It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

There is 2 nations within America?? Look at this

page: 1
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I was reading someone's question about getting out of social security and this was one man's answer... I think this is what the libertarian party leader 'badnarik' has been doing for some time now. He doesn't drive with a licence or plates...

This is long but it was meshed somewhere in the middle of everyone else's questions so i'm going to paste it...
It's very interesting... Anyone who has knowledge of this area, feel free to comment...

I am shocked.


contrary to what the resident expert has told you there is a way to
legally get out of the SS system. What you need to understand is that
there are two nations in one. One being the Constitutional Republic
that "State Citizens" have access(i.e. your constitutional rights) and
the other is the legislative democracy based in D.C. whose citizens
only have access to "civil rights", although they may appear similiar
they are vastly different in that state citizens are not subject to
any amendment above the 13th.

From the 14th on as a federal or better yet "United States citizen"
you HAVE TO FOLLOW AND OBEY ALL THEIR REGULATIONS,
statutes,ordinances,codes,administrative law(private policy),etc. etc.

NOw the person is right in saying that once you disconnect yourself
from the feds you CANNOT ever go to them for anything. The only
exception being the use of federal reserve notes

now here I need to elaborate:

Federal Reserve Notes are "fiat money", that means that in terms of
intrinsic value they are no better than monopoly money. Think about it
in the most basic terms, its just paper and ink. If the fed gov
dissapeared tommorrow you wouldn't be able to buy a cup of coffee with
it. This is very important to understand as every court in the land
has accepted and recognized the UCC(Uniform Commercial Code) which
establish the rules for any type of commercial transaction (anything
and I mean anything that involves fed notes is a commercial
transaction.). The UCC basically says that you must honor and fulfill
any commercial contract you enter into. EXCEPT IF THERE WAS NO FULL
DISCLOSURE OF THE TERMS AND OBLIGATIONS in the contract. this applies
to the government as well.

where is all this going you ask? well for a full and detailed
explanation of what has happened to our country it would take a 500
page book,so the short and sweet of it is this: the federal
government(legislative democracy)declared bankruptcy in 1938,at that
point their international creditors stepped and took power of attorney
over the government. Public Law(Constitution) became Public
Policy(private law) laws became statutes(actually Admiralty Maritime
Law but they would not dare reveal this to the public.) In order to
not be dragged into court by one of the few hundred thousand state
citizens who know better and charged with treason(the constitution
guarantees a Republican form of government) they provided a way out,
this can be found in UCC 1-207.7.

Every system of civilized law must have two characteristics: Remedy
and Recourse. Remedy is a way to get out from under the law. The
Recourse provides that if you have been damaged under the law, you can
recover your loss. The Common Law, the Law of Merchants, and even the
Uniform Commercial Code all have remedy and recourse, but for a long
time we could not find it. If you go to a law library and ask to see
the Uniform Commercial Code they will show you a tremendous shelf
completely filled with the Uniform Commercial Code. When you pick up
one volume and start to read it, it will seem to have been
intentionally written to be confusing. It took us a long time to
discover where the Remedy and Recourse are found in the U.C.C. They
are found right in the first volume, at 1-207 and 1-103.

Remedy

"The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever
rights the person then possesses, and prevents the loss of such rights
by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel." (UCC 1-207.7)

It is important to remember when we go into a court, that we are in a
commercial, international jurisdiction. If we go into court and say.
"I DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!", the judge will most likely say,
"You mention the Constitution again, and I'll find you in contempt of
court!" Then we don't understand how he can do that. Hasn't he sworn
to uphold the Constitution? The rule here is: you cannot be charged
under one jurisdiction and defend yourself under another jurisdiction.
For example, if the French government came to you and asked where you
filed your French income tax of a certain year, do you go to the
French government and say "I demand my Constitutional Rights?" No. The
proper answer is: "THE LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO ME. I AM NOT A
FRENCHMAN." You must make your reservation of rights under the
jurisdiction in which you are charged, not under some other
jurisdiction. So in a UCC court, you must claim your Reservation of
Rights under UCC 1-207.

UCC 1-207 goes on to say...

"When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a
reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its
assertion at a later date." (UCC 1-207.9)

You have to make your claim known early. Further, it says:

"The Sufficiency of the Reservation: any expression indicating an
intention to reserve rights is sufficient, such as "without
prejudice". (UCC 1-207.4)

Whenever you sign any legal paper that deals with Federal Reserve
Notes, write under your signature: "Without Prejudice (UCC 1-207.4)."
This reserves your rights. You can show, at UCC 1-207.4, that you have
sufficiently reserved your rights.

