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.

 

the usa is still owned by the crown

page: 5
28
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


investigation and debate of these videos is the theame to this thread
i urge you to investigate the implications of both sides of this debate

1.who ownes the entity known as THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA(capitals signify incorperation)?

2.if a corperate entity is involved why are we employees?

3.is the ucc or maritime law supposed to be used on land?

4.is there tributes paid to the crown from the united states

5.why was the change to the constitution made (in legal terms the change from for the people to of the people)

6.is there a legal basis to concider the people not party to the constitution

7. who ownes the private bank the federal reserve (the biggest banks in america do) but who ownes them

8.are we lied to about our real lawful standing with status in relation to the laws we are asked to obay?

9.who earns money from this experiment called america

10.did these tricks of law trick people into thinking they are free when they are not?

debate please

XPLODER




posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by The Djin
 


this post isnt about any movement in particular just looking big picture at how the govenments have been set up as for profit corperations

and the fact that someone must have shares in this corperation

and it is my theory that the crown ownes these shares
if the govenment is for profit are the courts?
if the courts are for profit is the irs?
look at dunn and brad street (not sure of spelling)

this english guy goes into the how does the corperation make itself act legally and removes some of the myth that we are taught in schools

note even if the lawful truth is uncovered i advise seeking the advice of a lawer in your country state as these truths will be faught against by the existing courts

none of this thread by any poster consitutes legal advice and is intended as educational material only please concult a lawyer for any legal advice required

it is my opinion that a court on the land should be common law
a court on the water should be maritime law

when you enter a court of law you are entering a ship and are losing all common law rights and have to abide by the law of the saes

THE captain of the ship (judge) is judge jury and sentencing officer
even if your case involves the ship or judge

justice is imposable when you factor into the equation that the courts are a for profit corperation

does the crown own the shares for the courts too?

XPLodER


If you don't mind me asking, how do you expect that the Courts make money from their adjudication? They are public servants who receive their wages from the gov't. I fail to see how a Court could be a for-profit body unless it was taking backhanders to influence it's decision, which would in any case be unanimously prosecuted and punished by other bodies.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


investigation and debate of these videos is the theame to this thread
i urge you to investigate the implications of both sides of this debate

1.who ownes the entity known as THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA(capitals signify incorperation)?

2.if a corperate entity is involved why are we employees?

3.is the ucc or maritime law supposed to be used on land?

4.is there tributes paid to the crown from the united states

5.why was the change to the constitution made (in legal terms the change from for the people to of the people)

6.is there a legal basis to concider the people not party to the constitution

7. who ownes the private bank the federal reserve (the biggest banks in america do) but who ownes them

8.are we lied to about our real lawful standing with status in relation to the laws we are asked to obay?

9.who earns money from this experiment called america

10.did these tricks of law trick people into thinking they are free when they are not?

debate please

XPLODER


There is nothing sinister about the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). It was written in order to harmonize the laws of sales and commercial transactions throughout all 50 United States.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 


no matter the decition unless criminal action is involved the court passes costs onto the loser of the case

how can a judge decide a case when the state is involved when they are payed by the state?

how can justice be servered when the whole court is deciding between you pay or they do?

why are some courts registered with dunn and brad street as corperations?

in common law there has to be two living partys and an adudicator
not connected with the case

in maritime law there is no such protection and thus the court costs are charged to the loser of the case in this way someone always pays unless the court finds against the state (their employers)

why piss the boss off right?

xploder



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 


There is nothing sinister about the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). It was written in order to harmonize the laws of sales and commercial transactions throughout all 50 United States.

why does stepping into a court change your rights from common law to maritime law

your on land right?
doesnt that mean you have land law rights?

wrong
enter into a court and you have just boarded a ship and are under maritime juristiction

why is that so bad ?
well there is another language they speak in court that means totally different things than you have been taught
it also means you are at the direct mercy of the judge/captain
and you have no rights except to accept a contract to pay damages

why can a judge not overide a jury? common law =people are the power

why does a judge not need a jury? maritime law = captain/judge are the power

why have maritime law on the land =to remove your rights and to confuse you with legaleze into giving the contract to take money from you lawful (collection rights)

xploder

this is not legal advice please seek legal advice from a lawyer
this is theory not fact investigate my theory you might be surprised




posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by duality90
 


no matter the decition unless criminal action is involved the court passes costs onto the loser of the case

how can a judge decide a case when the state is involved when they are payed by the state?

how can justice be servered when the whole court is deciding between you pay or they do?

why are some courts registered with dunn and brad street as corperations?

in common law there has to be two living partys and an adudicator
not connected with the case

in maritime law there is no such protection and thus the court costs are charged to the loser of the case in this way someone always pays unless the court finds against the state (their employers)

why piss the boss off right?

xploder


Unless I am grossly ignorant, I think you may be misunderstanding maritime law, as well as what is referred to as the 'common-law'.

