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.


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

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 10:04 PM
reply to post by endisnighe

What if I'm this guy?

I wasss once a man.
(old school GI Joe joke)

I think ultimately, I am me, whatever that is. My body is coporate. (Corpus means body in Latin) After that I'm citizen of the US, a resident of Louisiana and a member of the US armed forces.

I might be a person, havn't passed a Voight Kampf test in awhile though.

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 06:19 AM

Originally posted by ugie1028
I am a spiritual entity occupying a human body.

2nd line.

Congratulations! But may I ask why do you wear the clothes of men? Why are you still here? They might still be asleep, but you are only half awake. These chains won't hold you forever. So wake yourself up, realize it.

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 10:09 AM
reply to post by daddio

I don't really see how filling this form you are talking about helps you.

If you incorporate, you can indeed isolate your assets from liabilities, and reduce your tax obligations. It seems to me this might be a better way to go.

The people who manage to gain positions of power in the government, and that includes local and state government, will do whatever you allow them to do to you. It all depends on their ability to manipulate the system verses your ability.

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 10:24 AM
reply to post by Josephus23

Barefootsworld is the best site for researching Law and how we got into this mess and history. The college professors and professional researchers who have posted their findings here deserve our respect and thanks. They include in their posts all Congressional record and court findings and links to those places so you can double check and be sure the information is accurate.

Interesting, and thank you Josephus23, but one thing that you forget is that WE hold all political power. If we are talking about entering a courtroom and passing through the "gates" which is the act of boarding the ship, we can still set the record straight and the judge too.

First thing you say when asked the question of who you are, that question being - state your name, your response..."If I give you my name am I entering into a contract?"

Then you may object to the question again. What you then need to state is that.."Are we on the record?" If the answer is yes, then you state this very plainly and with perserverence..."This court will now take judicial notice of the Judge's oath of office, so that we know that he is acting as Judge and not as Banker." Then you state.."I am a beneficiary of the trust and as such, I am appointing you, Judge, as my trustee in this matter, as my trustee I demand you do my bidding." The judge will ask you what you want to do. YOU state that.."I demand that you discharge this matter I am accused of and eliminate the record."

The Judge has to do it, he was duly elected by the public. Having the court on record as recognizing his oath of office, he is duty bound. If you have suffered any damages, loss of work and such, you can demand compensation from the trust in "x" amount. You will walk out of the courtroom with a check. I have seen this done and have heard that many people use it all the time. Not that they are looking for trouble but it works for traffic tickets and everything else they want to fine you for.

I don't blame the people for being ignorant to this or not knowing of it. It is the fault of the media and our representatives who are too gutless to stand up for us. The circus that came to town is dying fast and they know it. This is why all the crap is happening, they want and need to stiffle us.

There have been many good threads on this subject, but they don't get flagged or brought out enough. Most people don't understand their Dominion and their Divinity. How it all is supposed to work. Personal responsibility is the greatest asset of any man, do most people know how to use it or what it is? I would think not, seeing all the inconsiderate people around.

The one true and only law is...Thou shalt NEVER infringe upon any others Rights, Life, Liberty or Property...EVER.

As for the Constitution and the second Amendment, they mean nothing to you or I and it doesn't matter either.

WE have the right to OWN property, (a gun is property) the right to own property also encompasses the right to use that property any way we see fit and to dispose of that property so long as we violate no others rights or damage no others property. Again, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Accountability.

We need no laws for that and we would not need big government nor large police forces either. But everyone MUST understand that.

American Jurisprudence is a great volume of books that cites all case law but who really has read them? I have read some, great works in there.

Let's keep the education going and hope that others will learn quickly and pass it on.

As for Admiralty Law, here is the best site for research;

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 10:35 AM

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by daddio

I don't really see how filling this form you are talking about helps you.

If you incorporate, you can indeed isolate your assets from liabilities, and reduce your tax obligations. It seems to me this might be a better way to go.

The people who manage to gain positions of power in the government, and that includes local and state government, will do whatever you allow them to do to you. It all depends on their ability to manipulate the system verses your ability.

Filing the UCC-1, takes back "control" of the strawman and all his assets. If anyone goes after the strawman in court, YOU, the flesh and blood living soul, get the first $1,000,000 of any settlement. This is the deterent from any entity that would seek to sue you for damages. They would need to sue the strawman for more than the million dollars. It is a very tough claim they would have. It would be frivilous.

It also seperates asset from liability. If you would please read the articles and links I posted on the other thread I refered too, you would have all the info you need.

WE take back political control and possession of all property from the "state". I wish someone would explain to me in detail exactly who they think the "state" IS.

Is not the "state" you and I? How can it be anything else? So you can see where the term "plausible deniablilty" comes into play. They blame us for all the wrongdoing as WE are the "state". It is our fault all this is happening because WE do not know what to do or how to rectify it. The elected officials then claim that THEY have all the answers and it is "their" duty to protect us and pass all those frivilous laws that infringe on our rights because we are too inept to think for ourselves, we have no personal responsibility.

I think that is the funniest thing. How many people will understand that?

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 12:39 AM
reply to post by endisnighe

Beingness is a matter of context, choice, culture, and politics.