It is very important to understand just what this means. For example,
one man who used this in regard to a traffic ticket was asked by the
judge just what he meant by writing "without prejudice UCC 1-207" on
his statement to the court? He had not tried to understand the
concepts involved. He only wanted to use it to get out of the ticket.
He did not know what it meant. When the judge asked him what he meant
by signing in that way, he told the judge he was not prejudice against
anyone... The judge knew that the man had no idea what it meant, and
he lost the case. You must know what it means!

Without Prejudice UCC 1.207

When you use "without prejudice UCC 1-207" in connection with your
signature, you are saying, "I reserve my right not to be compelled to
perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not
enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally. I do not accept the
liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or
commercial agreement."

What is the compelled performance of an unrevealed commercial
agreement? When you use Federal Reserve Notes instead of silver
dollars, is it voluntary? No. There is no lawful money or alternative,
so you have to use Federal Reserve Notes; you have to accept the
benefit. The government has given you the benefit to discharge your
debts with limited liability, and you don't have to pay your debts.
How nice they are! But if you did not reserve your rights under
1-207.7, you are compelled to accept the benefit, and are therefore
obliged to obey every statute, ordinance, and regulation of the
government, at all levels of government; federal, state and local.

If you understand this, you will be able to explain it to the judge
when he asks. And he will ask, so be prepared to explain it to the
court. You will also need to understand UCC 1-103, the argument and
recourse. If you want to understand this fully, go to a law library
and photocopy these two sections from the UCC. It is important to get
the Anderson, 3rd edition. Some of the law libraries will only have
the West Publishing version, and it is very difficult to understand.
In Anderson, it is broken down with decimals into ten parts and, most
importantly, it is written in plain English.

Recourse

The Recourse appears in the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-103.6, which says:

"The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in
force, except where displaced by the code. A statute should be
construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear
legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law." (UCC 1-103.6)

This is the argument we use in court. The Code recognizes the Common
Law. If it did not recognize the Common Law, the government would have
had to admit that the United States is bankrupt, and is completely
owned by its creditors. But, it is not expedient to admit this, so the
Code was written so as not to abolish the Common Law entirely.
Therefore, if you have made a sufficient, timely, and explicit
reservation of your rights at 1-207, you may then insist that the
statutes be construed in harmony with the Common Law.

If the charge is a traffic ticket, you may demand that the court
produce the injured person who has filed a verified complaint. If, for
example, you were charged with failure to buckle your seat belt, you
may ask the court: "Who was injured as a result of your failure to
'buckle up'?" However, if the judge won't listen to you and just moves
ahead with the case, then you will want to read to him the last
sentence of 103.6, which states: (2) Actually, it is better to use a
rubber stamp, because this demonstrates that you had previously
reserved your rights. The simple fact that it takes several days or a
week to order and get a stamp shows that you had reserved your rights
before signing the document. Anderson Uniform Commercial Code Lawyers'
Cooperative Publishing Co. The Code cannot be read to preclude a
Common Law section. Tell the judge, "Your Honor, I can sue you under
the Common Law, for violating my rights under the Uniform Commercial
Code. I have a remedy, under the UCC, to reserve my rights under the
Common Law. I have exercised the remedy, and now you must construe
this statute in harmony with the Common Law. To be in harmony with the
Common Law, you must come forth with the damaged party."

If the judge insists on proceeding with the case, just act confused
and ask this question: "Let me see if I understand, Your Honor, has
this court made a legal determination that sections 1-207 and 1-103 of
the Uniform Commercial Code, which is the system of law you are
operating under, are not valid law before this court?"

Now the judge is in a jam! How can the court throw out one part of the
Code and uphold another? If he answers, "yes", then you say: "I put
this court on notice that I am appealing your legal determination." Of
course, the higher court will uphold the Code on appeal. The judge
knows this, so once again you have boxed him in.

I hope this helps on your path to understanding

Link to page



[edit on 26-8-2005 by TrueLies]




posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Good read. But what does this mean then:





810 ILCS 5/1‑207) (from Ch. 26, par. 1‑207)
Sec. 1‑207. Performance or acceptance under reservation of rights.
(1) A party who, with explicit reservation of rights, performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice", "under protest" or the like are sufficient.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an accord and satisfaction.
(Source: P.A. 87‑582.)



This is from the Illinois version of the UCC.

Link

What is an accord and satisfaction?