The common-law is simply used to describe a system of precedents (stare decisis) wherein numerous rules and laws have evolved since time immemorial (since 1066 in England) i.e. murder was criminalised not by virtue of any document or piece of paper saying 'murder is wrong', but because we as a society decided that the killing of another individual, which in turn made the act a criminal offence. Common-law simply refers to that system wherein we derive a great deal of our laws from the traditions of our nation and history.

Maritime and admiralty law is unfortunately not something I know a great deal about. I do, however, know that unlike your previous suggestion, there is not a necessity that either the plaintiff or defendant be the state; maritime law can be used to litigate (and most often is) between private parties.

Furthermore, your suggestion that deciding to whom to award legal costs usually rests upon who loses or wins the case. It is in immaterial consideration to the proceedings, and legal costs will not be affixed until the judgement of the Court has been given. Furthermore, in the numerous cases between private parties, how could the Courts be profiting from that? Unless they were literally in the pay of the private parties, which would be grossly illegal, they would not be making money by deciding to whom to affix legal costs.

Can you provide us with any recorded instances of such for-profit judgments being made? As far as I can tell, the entire claim is without any evidential substantiation whatsoever.

EDIT: I mean no offense with my posts, I merely seek to further intellectual inquiry.

[edit on 17-8-2010 by duality90]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 


im not stating that any judges are breaking the law [xp]

Furthermore, your suggestion that deciding to whom to award legal costs usually rests upon who loses or wins the case. It is in immaterial consideration to the proceedings, and legal costs will not be affixed until the judgement of the Court has been given. Furthermore, in the numerous cases between private parties, how could the Courts be profiting from that? Unless they were literally in the pay of the private parties, which would be grossly illegal, they would not be making money by deciding to whom to affix legal costs.

im saying in process where a jury of your peers in involved the people of the jury bring the power of common law to the court with them and can decide if by their moral standard there is a case to be answered and if they party is guilty or innocent of crime

in a contract court or ucc or maritime court you have no jury of peers judging your actions or crime
you only have an adudicator who more often than not works on behalf of the state and can find in favour of the state

one is a court of public opinion common law or criminal
one is a contract court where the person making the decition always gets court costs

this is off track to the theam of the tread im not a lawyer

this is my interpretation of a system that is used to enforce collections for the state when a person is in violation of statute

funny how many new statutes require payment by the citizens are passed each year

ps do you think after watching the videos that the usa is still owned by the crown?

XPLoDER

not legal advice do not try it you will go to jail seek legal advice in all cases no legal advice is given only debate on legal topics



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
UCC is money law. If you use money you are under the UCC. fortress.wa.gov... can file notices against them there. Control the money and issue it and you control the entire nation that uses it.
Who owns the banks that own the money? Well in New Zealand the chain goes NZ>USA>UK banks and the usual Rothschilds and other fall guys etc. That's the answer to the multi trillion dollar question this thread poses.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by duality90
 


There is nothing sinister about the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). It was written in order to harmonize the laws of sales and commercial transactions throughout all 50 United States.

why does stepping into a court change your rights from common law to maritime law

your on land right?
doesnt that mean you have land law rights?

wrong
enter into a court and you have just boarded a ship and are under maritime juristiction

why is that so bad ?
well there is another language they speak in court that means totally different things than you have been taught
it also means you are at the direct mercy of the judge/captain
and you have no rights except to accept a contract to pay damages

why can a judge not overide a jury? common law =people are the power

why does a judge not need a jury? maritime law = captain/judge are the power

why have maritime law on the land =to remove your rights and to confuse you with legaleze into giving the contract to take money from you lawful (collection rights)

xploder

this is not legal advice please seek legal advice from a lawyer
this is theory not fact investigate my theory you might be surprised




I again think you misundertand Maritime law. It is the law governing maritime commerce, primarily. You are not stripped of common-law protection (the rest of the law of your nation, assuming it is not a civil-law nation, does not suddenly cease to apply to you), you merely come under a different jurisdiction of law governed by different cases and rules. In the UK, as you will note, cases on appeal from the Admiralty Division of the High Court still go to the Court of Appeal and (the now) Supreme Court of the United Kingdom - admiralty is just a different area of law.

