It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Provost Marshalls to Serve Notice To Governors of All 50 States? Restore America

page: 15
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 08:53 AM
reply to post by TrueAmerican

not to be a stickler for details but
can I get that in writing please

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 09:22 AM
No, she claimed to be a part of DHS, Customs border patrol to be exact, and was on leave at teh time for health reasons.

Now while I find this far fetched, the other videos she has put out, there were many others saying the same thing, so she was not just shouting into the wind, even though things did not happen. The goberment was pushing hard, but it did not work out for them as it would have been too much of a stretch.

This seems way out there.

But, I have a contact that told me Texas and Montanna was joining forces to lead in something and three different times by three different sources the month of October came up.

So there is something in the works, and what it is I do not know.


Originally posted by Rockerchic4God
This girl did a YouTube video last summer, claiming she was a member of the military and had inside information. Her assertion at that time was that the military was getting emergency training and told to be ready for "October orders" to impose martial law and outfit everyone with a H1N1 vaccination bracelet because of the pandemic. Obviously, that did not happen so logically I don't think she's credible.

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 09:39 AM
I have a theory, tell me what u think.

This Reform America Act was designed and implemented
by Christians.

It was a Christian Militia targeted for raids.

Could the raids be Obama's revenge for the Reform
America Act ????

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 09:44 AM
reply to post by boondock-saint

Haha, Good luck with that man. Come on guys and gals this is all a bunch of BS. I know politicians, yes governors are politicians too. There is no way in hell they are going to stick there heads out for some thing like this.
The only way to change this country and to amend the constitution back to its original intent is to have a constitutional convention and do it the legal way, out in the open for all to see. Not some trumped up BS constitution wrote by some a- hole that no one has ever heard of before. Isn’t that how we got here to start with. The back room writing of a bill that changes 20% of our countries economy that consolidates more power into the hands of the fed. Allows the IRS to take your assets and property without legal due process. The mandatory forcing of all citizens to purchase a good or service (healthcare) against there will and all of this being signed into law against the will of the people.
Wake up! The socialists have used are system to legally gain control of are country we need to use the same avenues to get it back before they close the door behind them for good and we are all stuck with this crap.
Have a nice day,

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 10:55 AM

Originally posted by hawkiye

I think you are confused, this is not secession it is restoration of lawful government. However having said that I would not be surprised if it turns into a civil war once the socialist realize they can't steal from the producers anymore under color of law.

By the way the civil war was unlawful also as Lincoln had no authority to wage war on the south.

I have to disagree here. I refer you to The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

The Confederacy was wholly based on Constitutional issues and laws, there was nothing illegal about it! The States reserve the right to pull away from the central government if that government gets to powerful, too controlling, or too greedy. GWB's executive orders made him, and Obama a Dictator over the Congress and Senate, in itself an illegal act bordering on High Treason.

In most respects the Confederate constitution was "a carbon copy of the U.S. Constitution," he said. "It's very odd that states driven to the extremity of succession adopt the same language they are rebelling against. So, it's not that they objected to a strong central government, they just wanted to run it for themselves.

"Jefferson Davis said that the South did not object to the Constitution, but to the way it had been 'perverted by northern interpretation'. [The Confederates] said they wanted to go back to their original interpretation and they want to prevent wrong interpretations from recurring."

The original inhabitants of the United States were not called citizens, which denotes a term of ownership and compulsion by the state, but were called freemen and freeholders. And it shall be the practice of the Confederate States, in acknowldeging the sovereignty of the individual person, to refer to what other countries would call citizens, as sovereign freemen. The status of sovereign freeman in the Confederate States of America shall at the current time, be open to those legally and lawfully residing in the original Thirteeen States of the Confederacy and its territories or Maryland, as of January 1, 2000, to those legally and lawfully residing in a State, Commonwealth, Nation, Republic, Province or Territory at the time of its ratification of this Constitution according to the entity's boundaries at admission, those having descent or lineage from the original Thirteen States of the Confederacy and its territories or Maryland, those born within the territory of a State, Commonwealth, Nation, Republic, Province or Territory which shall ratify this Constitution, and those swearing an oath to the Confederate States or one of the several states. A single Confederate state may not deny sovereign freemanship to a resident sovereign freeman of the Confederate States, but every state may grant state freemanship to persons who are not Confederate citizens as they shall so by law include; except that no person having waged war against the Confederate States shall be eligible for Confederate States sovereign freemanship.

