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.

 

Tell me, are you a person, citizen, resident, corporation or a HUMAN BEING?

page: 1
37
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   
I have been researching this "frivolous" argument since I came to ATS. It
encompasses a vast number of conspiracies. Corporate personhood. Unlawful IRS agency. Unlawful Federal Reserve, etc etc etc. I am a technical
"person".
So I like things laid out all nice and neat so that I can put
things into a logical order and a simple outline to study.

So, with all of the non covered news in regards to the sovereignty movement and
the move to reinstall the Constitutional Republic, I thought it would be a good time
to start a research thread, into the arguments for the sovereignty movement and
the move to go back to actual Constitutional Governance. I have created two
threads since I have been here at ATS about this very thing. There is so much info
out there that it become daunting to someone that does not have the time to
research all the aspects of it.

Here is what I want to do. I would like to have everyone that sees this topic make a
contribution about your knowledge, or lack thereof, of the argument. I would like
you to post only one aspect of the argument per comment. I will try to create a
document that indexes all the aspects of this argument in a basic manner. Starting
off with a list or outline and then a body with the breakdowns for each. Followed by
specific definitions for each component.
____________________________________________________________________
So to start off, I will include a breakdown of the definition of a person.

Now, in and of itself, United States Code is a conspiracy to begin with. The reason I
begin this thread with this component is the recent Supreme Court ruling that
overturned the McCain Feingold legislation. You will begin to understand the
reasoning set forth by the court after you read the definitions and begin to wonder,
WHAT AM I?


United States Code Title 26 Subtitle F Chapter 7701 Cornell University Law
School

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly
incompatible with the intent thereof—
.....(1) Person
.....The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a .....trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.


Okay, right off the bat the definitions, in regards to "human beings" begins to blur
between a "human being" and other forms of entities, including corporations. Now, I
want to ask yourself, who exactly is in the wrong when a Sovereign pursuer asks to
be given their rights delegated under the Constitution to be separate and exclusive
from entities such as corporations.

Now, another component of the same Chapter 7701



(a)When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or
manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—
.....(30) United States person
.....The term “United States person” means—
..........(A) a citizen or resident of the United States,
..........(B) a domestic partnership,
..........(C) a domestic corporation,
..........(D) any estate (other than a foreign estate, within the meaning of paragraph ..........(31)), and
...............(E) any trust if—
....................(i) a court within the United States is able to exercise primary ....................supervision over the administration of the trust, and
....................(ii) one or more United States persons have the authority to control all ....................substantial decisions of the trust.


So, what do you think? Was the Supreme Court correct when they decided that it
was incompatible with the laws as they are now? Remember, everything laid out
here states that there is NO difference between a "United States person" and an
entity like a corporation. We could spend some more time on the specific legal
definitions of the wording of each statute, but we are not trying to become lawyers.
Remember the Shakespeare play Henry the VI-'The first thing we do, let's kill all the
lawyers'.

You have to understand the mentality of the elitists. They try to make things so
complicated that it takes a frelling lawyer to do any damn thing nowadays. Ask
yourself this, WHY?

So to sum up the first component. First of all they convert you to a legal definition.
They convert entities that are not "human beings" into the same definition as
"human beings".

So, are you a "person", a "corporation", a "citizen", a "resident" or are you a HUMAN
BEING?


Human Being-my definition, an entity that has life, that has a SOUL, that
has unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
(Property).



Now, if you want to participate, please include either links or
the codes, legislation, Constitutional reference etc etc etc to your
component. If you want to troll, I will not respond. If you want to refute
something, please be gracious and honorable, do not be condescending
please.



God Bless and Peace.

edit to fix layout

[edit on 4/5/2010 by endisnighe]




posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 10:22 PM
link   
if you attend an AA meeting.... You'll meet a bunch of alcoholics.

Hi, I'm Doomsday 2029, and I'm an alcoholic.


Thank You Texas for making me attend those meetings.... You almost convinced me that alcohol was more powerful than me, and that God was the only cure.



(Well I do believe in God, but I don't think the State of Texas should force me into the AA cult)



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
A person only has "unalienable rights" when either you enforce it yourself or have others enforce it for each other. For instance, I have a right to say that I dislike this thread. Do you wish to enforce your right to say my opinion is flawed and to leave if I don't agree with you? Yes, but then I can enforce my "right" to stick around in this thread and troll you. What would happen in this situation? Moderators would come in this thread and give me the proper warnings. Now, what would happen if the moderators decided to troll along with me? Where would your "rights" be then? Would you try to enforce them, or would you leave ATS and go elsewhere? What if you couldn't go elsewhere, and ATS was the only place you could go?

