimpy, don't worry the Evils Jews are part of the that game just look at how there precious banks were able to legally rob us blind under the LAW.

[Wimpy]

"Wimpy, don't worry the Evils Jews are part of the that game just look at how there precious banks were able to legally rob us blind under the LAW."-LAV

Feel better now?

[rey2010]

Perhaps Americans do not know this very well-

Canada celebrates is birthday on July 1st 1867-Confederation Day(used to be called dominion Day)Now this was whenthe  4 quasi autonomous provinces of Canada associated themselves and decided to form a federal government..All politicians were bought and paid for thus centralisaion officially starts here.. along the timeline when it started in the US afterythe Civil War..

Around 1900 a strong push was made for free trader/ amalgamation with the US but it was rejected.. as too many British (Canadians)subjects were opposed to it as they had a sentimental attachment to good ole  Queen Victoria..

Canada effectively became independent in 1931;independence of its Supreme court in 1949;its own constitution in 1982

The monarchy in Canada is a legal smoke screen to hide the real owners of Canada-zionists-their agents,stooges,illuminati  families,etc..

Look at the Bilderberger meetings-see how many Canadians are on it-yet many of these names are little know.

Incidentally-the main function of the Bilderbergers is to publicity endorse previously adopted policies.. and dissert on past policies-if they were successful or not..they are there strictly for the show

By this I mean the names that appear on the official list-what is not mentioned by the Alex Jones the zionist shill et al  is the other meetings going on  at same time by XXX(Illuminatis etc..) people..People of no seemingly proeminence that yet are at Blderberger meetings year after year serve as go betweens between the illuminatis and their Bilderberger servants

What better place to hide real decisional meetings in PLAIN SIGHT !

Note-Last meeting in Greece-why do you think full km of areas  were restricted ?

[mgt23]

the zionists dont necessaryly have control over british intelligence either. for example defence intelligence branch of the army. defence intelligence has a universal scope has been around the longest on a global scale and has a plan for eliminating all other competition. Zionism just happens to be the current priority because we can see it. If you study the assassination rates british intelligence has some of the lowest casualties. So we just have to treat them as one collaborating power bloc and deal with them separately.

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately everything done by governments is done with everyones permission.
The 'citizen" has abandoned any right to complain simply because, "he agreed!"
If one does not comprehend this then, one is seen by ones government as a "mad dog barking up a dead horses ass."
Your government can and will, if the need arises, bury every single one of you knee deep in contracts you authorized.
Every single man/woman to a one accepted benefits and privilege from the state.
Only wards of the state apply for benefits and privileges.
One simply must stop volunteering because, to continue complaining while voluntarily stepping up for shearing is....WHAT!!

[§N9sh2bj]

divide and conquer, mixing terms as if they were separate, like the royal families (nobility) with jews is moot because they are the same group of people.

The queen is related to george bush and kerry, along with other well-knowns, I think this includes clinton. I saw this in a clip borrowed from a mainstream documentary - you know how these types like to put there info out in the open, flaunt it if you will, if only once? Look at the The Arrivals video series. I'm not endorsing that series and it's statements about the immanent arrival of the Dijaal (muslim one-eyed anti-christ). There are some interesting clips in there for sure, worth scanning through the 50 or so clips, each a few minutes long.

The jews who ran the ghettos and told the romans to murder christ, have been near the top of the worldly pecking order for a long time, and with the massive rothschild fortune emerging, it made sense for the royals to intermarry if they hadn't already, replacing their blood with jew-blood (genes). The queen is more jewish than country-english by a long slide. Her english is totally different, and reminds me more of an inbred ghetto-type than some truly sovereign english-man.

jackieg is trying to educate you. Invisible Contracts is a good book, taking out all the mormon crap, which analyzes how they have you by the balls. Such as, using the privately-held Federal Reserve agent's banknotes, or the kind of banknotes common in canada, puts your financial transactions in the jurisdiction of those agencies by default. Taxes are not collected on your labor or bought goods, so much as they are collected because you used 'their' currency supply - it's the totally unnecessary fee for doing business with their rubber checks. You used them, therefor you agreed to pay the fee they demand.

Ignorance, fear and debt are all the real, more common forms, of the most-often used and ambiguous word printed as 'sin', when written in a manner to note breaking with natural law, in the mainstream bible texts. jackieg is enlightening you of these. Also, part of english-legalize is using words or phrases, like The Queen, are a title, a pure fiction, and bear no resemblance to the queen, an adjective. Be very careful when you encounter capitalized words in english for which your english teacher, if she was any good at her job, would have given you an 'F' for using. Being careful about using and recognizing titles extending to many words the english teacher probably would not mind you capitalizing, and some words she may downgrade you on if you *did not* capitalize, as she was mis-educated by professors, news-media, and other sources. So often we may have been taught a spelling was formal or informal, when the real meaning was the informal the only lawful spelling, and the formal a mask for a legal fiction.

in closing, it does not matter whether the reader believes it is the nobility or the jews controlling canada, these groups of people are one-in-the-same. Show me a nobility who is not a jew and I've got a bridge to sell you.