New Constitution of the Confederate States of America

I think that all "citizens" of the Corporation known as THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA should just quit the corporation, and stop following corporate rules, which are known as statutes and ordinances. Americans are Freemen in every respect, and the States are Sovereign in every respect. I would say without question that the World Market would fully embrace a new Confederacy of States. America would become, with a consumer tax, a new tax haven for any company that wanted to build a factory here. Workers would take home all of the paycheck, for the tax to support the Confederacy comes from a consumer tax, paid at the register when you buy something. Some have said the tax should be 25% to start, then perhaps go down to 10% when all was solvent. A new government base centralized, say near Kansas City, which is in the middle of the States, the old capital in DC can be turned into a National Park.

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 11:29 AM

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Just a note to the "God Squad" alarm raisers on this thread:

Christians founded this country, much to your dismay. And it may well take Christians to save it again from the grubby hands of greed and evil. Because the rest of you don't seem to be doing jack do do towards that end.

Hate to burst your Christian Bubble, friend, but you are wrong.
When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3) This provision was pretty radical for its day, for it gave equal citizenship to believers, and non-believers alike. The Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that no single religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, such as England had. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention religion, except in exclusionary terms. The words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution-- not once.

Hamilton, for example, was an agnostic and deist for most of his life, who regarded attendance at Episcopal services as a social obligation rather than a devotional occasion. At the Constitutional Convention, when Franklin (of all people) proposed that the delegates invite a minister to bless their deliberations with a prayer, Hamilton observed that “I see no reason to call in foreign aid.” But in the last few years of his life, after his eldest son was killed in a duel defending his father’s honor, Hamilton became much more devoutly Christian, a decision that probably led to his death on the plains of Weehawken when he chose to waste his shot at Aaron Burr.

Jefferson was generally regarded as an atheist by most New England clergy and newspaper editors. (The president of Yale College once threatened to revoke the degree of any Yale graduate who voted for that man from Monticello.) In response to these attacks Jefferson prepared his own edition of the New Testament (still on sale at Monticello). But his correspondence with British Unitarians at the time clearly shows that Jefferson did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, but rather regarded him (or Him) as a wonderful role model, much like Socrates.

Adams began as a Congregationalist, though a staunch opponent of New Light evangelicalism, then ended up a Unitarian. His endorsement of a religious establishment in Massachusetts was rooted in political rather than religious convictions, a conservative belief that social change was always best when done gradually. In the famous correspondence with Jefferson in their twilight years, both men envisioned heaven as a place where they could continue their argument about the true meaning of the American Revolution and Adams could accost Benjamin Franklin for his depravities and inflated reputation. On the question of life everlasting Adams embraced a version of Pascal’s Wager. To wit, one might as well presume it is true, because if it proves incorrect one will never know it. Again, the Adams view of Christian doctrine about everlasting life was always driven by concerns about its function as a brake on human crime and misbehavior. “If it can ever be proved,” he noted near the end, “that there is no life ever-after, my advice to every man, woman, and child would be to take opium.”

As Michael has noted, George Washington always believed that American victory in the War for Independence was, as he said, “a standing miracle,” guided by other-worldly forces that he referred to as “providence” or “destiny.” He seldom used the word “God.” I regard him as a pantheist rather than a deist because he believed these other-worldly forces, whatever we called them, had earthly presences. Like Hamilton, he regarded his attendance at Episcopal services as a social obligation. In his last hours no ministers or chaplains were invited to his bedside. He died as a Roman stoic more than a Christian believer.