Also, I don't think they refer to Judges in maritime cases as "Captains" of ships (although again, I may be wrong, but I have read several maritime cases and do not recall anything other than the usual judicial titles being used in judgments). Your questions/arguments regarding why they shoudl be vested with a judicial power doesn't make sense to me. Why is it strange that a judge should be allowed to pass judgement?

And actually, I hate to tell you, in certain instances Judges can indeed override a jury. They are admittedly very far and few between, but a decision can be reversed by a jury (this has been done most notably in the field of Privacy/Defamation law). And also, as with many civil cases, a jury trial is not necessary, nor is it beneficial, as the laity are far less likely to understand the legal complexities of cases involving maritime commerce than an experienced judge is. There is again, nothing at all sinister about this.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by GhostR1der
 


that is the trillion dollar question answered
if you follow the money back through the banks you end up with the queens private banker he has direct controll through proxie banks and holding companys that own the fed on behalf of the queen or crown of england

this is the control over federal reserve and by proxie the govenment that the crown bears over america

xploder



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by duality90
 


im not stating that any judges are breaking the law [xp]

Furthermore, your suggestion that deciding to whom to award legal costs usually rests upon who loses or wins the case. It is in immaterial consideration to the proceedings, and legal costs will not be affixed until the judgement of the Court has been given. Furthermore, in the numerous cases between private parties, how could the Courts be profiting from that? Unless they were literally in the pay of the private parties, which would be grossly illegal, they would not be making money by deciding to whom to affix legal costs.

im saying in process where a jury of your peers in involved the people of the jury bring the power of common law to the court with them and can decide if by their moral standard there is a case to be answered and if they party is guilty or innocent of crime

in a contract court or ucc or maritime court you have no jury of peers judging your actions or crime
you only have an adudicator who more often than not works on behalf of the state and can find in favour of the state

one is a court of public opinion common law or criminal
one is a contract court where the person making the decition always gets court costs

this is off track to the theam of the tread im not a lawyer

this is my interpretation of a system that is used to enforce collections for the state when a person is in violation of statute

funny how many new statutes require payment by the citizens are passed each year

ps do you think after watching the videos that the usa is still owned by the crown?

XPLoDER

not legal advice do not try it you will go to jail seek legal advice in all cases no legal advice is given only debate on legal topics





You can stop using that disclaimer. I don't think anyone on here is brainless enough to consult ATS for legal advice.

Your supposition that judges who are adjudicating in cases concerning the state are swayed to give judgment for the state is without merit. Judges often also preside over cases involving the state in numerous other areas of law, and there are countless instances of them finding against the state.

There are countless examples of the House of Lords/Supreme Court finding against the UK government and security services in cases pertaining to the detention of terrorists and the suppression of information relating to the practices of the UK security services with regards to the rendition of suspected terrorists. This is nothing new. Unless you can show me any example where a judge has actually been shown to have found for the state as a result of overt bias (I assure you, you would be absolutely hard-pressed to find such a case), I consider the point settled. It has long been an acknowledged fact that the judiciary is largely (if not entirely) free from any dangerous bias. Judges may have their own political opinions, but I have never once seen a case where any judgment was given that was not unreasonable given the facts of the case. In many of the cases I have read, it has indeed been the State which is in fact the losing party.

Again, aside from making wild and insulting accusations against the judiciary, do you actually have any examples of this bias occuring? Your accusation is like saying that Doctors don't treat patients to the best of their ability so that insurance companies don't have to keep paying for them and let them die. That is blatantly not the case, but is a possibility (however incredibly remote it is).