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Excellent posting, thank you for putting this up! I have read longer and more detailed explanations of this information before, but your post sums it up very well for people new to this information, who will probably be shocked , and hopefully shocked into action. Good work.
---Ryan



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies

If the charge is a traffic ticket, you may demand that the court
produce the injured person who has filed a verified complaint. If, for
example, you were charged with failure to buckle your seat belt, you
may ask the court: "Who was injured as a result of your failure to
'buckle up'?" However, if the judge won't listen to you and just moves
ahead with the case, then you will want to read to him the last
sentence of 103.6, which states: (2) Actually, it is better to use a rubber stamp
because this demonstrates that you had previously reserved your rights.
The simple fact
that it takes several days or a week to order and get a stamp shows that you had
reserved your rights before signing the document. Anderson Uniform
Commercial Code Lawyers' Cooperative Publishing Co. The Code cannot be
read to preclude a Common Law section. Tell the judge, "Your Honor, I can
sue you under the Common Law, for violating my rights under the Uniform
Commercial Code. I have a remedy, under the UCC, to reserve my rights
under the Common Law. I have exercised the remedy, and now you must
construe this statute in harmony with the Common Law. To be in harmony
with the Common Law, you must come forth with the damaged party."


Please explain: Actually, it is better to use a rubber stamp,
because this demonstrates that you had previously reserved your rights?.


Is it a rubber stamp of the statement: "without prejudice UCC 1-207?"

Does it refer to the other UCC section? What are the exact words on the
"rubber stamp?"

[edit on 31-8-2005 by SkipShipman]



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   
^I'm near postive that is not part of the statement. This was a very interesting read. Next time I am in court I will remember this!



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 08:14 PM
link   
TrueLies - This is a great post... I'm sure you know much more than you are getting at here - wish you would go on at length so some of the others would understand how to control this and make life so much easier.

SkipShipman - YES, it means to use a Rubber Stamp like the ones you might use such as CANCEL, REGISTERED, COPY. The kind you can order from Staples and such. The reason you use a stamp is to show that you always reserve your rights and not just that one time. If you are using a stamp it is assumed you've done this many times before.

You can become untouchable if you file the UCC-1 Financial Statement along with Bonding your Birth Certificate... and many other forms you must file. There is much more to the process that TrueLies isn't getting into. It's complicated but if the judge decides that he wants to play games with you, you will walk out of court owning his home, his car, maybe even his bond. You cannot be a judge if you lose your bond. Pretty powerful stuff.

In Freedom
the-candy:[man]

[edit on 20-5-2008 by thecandyman]



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueLies
 


This bugs me.

A Nation is an ethical population with a particular history, culture, ethnicity and political structure. Indian's have Nations. Ireland is a Nation. France is a Nation, Japan is a Nation.

America is a country. A country is a political boundary.

So you could say "there are two countries in America?!"

And that would be correct, two political boundaries.

But I digress.

I believe who ever you got your information from is full of hot air!



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


I've learned to just smile and nod whenever a libertarian says anything. Invariably it's going to be like something from the farthest right-wing mook you can imagine, only with far, far less socioeconomic sense behind it.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Heeeyyyy... I am a Libertarian lol. I still think this article is a bunch of bs though. Makes no logical sense what so ever.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   
it makes sense its just that not all of the article is here, i read a larger version and it has more info

the thing i find ironic is that its the Mason that is disagreeing with it (lol keep up the good work)



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   
It just comes off as an unintelligent rant to me. Nothing against the OP, or anyone else who chooses to believe this.

There is a thread out there by Mybigunit all about whether or not the Federal Reserve is a tool of the NWO or if there is a conspiracy against them.

Essentially everyone points to "the currency is fiat" .. ok .. why is it fiat? You can still buy something so why is it "worth nothing" .. It's worth what you can get for it. Then they move to "well it's not backed by Gold" .. Well, I must ask, what makes Gold valuable? Easy. People say it is, people will always give you something for Gold. Well, I would be forced to remind everyone that the same law applies to "fiat" money. It's worth something because someone will always give you something in return.

If I handed you a $100 bill ..... you would take it? Why? .. Because it's a hundred bucks! .. Because it's worth something.



The article listed here is a lot of speculation, it has a lot of misguided facts and essentially comes to an illogical conclusion that tells me who ever wrote it has never studied the political structure (and economical) of the US.

Just my thoughts of course, take it for what you will, I am a Mason after all.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
If I'm understanding what this is saying, there is two-tier legal system in the Sovereign Corporation called the United States incorporated in Delaware in 1871.

There is Constitutional Law for those who exempt themselves out of Maritime Law, and there is Maritime Law (Law of the Sea) for those who simply accept the system as it operates.

Only the people with special knowledge and money for legal affairs are able to exempt themselves out of Maritime Law, by special actions and declarations so that they can live by Constitutional Law protected by the Bill of Rights.

Everybody else is chattel and can be treated as chattel.

Am I correct here?