Two final points. The common conviction that bound together most of the Founders was the belief in the complete separation of church and state. As products of the Enlightenment, they shared Diderot’s vision of a heavenly city on earth where the last priest would be strangled with the entrails of the last king. This was a radical doctrine at the time, and even now in Iraq we can see that it is an idea yet to be regarded as, shall we say, self-evident. Let me acknowledge that it was easier to implement in the United States than elsewhere, because the vast majority of the populace were practicing Christians of various denominations that shared core values, and also because there was a century-old tradition of religious toleration generated by the multiplicity of sects. That said, it seems to me that the central legacy of the Founding Fathers was a “hands off” policy towards any specific religious doctrine. No faith was to be favored.


The founding fathers were a mixture of deists, Christians, and possibly one atheist. Some, most actually, were in fact Freemasons, which are known to worship the Owl God Molech

Lately, I refer you to this site:
Religious Affiliation of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 11:34 AM
I too have a theory. It has to do with the letter I posted on page 10 from Mike Di Cosola to Sam Kennedy. Mike mentions that part of the process is that he and the rest of the Illinois county assembly are being "inducted", that is to say inducted as civilians into the military.

Also, these de jeur grand juries they are filling were supposedly vacated and abandoned when the U.S. became a corporation and they believe these seats trump any court in the country.

So what if these Elders define military as these guys who were inducted into their new military and they define these de jeur grand juries they put together in all 50 states as the supreme (highest) court. Now they can say they have the full backing of the military and the supreme court like they have been telling people in their interviews and e-mails.

I'm thinking they might not be talking about the entities ('U.S. Military' and 'Supreme Court') as we've all come to understand them at all. Even their own members/followers might not understand that they are the ones being referred to. In fact, don't they see our current government as fictitious entities?

On the 2/26/10 audio with Tim Turner (link follows), he says they want the signatures of millions of Americans. Why would they want/need the signature and support of millions of Americans if the U.S. Military was behind it and supporting it? It would seem like a done deal.

[edit on 30-3-2010 by theyreadmymind]

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 11:50 AM
This is for sure, as I know of no one-zero honorably dischaged vets that have been called to be re-enducted into the military for any kind of reconstruction, myself included.


Originally posted by theyreadmymind
I too have a theory. It has to do with the letter I posted on page 10 from Mike Di Cosola to Sam Kennedy. Mike mentions that part of the process is that he and the rest of the Illinois county assembly are being "inducted", that is to say inducted as civilians into the military.

Also, these de jeur grand juries they are filling were supposedly vacated and abandoned when the U.S. became a corporation and they believe these seats trump any court in the country.

So what if these Elders define military as these guys who were inducted into their military and they define these de jeur grand juries they put together in all 50 states as the supreme (highest) court. Now they can say they have the full backing of the military and the supreme court like they have been telling people in their interviews and e-mails.

I'm thinking they might not be talking about the entities as we've all come to understand them at all. Even their own members/followers might not understand that they are the ones being referred to.

[edit on 30-3-2010 by Recon3]

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 12:18 PM
reply to post by boondock-saint

Yeah I brought that up a few pages back. Giving this movement notice they will not allow it to happen.

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 01:48 PM
I've been reading this thread from page one to 15.

What happened?

I found it on the bottom of the 2ed page of threads.

I can't beleive that it's dying without someone to prove it's a hoax or not.

I have faith that the great people on ATS will always find out if a thread is a hoax or not but apparently I was wrong this time.

I found this thread very interresting and IF it is true the people that are aware of this will be one step ahead of others in being prepared.

What happened with the phone calls that several people were making to Governors asking about this?

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 01:51 PM
You know what I just realised. This could all be sorted very easily. I just had a moment of inspiration. All this could be sorted in an instant.

One man can solve all these problems.

Why haven't you guys thought of this already.

All you gotta do guys is bring out the CHUCK.

Chuck Norris could have the government out in a matter of hours and have the country back up on its feet in no time.


posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 01:59 PM
reply to post by JohnySeagull

Then why doesn't someone contact Chuck? I'm sure someone on ATS can make this possible.

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 02:04 PM
reply to post by MagicaRose

I`m not sure if this has anything to do with nesara or not, if it does, then yes, it is fake. If anyone finds out there is a connection, then go to the top of page 11, and read the link I posted there about it.