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   
And to answer your question, no I do not believe that the US is "owned" by the UK. I think any such belief betrays a wanton ignorance to international financial markets and balances-of-trade which show that the UK and the US are wholly independent competitors in the global market, as well as a complete lack of knowledge about the power of the Crown in politico-legal matters in the UK. They have largely been castrated of any real power, and any such 'powers' which remains are trivial hangovers from an age where Monarchy reigned supreme, and are mere formalities in the political/legislative process in the UK. The US and UK are very, very, very different countries with separate cultures and very distinct economies.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 


as far as i know maritime and admiralty law are used as this is a
uniform comercial code of comerce between two countrys in a maritime sence

a military tribuneral if you will

or between to parties in contract to one another

a contract negotation if you will between two countrys or companys
but not for two living peoples on soil or soverign land

that is intended for common law or morally aceptable outcome decided by a court of peers

xploder



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 


have you ever heard of the city state of london
not londen city but a seperate state inside of london?
the financial center of power for the world

this is the head of the financial control for the world
even the queen must have an appiontment
she may not wear any royal insignia

this place ownes stocks in all the companys that own all the federal reserves around the world

they own the world

no proof given as no proof is avaliable

XPLodER



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by duality90
 


have you ever heard of the city state of london
not londen city but a seperate state inside of london?
the financial center of power for the world

this is the head of the financial control for the world
even the queen must have an appiontment
she may not wear any royal insignia

this place ownes stocks in all the companys that own all the federal reserves around the world

they own the world

no proof given as no proof is avaliable

XPLodER


So in other words, completely wild speculation? How do you honestly expect me to take what you are saying seriously when you readily admit that there is not a sliver of information or proof to back up your allegation?

Have you heard of how the real capital of the US is in Boise, Idaho, and how all people who voted against Obama in the elections are sent to death camps in Montana?

No proof given as none is available.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 


no i do not charge that any judge or process is corrupt or criminal [xp]

Again, aside from making wild and insulting accusations against the judiciary, do you actually have any examples of this bias occuring? Your accusation is like saying that Doctors don't treat patients to the best of their ability so that insurance companies don't have to keep paying for them and let them die. That is blatantly not the case, but is a possibility (however incredibly remote it is).

in my country no judge has been found guilty of corruption or biasis in over 150 years of our history

we have a system of collection so well set up that its illegal to even insinuate corrupt judges or crime in the judicary

so no im not saying any crimes or bias is takin place

just that a well oiled machine takes lots of fines of our population every year on behalf of our govenment

and our politicians come up with new crimes to pay fines for at a rate of approx two thousand a year

xploder



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 


ex link to location of city state of london
en.wikipedia.org...

im sorry but only speculation about the owners and laws about this place is avaliable

no proof

xp

edit to add the wikipedia photo is of the london city centre

when in fact the city state of london is fully fenced and not in the citys centre

its like the vatacan is its own country in a country
so is this city state

[edit on 17-8-2010 by XPLodER]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Okedoke then.. First a few things to clear up. Not all 50 States are governed by English Common Law. Louisiana uses Napolianc Law (hence parishes instead of counties etc).

Also, people need to bare in mind that Americans hold dual citizenship. You are a citizen of the State you reside in, and you are a Citizen of the United States of America as a Country (This is easy to prove - Look at your passport - Issued by the Feds and not the State - State has no authority hear).

By extension the same is said of the United Kingdom. You can be a citizen of Wales, Scotland, Britain etc, yet you are a subject of the Crown, or National Government.

Some quick Definitions-

Maritime Law - There are 2 parts to Maritime Law. Part of it governs ships / commerece at Sea. The second half of it Governs trade / issues between nations. It does come from our British cousins, and has become part of our laws as well. Maritime Law does not apply to land, and actually if I remeber right does not apply to vessels in port either (high seas).

The reason for this from way back in the day to present - The coastal jursidiction per United Nations agreement is 12 Nautical miles from your coast. You canhave an economic exclusion zone 200 miles from your farthest point of land. As far as authority under maritime law, you need to take into account that as the Captain of an American Vessel (military / merchant Marine) or British, or Spanish, you were the Senior most representative of your Government on scene. No way to communicate back to the Capital, so in turn they were granted these powers to conduct the buisness of the Nation.

Being the States do not have the authority to enforce that far out (since its not "state" territory, or make international agrrments in erms of policy or trade, it falls under Maritime Law (Law of the Sea, Admiralty Law whatever you want to call it).

Land is governed by Federal/State/Local Laws.

Ok.. number by number -

#1-1.who ownes the entity known as THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA(capitals signify incorperation)?