The point I'm trying to make is that it's all fine and dandy to live in a fantasy world believing that you are entitled to certain unalienable rights, but unless you and people around you are willing to enforce them, you have jack squat. Luckily, lots of countries around the world enforce these rights; however, unless they are enforced, they don't exist. Instead of whining about how you are having labels put upon you, you should instead enjoy the rights you do have that you and others around you help keep alive. Complaining on an Internet forum will do nothing to give you more rights, unless you are looking for comfort.

[edit on 4/5/2010 by SonicInfinity]



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Doomsday 2029
 


I think I know what you mean. The separation of church and state was a manifestation of a Supreme Court ruling. It is not in the Constitution. Here is the Amendment-

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

All right, let us look at the definition or meaning behind the respecting an establishment and the prohibiting the free exercise thereof-

Now, the founders believed in Common Law ideals. That is where the Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (property), came in.

They had Constitutional Libertarian ideals. That if you do not hurt another or infringe upon their rights, no law is broken. But, the INSTANT you infringe upon another's rights, you have broken the law.

So, to infer what they meant by this component of the 1st Amendment, would be that government shall not create or give a specific religion prestige over others and also would not restrict any religion in anyway.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   
I am a sovereign “citizen of eternity.”

My soul is a hologram of the “Creator.”

To infringe on the freewill or personal truth of a “citizen of eternity,” is to violate a fundamental “law of the universe.”

Do self-serving artificial laws manufactured by a corrupt government supersede the timeless natural laws of creation?

I don’t think so.

F.T.G.


[edit on 6-4-2010 by seasoul]



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Just wanna be first to say:

"I'm joker, a smoker and midnight t@ker"

Sorry, great thread OP, had to



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   
I have been researching this a lot lately and there is one site that can pretty much answer all your questions....
SEDM



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 



actually ..... I know what you are talking about.

I was just providing another example.


I made a thread about this awhile back... and I've done much research on the subject.


www.abovetopsecret.com...





You are a strawman.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Per the subject, I'll choose human being.
The establishment clause has always implied for me a complete legislative block regarding institutions of worship, no reports, regulations or taxes, embassy-like status for physical facilities for "an establishment of religion" If that "an" had been omitted or "the" substituted in the document my conceptualization would be in line with everybody else's.
Obviously, there is no parallel in the real world for this view!

gj



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by SonicInfinity
A person only has "unalienable rights" when either you enforce it yourself or have others enforce it for each other. For instance, I have a right to say that I dislike this thread. Do you wish to enforce your right to say my opinion is flawed and to leave if I don't agree with you? Yes, but then I can enforce my "right" to stick around in this thread and troll you. What would happen in this situation? Moderators would come in this thread and give me the proper warnings. Now, what would happen if the moderators decided to troll along with me? Where would your "rights" be then? Would you try to enforce them, or would you leave ATS and go elsewhere? What if you couldn't go elsewhere, and ATS was the only place you could go?


Are you actually infringing on my rights of Life, Liberty or Property? I do not think so. Of course this is not a public forum so true sovereignty is not relevant to the discussion. Now if this was a public forum and I said that I would restrict your rights of free speech, than it would be assumed I have broken the law. Or vice versa.



The point I'm trying to make is that it's all fine and dandy to live in a fantasy world believing that you are entitled to certain unalienable rights, but unless you and people around you are willing to enforce them, you have jack squat. Luckily, lots of countries around the world enforce these rights; however, unless they are enforced, they don't exist. Instead of whining about how you are having labels put upon you, you should instead enjoy the rights you do have that you and others around you help keep alive. Complaining on an Internet forum will do nothing to give you more rights, unless you are looking for comfort.


You had done so well in your first paragraph, yet you came to the conclusion that I was whining.


Where in my OP did I whine? I set this up as a research thread. As I have stated time and time again, the government cannot and will not grant you rights. They can and will only be given by one's self. If you actually believe a government or a MASTER grants you rights, you are a slave. I guess if you do not want to participate in the thread, that is your prerogative. I guess that is all.

God Bless and Peace.

edit to fix quote bbcode

[edit on 4/5/2010 by endisnighe]



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Doomsday 2029
 


Yes, I recognize the man behind the mask. Not that I know him, but even without listening I know of his work. I thought I knew your reasoning behind your comment that is why I explained the 1st Amendment the way I did.

I liked your analogy. We have been trained to follow the maze and get the cheese, even though the cheese is only there 5% of the time.

I am and will always be your friend. James T Kirk.


Thanks Doomsday.

Do you know what I mean by a simple breakdown or outline for Common Law ideals and practices?

I am a technical guy, I like lists and outlines on how to progress or how to complete an endeavor. Some call me OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder) handicapped.


I make lists of everything I do. At least things that have many steps. I sold my outlines in college and made a pretty penny doing it. Use to listen in class making notes. Use to read the books making notes. Use to take tests and then following make notes. At the end I wrote up outlines for every class I had and then kept them. Also copied them for more money than the colleges got for the textbooks.