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 02:16 PM
reply to post by autowrench

You misunderstood me. I said it was unlawful for Lincoln to wage war and focerce them to stay in the union. The confederate states were well within thier rights to secede from the union.

I agree everyone just needs to quit the corporation. But as for your consumer tax absolutely not! All forced taxation is theft there is no need for a tax.

[edit on 30-3-2010 by hawkiye]

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 03:00 PM
I am posting an email I sent to my local assembly when TRAP divided us. It gives some of the reasons why I did not sign on to it:


This is perhaps my last email concerning this. I don't know if I'll be at the meeting Monday or not. Personal things are coming to a head in my life that need to be attended to. If I do come it may be the last time for a while.

So I wanted to give my findings and thoughts on the whole TRAP thing. One thing that was staring us in the face and I missed was the meaning of words in particular:

Blacks law De Luxe Fourth Edition,


"A guardian is a person lawfully invested with with the power and charged with the duty, of taking care of the person and managing the property and rights of another person, who, for some peculiarity of status, or defect of age, understanding, or self control, is considered incapable of administering his own affairs. Bass v, Cook, 4 Port., Ala., 392; Sparhawk v. Alien, 21 N. H. 27; Burger v. Frakes, 67 Iowa, 460, 23 N.W. 746 Fleming v. Leibe, 5 N.J. Eq. 129, 122 A. 616.

One who legally has care and management of the person, or estate, or both, of a child during its minority. reeve, Dom. Rel. 311

The term might be appropriately used to designate the person charged with the care and control of idiots, lunitics, habitual drunkards, spendthrifts, and the like; but such person is under many of the statutory systems authorizing the appointment, styled "committee," and in common usage the name "guardian" is applied only to one having the care and management of a minor."

So which one are you a lunatic or a minor?

Don't ever sign anything that even insinuates someone as guardian...

Also take note how it delineates lawful from legal

The whole idea that grand juries would be "guardians" of the free republics is a contradictions in terms in light of this. The republics are no longer free if they have "guardians". And the four "guardian elders" hmmm, POA indeed!

Well lets look up Elder:

Ok the exact word is not there but "Elder Title" is there and it reads:

"A title of earlier date, but coming simultaneously into operation with a title of younger origin, is called the "elder title" and prevails."

Prevails? hmmmm

A few more thoughts and these are based on TRAP website since there is some question as to if the documents presented will be used or are a just a draft that is not done yet:

These are from their goals page of their website:

" foreclosure and bank collection actions immediately (our first and seventh directives)"

As much as I agree with this sentiment this will collapse the banks the dollar and the economy. This has to be done in a slow and measured manner it cannot b done immediately as they state.

"Ending taxes immediately (second and sixth directives)"

As good as this sounds this will collapse all local, state, and the federal governments. While I agree they need to go in their current form, again this needs to be done in a slow measured manner over time so the people on Social security and medicare and government workers are not left out in the cold.

"Re-absorption of the de facto judicial aberrations such as USDC into the de jure institutions (Phase 2, thirteenth through fifteenth directives)

This will be seen as a hostile takeover of the corporation and an act of war. Words mean things; word like Re-absorption and Termination

"Restoration of the common law of the Land (third and eighth directives)"

Define common law it can mean British law of commons etc. Again words mean things

As I have said and illustrated above words means things!

Also one must ask how do they plan to accomplish this? They make lots of claims of what they want to do but give no means as to how and apparently no regard to the consequences. The assemblies simply wish to coexist and let people choose for themselves.

Also one must ask what lawful authorities is any of their actions pursuant to? The Assembly decree plainly states the organic documents its authority is pursuant to.

Next thing is military support. No one questions the need. However there is no evidence that they have military support as claimed! This is from their introduction page:

"The four step Restore America Plan was proposed by high-ranking members of the military "

Yet Sam K stated on his call (recorded) the military had not seen their plan yet but had agreed to take orders from them.

Also what civilian structure is in place to give the military orders in their plan? Nothing! Grand juries have never been a body politic in history they are a function of the judicial. So that leaves who to give the military orders? Why the Guardians of course. They would have complete control just as the word "Guardian" denotes. Do you wish to be their ward?