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by sarcastic
 


That is what I got out of it as well, although it was pretty confusing.




posted on May, 21 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Confusing because it's a bunch'o' crap..

See what I mean it defies logical common sense?



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   
So...is this real or what? Anyone else know anything about all this. If it is legit I'd like to possibly pursue it someday. How much $$ are we talking here for legal guidance to do something like this. I have heard people mention "common law" all my life, but have never really understood all that's really going on there.



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Research I have done indicates that this is indeed true. And I actually saw someone in court the other day, challenging the judge on similar grounds...


Man declares sovereignty, challenges jurisdiction of court



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   
This concept is very true. Please confine yourself to understanding "contracts". You must come to accept that everything you do is a contract, even down to taking mail from your mail-box. You must also come to the understanding that this choice was made because it was decided that if the average person understood their rights, they wouldn't have a concept or idea of how to use them. So, the government grabbed those rights. What also gives this argument credence is the fact that the US dollar was once backed-up by Gold (Au), this means that for ever dollar in curculation there existed that amount in the Gold "reserve", that is not the case anymore. This only works through people giving up their rights and relying on the government and not doing your own research. I have read many of these posts about UCC this and that, I have done my own research and I have experimented with this concept. It has worked everytime. This works if you look at every move you make as being a contract.

Example #1
My wife made an appointment with the dentist for me and our three children. I was unable to make the appointment, my wife called within 24 hours to cancel the appointment. The dentist sent me a bill for $300, ($75 per person), and a notice detailing their billing policy. I then sent them a notice honoring their request for payment. But, by honoring their request. I needed them to honor mine. My request was that they send me proof that I made the appointment, that I contracted with them, and proof that they explained their billing practices to me. I detailed my rights under UCC 1-308, and explained that I have never, and would never, authorize anyone to enter into a contract on my behalf. i informed them that they had 15 days to reply, and if they chose not to, I would come to the understanding that they had found their mistake and would zero my balance. I went on to say that if they did anything to cause harm to my credit report I would sue them in court for as much as I could (recourse). On the 15th day they called and tried to threaten me, I stayed firm. They said I could never come to their office again. End result: the money (the bill) was removed. How many times or how many of you have bills like that, that are on your credit report right now? Where it wasn't resolved through a letter but resolved because you rescheduled the appointment? I know that was a small example, but before you call it garbage, try it. Then, when it works; read more, study more.

I will now try to explain what the principles are. Please understand that I am saying that I hope "I" can explain them right, not if you can understand. In order for there to be a valid contract there must be risk(s) and benefit(s) on both sides. This risk does not have any limitations nor do the benefits. What this means is: if you accept play money from a bank for your mortgage, you accept the fact that it is play money and you agree anyway. The bank can write off play money, while your real family is foreclosed upon. Think about this, gold is gold. It trades at $800 per ounce WORLDWIDE. If the dollars value was protected by gold (that the US govt owned), the dollars value would only fluctuate based on the trade of gold, right? I can not go to Fort Knox and asked to be paid in gold can I? Because if you gave me gold I could go to Canada and say "gold is $800 per ounce", instead I go with a dollar and they can say it's only worth 0.97 cents. I could go on.
Contracts. When you accept any license from the govt you are implying that you understand and accept all of the stipulations of that license. With your signature you are saying that you "understand" and accept that you have given up your rights. Without Prejudice means this: no party has given up their rights yet. With Prejudice means: the complaining or responding party(-ies) has either given up their rights or they have been lost.
Internet Ninjas don't reply. Find Your own Truth.



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueLies
 


Outstanding thread. The police and judges have been acting above the law for quite some time and its high time we get some pay back.

How many attorneys know this and how do you go about getting protection like this for everything?



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by thecandyman

You can become untouchable if you file the UCC-1 Financial Statement along with Bonding your Birth Certificate... and many other forms you must file. There is much more to the process that TrueLies isn't getting into. It's complicated but if the judge decides that he wants to play games with you, you will walk out of court owning his home, his car, maybe even his bond. You cannot be a judge if you lose your bond. Pretty powerful stuff.

In Freedom
the-candy:[man]

[edit on 20-5-2008 by thecandyman]


And where do I find out how to do this? I would like to learn all I can about something like this.



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 11:47 PM
link   
This is a very interesting topic. After reading the post, i decided to read more into this, it is very interesting looking at the underlying facts of our govt.

I google searched this topic and took the first link. Some of the OP's original post read verbatim from some of the stuff on this page i'll link at the bottom here. Very interesting read so far, im about halfway through. If you want more reading on this topic, id suggest this site below. Can't vouch for validity for the source, but its interesting none the less.

Another Source



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join