Anyway, the Captains and Cokes are flowing and so is the mind.

God Bless and Peace.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   
More affirmations from on high...I have been doing similar research about how corporations came into existence and why there are classes of people etc.

Here is what I have found:

America was founded on local communities sharing resources together. Medical care was found as most towns had a doctor that would make sure everyone in the town was taken care of when needed to the best of his ability. As towns grew, so did the complexity.

What I found is that every business for the most part was family owned or group owned businesses. Corporations didn't come into existence until banking started realizing they could pool money together to loan. Land companies were the prelude to corporations and citizens would pool their money to buy land and then resell it in smaller chunks at higher values where all profit would be split.

Well in partnership companies you have everyone splitting profits but they cannot expand to other locations unless they did something different. Corporations were born getting money through banks to operate different locations. Employees were hired as the small business was unable to expand to a bigger audience, unable to produce as much goods, etc. At this point when the corporations came into existence is when greed started running the country. Now a persons labor was not equal to the amount they produced, it was devalued to funnel profits upwards.

The owners of corporations became the useless feeders of society, doing nothing to earn money, while suppressing the wages of others through lack of work. Government has had to step in a few times to ensure workers weren't being overly abused or their labor not devalued greatly. What we have seen through time is the slow degradation of the standard of life, for the advancement of profit.

We had slaves at one point. Once we got rid of slaves, we had low paid employees. Then we had war to balance it out. Then we brought in immigrants. We went into a depression and created the Federal Reserve to print money at will. Then we went to war. We allowed woman to go to work and we went to war. We allowed illegal immigration. Then we went to war. We sent our industry overseas, then we went to war. Now if you look at the correlation to economic depressions and booms you will see the social decisions that lead to each...you will also see how we equalized the equation with wars.

Okay that was more than you asked for, but essentially we are pawns to the elites. They control us through emotions. Time to shut those emotions off and not listen to them.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 



Okay, let me try to sum up my stance on this mess we are faced with today.

#1.) What do I stand for?

I believe that humans need a body of government or some form of law enforcement. If I didn't believe this, then I would be an Anarchist... and I don't support Anarchy.

However... I realize the true nature of government we are dealing with today, and it's really mind blowing what the sheep do not know... Yes, we are all born slaves (right now).


#2.) Humans will never be perfect.

While humans will never be perfect, I must also understand that the system will never be perfect. There will always be conflict.


#3.) The Real Problem: Technology

Technology is slowly taking the humanity out of the human... and the machine that humans serve, are slowly turning into robots. My biggest beef is with technology and science... because these are the two things that humans grown dependent on. While both subjects are wonderful... I just wish humanity could find a way to break their dependence on Technology & Science (and live more spiritually)

#4.) Americans have accomplished pure Comfort....



don't be a robot... and there is a reason why he handed him a Pine Cone.



[edit on 5-4-2010 by Doomsday 2029]



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Okay, everyone is bringing ideas into the equation and I was hoping to examine all the different aspects of the sovereignty movement.

What you brought to the table is exactly what I brought up in the OP. Corporations vs Persons or Corporations vs Human Beings.

Once the corporation was created, it removed the Common Law restriction of infringing on another's rights. Can you put a corporation in jail? Of course not. Can you fine them? Of course you can. How do you do that? By getting a lawyer. Now, if you remove the corporate status, you can stop the infringement. I think if anyone purposefully or knowingly produces a product that hurts another, they should feel the full punishment of the law.

If I go out and shoot someone, can I hide behind the fact that I am a corporation? No of course not. But if a company knows that a product is going to kill people and they weigh that against the profit margin, can they get away with it? Of course they can, we have seen it day in and day out in our country.

We have to separate the corporation from the human being and we have to enforce the responsibilities of people IN corporations.

Thanks for your comment.

God Bless and Peace.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


For my post I will explain the misconception of the phrase:
You are not a party to the constitution, therefore you cannot use it to defend yourself in court.

I will quote definitions out of my Blacks Law Dictionary so there won't be any links to those.



Constitutor. [Latin "an orderer, arranger."] Roman Law. A person who, by agreement, becomes responsible for the payment of another's debt.


Based on this definition "We the people" from the several states that incorporated the Federal government were the only ones responsible for the repayment of the nations debt.

Us as human beings think that because the constitution starts "We the people" we have rights that are given to us by the constitution. In fact this couldn't be further from the truth.

If you are claiming that you are a sovereign in court you have the rights that are listed in the Bill of Rights from birth. Nothing gives you these rights. The constitution certainly doesn't give you these rights. You were born therefore they are yours unless you waive them.

"It is my constitutional right..." = wrong
"My unalienable right set forth in the constitution..." = right



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Well the ruling from the Supreme Court is just them upholding the precedent set in the 1870's from a Supreme Court ruling that was about if Corporations actually had rights like Humans did. The Supreme Court obviously ruled in favor of the Corporations on that one and that is where we get today.