Also on the Sam K Radio broadcasts of which their are recordings Sam K has mentioned the North American Continent and the 52 free republics. Excuse me who are the other two? Canada, Mexico? And the United States of America does not encompass the entire continent. This smacks of the North American Union.

Also on his broadcast he has stated that he wants to forgive and leave in place if they repent the criminals and tyrants of the corporate machine who have been the instrument of oppression without which the machine could not function and expect them to just do the right things. Has that ever happened in the history of the world? These criminals have no clue how to function on the republic and stop oppressing people.

IMO the use of the word "Guardian" and its legal definition is enough to run from this right there but I bring up the rest of the points as they are all important points of why this is dangerous to us all.

I hope the assembly can discuss things Monday in an amicable way, if things get heated then everyone should feel free to raise a point of order to ratchet down the emotions as we are all in this together.

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 03:52 PM
reply to post by hawkiye

Regarding your last post and no need for any taxation. Tax must exist in some form as the infrastructure of the country still needs to be maintained etc.. Medicare and Social Security still has to be paid out. A sales tax at POS is the best one as it does not tie into your income or your property so to speak.

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 03:53 PM

Originally posted by hawkiye
I am posting an email I sent to my local assembly when TRAP divided us. It gives some of the reasons why I did not sign on to it:

I think it's probably a good thing you didn't. It rang some alarm bells when I heard one of the Elders say there would be serious consequences if everyone who signed on didn't go forward with the mission. (Sorry, wording isn't exact and I don't remember exactly where I heard it. I've actually been researching this for a few weeks now.) I'm thinking there might come a day very soon where these grand juries are going to be expected to go make some kind of citizen's arrest on these governors with some "Provost Marshall" you guys have never heard of who has been appointed by the Elders or something. It's just a hunch I have, but you know they're being so secretive with phase II, you never know what's going to happen.

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 03:59 PM

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Just a note to the "God Squad" alarm raisers on this thread:

Christians founded this country, much to your dismay.

Better double check your "facts". The founding fathers were Freemasons. They are the upline of the religions.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Because the bottom line is I'd rather live under the hand of God than the hand of the devil, which is what we are under now.

Two heads on the same bird.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
There is nothing radically wrong, or radically bible thumping, with TRAP.

Lies ARE wrong---radically and morally. And TRAP is a lie---a lot of dangling carrots and promises that will not come to fruition. This is another psych-ops. The game plan is that you always have to hold out a pie in the sky reward to motivate people. The promises are so far fetched as to distract people from the real underhanded trap that it is. People will join in because of the promises made, and not even look closely at the underlying agenda of the group. That's what they are banking on.

People who are already conditioned to blindly follow religious dogma will fall into this TRAP. This psych-ops has been used for centuries and has proven itself. "Keep your eyes on the prize". This is why people blow themselves up for the promises of Paradise and 72 virgins. The end justifies the means.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
They aren't calling for another inquisition or anything of the sort. .

Not just yet. These things are done incrementally. Read more history.

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 04:32 PM

Originally posted by MagicaRose
What happened with the phone calls that several people were making to Governors asking about this?

my Governor has not responded to my e-mail
as of yet. But still hoping.

But I DON"T expect to gain anything useful from it
when it is returned other than a non-disclosure
or a gag order response. But there is still hope.

I am beginning to wonder just who came up with
and designed this plan. It would have to be someone
very familiar with our laws AND our military.
JAG Office comes to mind. hmmmmm

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 04:36 PM
reply to post by endisnighe

And what is the fear component of this. Others brought up militias earlier. Now you bring up fear, what is that?

The two run hand in hand. Trying to activate the militia groups in this country using obviously fabricated propaganda to attempt to over throw our government is a great example of how fear is used. For the people who did not take the time to research Jackie claims in her video it certainly would have instilled fear in a large percentage of these people.

The whole point in her video was to create fear and terror for even if it had been true it would most certainly been the wrong method of disseminating such information.

new topics

top topics

<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in