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

It is pretty clear to me how this will turn out.
In the short run, most of us that want action are going to be disappointed. It will appear this whole exercise was a failure unless most governors sign on and flip the bird to the federal government.
That will not happen, I think most of us know that.
In the long run, revolution WILL happen, I think most of us know that too.
So, where are we in the process? Remember, MOST people have to go hungry before they start looking around...start questioning things.
The fact is they are not hungry yet, so all of this is a bit premature.
In a sense, all of this should have happened YEARS ago, and it did not. Why?
Most everybody was well fed. Especially those that make things happen.
So, WHY NOW? Why all of this CONSTITUTIONAL action, now?

I call it the "great awakening" because IT HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED!

Sure, some will say it is because a black man got elected, and that is intolerable. Well, I am not in that camp, I feel very sure a lot if not most of the others are not in that camp, yet...I am suddenly VERY interested in getting back to the constitution.

SO. How will this end?
We will have to ask Bill Clinton the meaning of "this"

LibertyGal I believe you are not grasping the idea. Obama saying he will help with forclosures by creating more funds to help the people continue
to pay their restructured mortgages is different from Sam Kennedy saying the forclosures will stop, (in my words here after) because the contracts were unlawfull from the get go. He isnt claiming he will help people pay their mortgages because there will be no mortgage to pay. Just as, if Obama says he will create a bill to help people pay their IRS presentments, Sam Kennedy is saying there will be no income tax to pay.

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by theyreadmymind

 

ETA - It is not character assassination to post FACTS. So shove your insults.
[edit on 4-4-2010 by Libertygal]

Oh, then how did you know I was referring to you??? Good guess.

And he did not take credit. He just did not give anyone credit, and the information was already public. It's also ridiculous to suggest Sam would take credit for Obama's actions.

reply to post by theyreadmymind


Because it was in a thread in a reply to me, and then you edited it out.

You ar a real piece of work, at least I let my words stand as I wrote them, and don't go back and change my posts in a sad attempt to cover my ass.

reply to post by Libertygal


Bologna. I added a whole paragraph where I referred to the last few pages. It was not aimed at you directly and made no reference to you at all.

reply to post by theyreadmymind

Here's a conspiracy theory for you. I'm starting to think there are a bunch of people around here that may have a lot to lose in this scenario.

The only ones that stand to lose are Sam and Clive, if they cannot funnel enough people into their faux banking system, that profits the guardians.

No one here stands to lose anything, because hopefully, they were not lured into this business with a front of tax and/or debt evasion in the name of soveriegnity.

If you have truly read the threads on this, sufficient evidence has been posted that it is a front.

Here is a link where the research is posted in case you haven't seen it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 4-4-2010 by Libertygal]

After listening to Mr. Kennedy's broadcast for the last two hours, I have to say that I am a bit disappointed. It just was not very helpful.

What I got was a two-hour lecture on the financial history of the U.S. in the twentieth century. Perhaps he was not speaking to me, but I am already fully conversant with the financial history of the U.S. Mr. Kennedy, I already know what happened in 1933, I already know about Congressman Louis McFadden's attempt to bring conspiracy charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. If anything, I am surprised that you made no mention of, say, Charles Lindbergh, or Nelson Aldrich, or Paul Warburg, or going back even further, of the beef between Andrew Jackson and Nicholas Biddle, or going back even further, of the beef between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. But then, you only had two hours.

But, okay, most people do not read if they can avoid it, so maybe it was warranted.

What I most wanted to hear about was, what happens in the event of noncompliance by the G/governors. But it seems like it has been, at least for now, neatly swept under the rug. "They have already been removed. We arrested their bond." Well, okay, I am glad that that problem has been solved. What's for dinner?

So here is a question: We are no longer required to pay income tax. Yay. One assumes that is because the 16th Amendment has now been abrogated, since it was ratified after 1868. Does this apply to all Amendments ratified after 1868, or just the ones we don't like? More specifically, are women and African-Americans still allowed to vote? Should I expect to see a poll tax this November?

I have more questions, but I'll save them for a later post.

reply to post by Spectral Norm


Question: When he says we are no longer required to pay Income Tax, is he referring only to the sovereign persons? So was he only talking to the sovereign persons in his audience? I guess I missed that part.

Can anyone shed some light on what it means when a Governor has his bond arrested?

[edit on 4-4-2010 by theyreadmymind]

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by theyreadmymind

 

Here is a link where the research is posted in case you haven't seen it.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
[edit on 4-4-2010 by Libertygal]

No thanks, I'm not playing that game again. We just go in circles.

reply to post by theyreadmymind


He seems to be speaking to all current U.S. persons/citizens, however he points out that it is your right to continue to do buisness with the fed if that is your choice. However, given the choice, were this to come to fruition, enjoying their god given rights under common law, not too many people I think would choose to stay a slave, and continue all the benefits which go along with that social contract, such as jail time or forced health care, income tax or bans on what substances you may inbibe, that includes the benefit of campfema for the very lucky ones.

reply to post by Spectral Norm


He did go into the non-compliance. I just did not like his description of what happens very well. IMO, I believe he thinks if they do not deny the assumptions in the presentments, people that are sovereigns can use these as acceptance of evidence in court.

Also, this is giving the country a way out. Instead of the country and states being shackled to the Private Banks and debts, these can be cleared because they really do not exist. Same as us small guys, the big guys (states and federal government) can use this as a way to seize all the bankers assets.

This is just an idea of mine, it was not implied by him. But think about this, if a person can discharge the debt, cannot the country or states?

I mean this kind of goes to the point of removing all existing contracts of debt. Since the debt was not a true contract only a creation of fiat money through a debt instrument.

