It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Prove_It_NOW
Yea, but this wasn't against the Federal Government, this was against State Governors. It's a slight difference that is what makes it odd.
The letters while obviously threatening were worded so that they didn't imply a direct threat. (someone covering their behinds in case they go down)
Originally posted by InterconnecteD
it is Official !! Provost Marshalls with 3 de jeur appointed Guardians will serve Notice to the Governors, Key Staff and Cabinet Members of all 50 States that this country is immediately returning to De Jeur Common Law Government of The People. These public servants have a choice: Swear an OATH to support the U.S. Constitution OR be replaced immediately or even Arrested. Any failure on their part to comply after 72 hours is considered to be an act of TREASON. As of last evening only 3 Governors ( CA, FL, NY ) have indicated their displeasure. They will either agree OR be replaced on the spot. Effective immediately all Corporate Jailed Prisoners- - those where there is NO injured party - - are to be released. Also ALL mortgage foreclosures are to STOP. There IS NOt any reason to continue making fraudlent monthly payments to banks, mortgage and / or credit card companies! There will NOT BE ANY FURTHER PROPERTY TAXES !!! All States will be able to operate from a Special Fund, and all Sales Taxes will Remain in the State; i.e., on Gas, Utilities, Services, etc. The "teeth" of the IRS have been pulled. They will still exist up until February of Next year, however they Will Not have any authority over you NOR will they be able to threaten or fine you. Therefore YOU DO NOT NEED TO FILE ANY 1040 OR OTHER FORMS !!! ABOVE ALL, DO NOT SEND THEM ANY MONEY. File only if you have a refund coming. Do Not Depend on receiving any.
Now this went on around the same time as hutree showdown was going down. now the FBI is saying they are not pleaing guilty and really have no soild evdenice against them.
Eight members of an extremist militia group accused of conspiring to kill law enforcement officers as part of a wider war on the U.S. government pleaded not guilty in federal court on Wednesday.
FBI: Anti-Government Group's Call to Remove Governors Could Encourage Violence
I want to make a point that i am not sure how teeth this has ( if any. Not sure if this is completely credible ) but wanted to bring it to the attention of others if however it turns out to be true. No matter how small the probability
And i would like to thank the man in the video who he may be. for bringing this to my attention.
[edit on 2-4-2010 by InterconnecteD]
[edit on 2-4-2010 by InterconnecteD]
Originally posted by infinite
Here is the founder of the movement, British educated-South African, Clive Boustred:
Clive Boustred Founder
Done a back ground check, and yes, this is our man. Guardians proclaim it too.
Originally posted by YouSir
reply to post by antonia
The provost Marshall has authority wherever his orders declare him to have authority. if you think that, that authority stops at the edge of the base then what governs jag on a deployment, in transit. etc. In this case his orders from the grand juries would vacate any previous orders by the defacto corporations. Therefore he would present his orders in the capacity of enforcer to the constitutional imperative provided by an unanswered redress of grievances. All accordingly lawful and in due diligence to the powers granted to these juries by the constitution.
What a total bunch of lunatics. Best we leave this nonsense for you Oath Keeper nuts to worry about. How lame. Hey, is American Idol on tonight?!
Originally posted by mrbarber
reply to post by whatukno
The issues involved here are not about election rights, etc. Yes, the Governors were elected. To understand what this is about, you must understand the difference between Constitutional Law and Corporate Law. The US has been a Corporation since 1868 and laws being enacted are based on the requirements of the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code), which has no relationship to the Constitution. I doubt 95% of the people are aware since there was never a public discourse over the decision. Up until now, your Constitutional Rights, for the most part, have been maintained, but under the UCC they are being granted to you vs. being inalienable as was the intent. When your Constitutional Rights become a problem for the Corporation, they will simply take them away as we are seeing now.
6. PRIVILEGE OR RIGHT?
6.1 The use of the roadways for the purpose of travel and transportation is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE, but a "COMMON AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived. (Emphasis added) See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, supra; See: Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934; See: Boone v. Clark, 214 S. W. 607;
See: American Jurisprudence 1st Ed., Highways 163 6.2 A Citizen 's "RIGHT" to travel upon public highways includes the right to use usual conveyances of time, including horse-drawn carriage, or automobile, for ordinary purposes of life and business. See: Thompson v. Smith (Chief of Police), 154 S. E. 579, 580
6.3 The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public roadways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under the "RIGHT" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. See: Thompson v. Smith, supra.
7. It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the States have a "RIGHT" to travel, without approval or restriction, (license), and that this "RIGHT" is protected under the U.S. Constitution. After all, who do the roadways belong to anyway? The People-At-Large. The following are additional court decisions that expound the same facts:
7.1 . The streets and roadways belong to the public, for the use of the public in the ordinary and customary manner. See: Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wn. 657; 168 P. 516;
7.2 All those who travel upon, and transport their property upon, the public highways, using the ordinary conveyance of today, and doing so in the usual and ordinary course of life and business. See: Hadfield, supra; See: State v. City of Spokane, 109 Wn. 360; 186 P. 864.
7.3 The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, obviously differs radically from that of one who makes the highways his principal place of business and uses it for private gain ... See: State v. City of Spokane, supra.
"but law in the sense in which courts speak of it today does not exist without some definite authority behind it. The common law so far as it is enforced in a State, whether called common law or not, is not the common law generally, but the law of that State existing by the authority of that State without regard to what it may have been in England or anywhere else. . . ."
"the authority and only authority is the State, and, if that be so, the voice adopted by the State as its own [whether it be of its Legislature or of its Supreme Court] should utter the last word."
Thus, the doctrine of Swift v. Tyson is, as Mr. Justice Holmes said,
"an unconstitutional assumption of powers by courts of the United States which no lapse of time or respectable array of opinion should make us hesitate to correct."
By 1938 the corporate Federal Government had the true bankruptcy case they had been looking for. Now, the bankruptcy that had been declared back in 1930 could be up-held and administered. That's why the Supreme Court had to be stacked and made corrupt from within. The new players on the Supreme Court fully understood that they had to destroy all other case law that had been established prior to 1938. The Federal Government had to have a case to destroy all precedence, all appearance, and even the statute of law itself. That is, the Statutes at Large had to be perverted. They finally got their case in Erie R.R. v. Thompkins. It was right after that case that the American Law Institute and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws listed right in the front of the Uniform Commercial Code, began creating the Uniform Commercial Code that is on our backs today. Let us quote directly from the preface of the 1990 Official Text of the Uniform Commercial Code 12th edition.
Originally posted by FoJAk
reply to post by 12.13.2012
Very well put. I myself would like to see this all come to a fruition. This is all a very exciting idea to me. I think a lot of people on this thread are acting too impulsively and not taking into consideration that this could actually work, but like any well thought out plan there are steps, and it is probably in the best interests of this movement to keep some of their cards close, so to speak.
I am also surprised to find that some of these people cannot see the abuses in power and corruption throughout our government in this day in age as well as the past. And if they actually do see this, my question to them is: What is so wrong with wanting to clean up our country in a non-violent and legal way? I am no lawyer by any means, but I've read their website from top to bottom and it looks very well thought out and constructed. I think we need to just take a step back, listen to the info as it comes, and see what comes of this. Being that I have a daughter on the way, I want nothing more than for her to grow up in a country that preserves her freedoms and guarantees her a fair chance for a fruitful life.