I've read the arguments about the Constitution being a contract between the men the signed it and the Bill of Rights for the citizens, but those arguments hold no water when you realize that the Constitution guarantees the people a Republican form of government, which is a government ruled by laws and everybody is equal so the opposite argument to the Constitution was a contract between the men who signed it were actually signing a contract to delegate their powers to the people and they were just acting attorneys that had power of Attorney.

I've also read the theory about how America was turned into a corporation after the Civil War took place. That doesn't hold any water because the Fed government and Lincoln could have installed a fascist state at the point in time and if it really had any factual legal standing then it would have already been challenged.

Now what am I? I am a Human Being, I live in a Country that is governed by man made laws, that have no bearing on the universal spirit that allows us all the exist. I love the country I live in and the principles upon which is was founded because it is still the most effective progressive document to ever be written.

I am a Citizen of the Universe, that inhabits Earth that lives under the laws of America.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


The only way I see this as possible is to bring back the partnership model to compete directly with corporations on a local scale. You are right corporations are unaccountable. They can do whatever they wish and continue to operate. If they are ever found guilty of something they can change their name and become a new entity. They can sell off themselves, change the shingle, and be owned by the same people. We need to get rid of that. Upward funneling wealth companies are the downfall to America.

I realize I posted a variation of what you said, because I had been pondering the same thing you posted in the OP. Brilliant btw. You are right. We are meant to be people. Together we can be partners. But at no time should we ever work to make another person a profit off our own labor. To do so is a loss of liberty. Being an employee is very similar to slavery; although, the employee slavery is supported by the system not a particular person.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:23 AM
link   
You missed a powerful and in fact the oldest definition of a person.

That definition is an Actor Wearing a Mask.

I have presented myself in a few legal settings, and identified myself as an Actor Wearing a Mask. Lawyers and Courts recognize this definition.

It is in fact the root of all subsequent definitions of a person, because each one casts you into a role.

When you reserve the Actor Wearing a Mask role for yourself though, you are in essence adlibbing how you want your character to be viewed and treated.

As an Actor Wearing a Mask, I can refer to my Straw Man, Fictitious Name Corporate Entity in a third sense. In essence I am separating that fiction from me, while at the same time, not laying claim as a human being to having any first hand knowledge of my Straw Man, Fictitious Name Corporate Entity. I can in this role, detach myself from the human being that the Straw Man, Fictitious Name Corporate Entity is attached to and speak of and to both of them with out being responsible for or admitting culpability or direct connection to either of them.

If you really want to mess with a Lawyer’s or Judges head, interacting with them in that way makes it impossible for them to enter into any contract with you or hold either the human being, or the Straw Man, Fictitious Name Corporate Entity responsible for anything you say or do as an Actor Wearing a Mask.

The very base root of the whole system is assigning us roles. When you assign your own role, you are in the driver’s seat.

As a great bard once said “All the world is a stage, and I am its greatest actor”.

Stay in that role, there is almost nothing they can do, unless you agree to come out of it.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by seasoul
I am a sovereign “citizen of eternity.”
My soul is a hologram of the “Creator.”
To infringe on the freewill or personal truth of a “citizen of eternity,” is to violate a fundamental “law of the universe.”
Do self-serving laws manufactured by a corrupt government supersede the eternal laws of creation?
I don’t think so.
F.T.G.


I have been doing quite a lot of research into the British movement on sovereignty. They have been doing it a lot longer than us damn pilgrims or us revolutionaries. One thing I will remember, I read a comment that will always stick with me.

A site was going over the declaration or what they call in England the (I cannot find it right now-will add when I do).

What it was, was a list of not grievances but declarations provided to you by the laws set forth 100's of years ago. Now, one person could not come up with the list, even though he knew the Common or Natural Laws very well. Another told him to just speak from his heart. This is paraphrased so leave me a little slack. It sent chills up my spine.


I am me.
I am a spiritual being.
I am guided by law of my heart.
I am meant to be free.
I am a gentle and loving individual.
I am me.


This is not even close to what he said. As soon as I find it I will post it. We as individuals have the ability to be evil or to be good. This is our destiny to pick one or the other.

I use to be jaded about others, for they can be capricious or they can be true to their word. Remember the axiom, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. To learn the true meaning in a man's heart, trust them and if they do not earn that trust, then set them aside.

Okay, I may have gone too far in my viewpoints in regards to your comment, but I feel that a contract with you, could be done on a handshake.

That is how things used to be done. Honor. Integrity. Now it all has to do with what the lawyers can get away with.

God Bless and Peace my fellow traveler.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:40 AM
link   
I am a spiritual entity occupying a human body.

2nd line.




top topics



 
37
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join