As an individual you may create a persona for yourself, or several, while there are biological factors like gender that limit you to a certain degree.

In the family you may simultaneously be a son, a father, a grandson, or even a grandfather, as well as a husband (taking someone with a male body just as an example.)

In a business you may be a clerk, a manager or a board member, etc.

In the context of your religion you may be a "soul" or a "spirit."

And in the eyes of your government you are a "person."

One huge subject is: How should individual people be treated under secular law? Should class or race distinctions be made in secular law? (Past laws did, almost without exception.) Our Constitution, and the other similar legal documents written in the late 1700's that were based on similar philosophies, were a great step forward in making individuals "equal under the law." But those philosophies had their opponents, and they still do.

The other huge subject is: How should other legal entities be treated under secular law? Should a corporation really have exactly the same legal rights and responsibilities as an individual person? Obviously, it could be argued that they should not. I have no idea how corporations came to be viewed, legally, as "persons." It could be argued that this makes things "simpler." But I personally don't get it. A corporation is a whole different thing than an individual. A corporation can survive for thousands of years. A corporation can have numerous owners and thousands or more employees. The two things are so different. I don't know how any sane person could agree that they should both have exactly the same rights and responsibilities. It makes no sense to me.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 03:06 AM
Negative i am a meat popsicle, who am I, my name is nobody, were do I come from, nowere. And on what street is the adress to nowere, 123rd NW fake street.
I couldn't healp myself.

That bill is simple the owners of said corporations want there corporations the same rights so they cant be touched, and since most corporations are family business it's in the families intrest. Lawyers are interpreters of the law and the law is interperted by the needs and assets of the clients. The language they use is just ritual practice. to deceive others but most important to deceive themselves. The purpose is to attract all those that are atracted to power and keep them going in circles. The people sitting on the supreme court must of known that if the corporations get to big, well then what would be the point of going to a supreme court to implement the laws that you want. Thats my take on it, and im sticking with it.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:19 PM
reply to post by daddio

Thanks for the information.

This is such a tricky subject and I have spent endless hours talking to lawyers, and judges, and professors about it, and I just can not get a straight answer.

You are very correct about us having the final say, and that is the common law aspect of a jury.

We can only be convicted of a crime if 12 of our peers let us be convicted.

We, as a juror, have the final veto power over all laws because of jury nullification.
And it only takes one. Too bad not one single person has any idea what the concept is all about.

Thanks for the links I will check em right now.

Read this on the John Zenger Case. This was the first time that jury nullification was used in the country of the US.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:40 PM
reply to post by daddio

Once again, great information.

This needs to get out into the public in a way that can be understood, but unfortunately it is created in a way that makes it difficult to understand.

I will U2U later with some questions after I look over the links.

Preesh for sure.

Great information.

I can't believe that we are the only two talking about Admiralty law on here.

In my opinion, that is the key to it all.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:52 PM
Thanks everyone for their comments so far, tomorrow I am going to post a breakdown of everyone's comments and their relevancy to the thread's intentions.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:55 PM
reply to post by endisnighe

Yeah make sure to check out -- that's the original organization exposing corporate personhood. They got going in the early 1990s.

posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 02:37 PM
reply to post by daddio

Thanks Daddio, I regcognize that you have done a lot of research in this area, and I need to do a great deal more myself.

Lawyers definitively have a code that enables an individual to better represent themselves in a court of law, that they keep hidden. Personally, I think law course should be taught in grade school and high school. It seems that our system does not want people to know how to defend their rights.

For instance, when a Judge makes a decision, he must write up and explanation identifying the law on which his decision is made. This explanation is automatically sent to a layer, but if you are defending yourself, you must request this information.
Lawyers are given special access, while ordinary citizens are forced through a maze of bureaucracy to discourage any attempt to defend themselves.

However, I would not demand a judge do my bidding unless I had witnessed some other ordinary joe such as myself pull off such an act.

Judges and lawyers in this country have far too much power.

While the things you claim might actually work, it doesn't change the reality that we need to get rid of the drug prohibition laws, because they do more to eliminate our rights then any other branch of law.

Closely followed is family law, where this idea of "in the best interest of the child" is being used to pump of the power of the judiciary, and all the money they make through these cases.

Lastly, these safety laws which criminalize mistakes are being used more and more to deprive people of their rights. The government should not be allowed to criminalize a mistake by making a split second decision to stop or go at a yellow traffic light. Unless someone shows a consistent disregard for traffic laws, they should never be charged with a crime.

posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 10:05 PM
reply to post by poet1b

Victimless crimes are an act of public relations.

Such crimes do not make anyone safer.
Such crimes might make people feel safer, but in reality, it is not at all possible, mathematically, for them to be any safer, regarding victimization, than before...
And that is the total point.

It's all a mindgame to make us feel like we need someone to take care of us.

It is impossible for anyone to actually be any safer if their are no VICTIMS!!!!!

[edit on 4/9/2010 by Josephus23]

posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 01:05 AM
reply to post by Josephus23

Yepper, I think we here are all on the same track.

Hopefully, our ranks widen.

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in