Where as to make a contract, one must know what the true value being bartered. E.G. We pay into the SS system as a future payback. What we pay in has a higher value than what we get out due to inflation. This is not explained in detail under the contract we are given. So the contract not specifying the terms correctly, nullifies the contract.

Sorry, this is kind of what I am getting out of the ideas so far. I have been studying the ideas behind sovereignty and common law for only about 4 months.

IMHO, I am still trying to find the teeth behind this movement if they do not get humongous crowds on the 19th. edit to clarify, for some reason I keep thinking this has to do with the rallies on the 19th. Sorry for the brain drain.

Or, this could be a move to make the sovereigns operate under a different set of rules.

Still learning and still hoping.

[edit on 4/4/2010 by endisnighe]

Originally posted by Spectral Norm
So here is a question: We are no longer required to pay income tax. Yay. One assumes that is because the 16th Amendment has now been abrogated, since it was ratified after 1868. Does this apply to all Amendments ratified after 1868, or just the ones we don't like? More specifically, are women and African-Americans still allowed to vote? Should I expect to see a poll tax this November?

I have more questions, but I'll save them for a later post.

One subject we haven't gone in too much depth on is how far back we're turning back time. I'd love to read a discussion about that and find out exactly what the implications are for this.

reply to post by theyreadmymind


I do not have exact dates but from what I've understood, Tim Turner spoke on talkshoe about this. There were diagreements with other patriots who had their own ideas and made attempts at this in the past but according to him, they did not understand history. He mentioned, around 1870 or so, and the reasoning for this was the military was not established as the U.S. military until that time. Therefore going back earlier they would not be able to intercede. Wow, its like time travel.

Second, if you are to believe Benjamin Fulford, he states america will return to the 1916 ideals, pre WW1, WW2. Although B.F. has not made claims to be associated in anyway with the Gotfr, he does state on his blog something like this was going to happen due to the world being fed up with the fed.

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by Spectral Norm

 

...
IMHO, I am still trying to find the teeth behind this movement if they do not get humongous crowds on the 19th.
...

The 19th is unaffiliated with this group as I understand.

[edit on 4-4-2010 by theyreadmymind]

One more thing before I turn in for the night. Here is an interesting thread regarding Mr. Kennedy or Berkowitz or Unger or whatever his name may be.

reply to post by Libertygal


acording to the law you understand they only way for there to be no foreclosures is if someone pays the amount owing

1. the morgage contract acually violates your rights and is invalid
this means there is no debt to be paid on the tittle of your property

acording to soverign law the banks must show loss and ownership to the deed and posetion of deed in court to prove loss

because the bank created the money as an entry on their books when you signed the morgage contract there is no loss on their part

you dont have to pay

hard to get your head around i know its

reply to post by theyreadmymind


i beleve the plan involves going back before civil law was introduced
this repeals any laws that arent in the founding documents

there will be peoples jurys to answer disputes and lawfull actions
there will be common law (ie no prosicutions to any crime that has no injered party or where loss cannot be PROVEN )

its more of a mind set thingy

a couple of tiny changes at the root of law in the juditary level will acomplish the whole process with no need for fear or violence

this plan undoes a single unlawfull change in enforcement type

hope this helps

The Cartels create money out of thin air backed by nothing and in exchange get real physical assets if anyone things the greatest scam in history is going to vapourise because some Doctor or Dentist and his followers have overly mentally mastabated on the constitution and common law you have rocks in your head.

Originally posted by theyreadmymind
reply to post by Spectral Norm

 

Question: When he says we are no longer required to pay Income Tax, is he referring only to the sovereign persons? So was he only talking to the sovereign persons in his audience? I guess I missed that part.

Can anyone shed some light on what it means when a Governor has his bond arrested?

[edit on 4-4-2010 by theyreadmymind]

all people are sovereign so all americans are not bound by anylaw or statute that penilizes a citizen

the citizen is a fictious paper copy of you that was signed into existance when your parents registered your birth this is traded like a bond on the stock market

PEOPLE are soverign untill there parents enter them into civil existance by way of birth registration

BIRTH CERTIFICATE = MARITIME LAW ie birthing, docking arriving into existence into the country

if your birth cert was never filed you would be a soverign PERSON
not a CITIZEN of the corperation of america under MARITIME LAW

huge difference when it comes to
taxes
land ownership
money creation
being prosicuted
starting a bank account
getting married
CIVIL CONTRACT LAWS are WRITTEN IN ANOTHER LANGUAGE
(this makes it imposable to understand its called legalize)not kidding

this language uses words that you recognise in english but maritime court there meaning is totally different

example
summons = invitation to civil jurasiction
is MR FIRST MIDDLE LAST name present = civil judge asking you to be liable for your civil self

would the accused please stand = recognition of courts authority over you

courts decition = this is an enforceable contract you have no say in

an example of civil law
if you register ownership of property with authorities that contract means they can charge property tax YOU AGREED

if none is filled no contract exists and no property tax can be collected as you did not consent to be taxed

all this stuff stops when courts revert back to common law courts because
soverign PEOPLE (ie we the PEOPLE) are free from taxation without representation AND
have the right to a fair trial (how can it be fair when there speeking a forign language?) and in a maritime court on the land
you have the right to own property
and so much more

reply to post by Libertygal


i hear this bank forclosure law obama is doing is a seconary way of bailing out the banks again while pretending to help the borrower he is acually federally garrenting the loan

this makes liers loans worth more on paper when they adjust the price of morgage

kinda like turning # into sauce and charging the tax payer the risk when it rebundles and is resold as a backed by tax payer morgage defult swap