In the begining of the video you presented, it references USC 28, 3002 section 15 - Which does specifically state for the purpose there in, the UNITED STATES is a corporation. In orer to better understand this, I would suggest you refer to what the Code actually is for.

United States Code 28 - Judicial and Judiciary Procedures

In this particular case it is specifically dealing with Civil Law. You have the option of being able to Sue the Federal Government, and this is what makes that possible. Does it mean you are an employee? Nope, it establishes the ability for the Federal Government to be sued by citizens (satisfing that whole pesky redress of grievance thing we have in our 1st Amendment).

Again, I would urge people when you see a reference to a United States Code, to read the entire code section to see how it is relating to things.

2.if a corperate entity is involved why are we employees?
See above -You are an individual gauranteed the pursuit of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, gauranteed by our Constituion, the Supreme Law of our Land.

3.is the ucc or maritime law supposed to be used on land?

The USC is used on land and part of foriegn trade. Maritime Law is soley for use on the High Seas. While Im not a huge fan of Wikipedia, it does a good job of breaking it down:

Admiralty / Maritime Law - Wiki

4.is there tributes paid to the crown from the united states

Well for starters that question comes from this:
US still a British entity?
The argument being made is based on the treaty just after the war. The argument being used is the crown still gets certain percentages of gold, silver etc paid to him for his business.

This can be spun different ways, depending on what angle you are trying to show. As in all wars, their are winners and loosers, which usually means consessions and reparations. Again you need to think about this as if it were just signed yesterday. While we defeated the Brits, we still have to do business with them, as they were our largest recipiant of our goods, and us them.

Plus, it allows the crown to save face on the World Stage. Does it mean anything now? Not really, since we have other treaties, laws, understandings that over ride it. Check the Lend-Lease act from WWII, among others that show how we compensate other countries using maritime law and other international accords. Do we still pay tribute to the Crown? I guess we do to satisfy debts and other areas. The crown though, at that time, refered to the Government, which was the King. Today it means something entirely different.

If you dont subscribe to those arguments, check this out. The argument that we pay tribute comes from Article 6, Section of our Constitution, which in part states that the new Government will continue to pay on ALL DEBTS prior to its inception and ratification. Since we were using the Article of Confederation before then, and we had VALID debts we owned to England, it was incorperated.
Article 6, Section 1 - US Constitution - Wiki

5.why was the change to the constitution made (in legal terms the change from for the people to of the people)

To me this is from Grade School Government. The Founding Fathers wanted the Government to derive its authority from those Governed, breaking away from the Crown Model, where the right to rule was divine, and the King was above the people.

By changing those words, it altered the intent of what they were putting in place. They wanted a Government of the people, by the people and for the people. The inent was to have a citizen government, not a permanent ruling class. Even great ideas on paper have to be looked at, especially when forming a new government.

As an example, the City I work in as a Police Officer was enacting a new city ordinance. During the creation, a comma was left out of part of it, accidentally wiping out all city ordinances that came before the change. It was supposed to amend, not wipe out.

Continued...

[edit on 18-8-2010 by Xcathdra]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 12:39 AM
link   
6.is there a legal basis to concider the people not party to the constitution
Hmmm.. As I was saying before, you have dual citizenship (Federal and State), not to mention the Constitution is the groundwork for our Government, and since it is a government of, by and for the people, I would say people are party to the Constitution.

7. who ownes the private bank the federal reserve (the biggest banks in america do) but who ownes them
If you want a constitutional answer, Congress has the sole power to mint monies, as well as establish a banking system (ability to voersee monies. The Federal REserve (its quasi private as it does have Congressioanl Oversight, they choose to ignore this though - I mean Congress).
I am not a fan of the Federal Reserve system, and am even less of a fan of the US being removed from the Gold Standard to back our currency. In this area though, Congress was within their rights doing this.
US Federal Reserve System - Wiki

8.are we lied to about our real lawful standing with status in relation to the laws we are asked to obay?
Lied to? not really no. Again the intent of the Founding Fathers was to have a citizen Government. The expectation is you will participate, therefore you should know about the Laws.

Ignorance of the Law is no excuse as it was origionally stated. Thanks to English common law, we developed 2 terms, Spirit of the Law, and Letter of the Law. EX: Speed limit is 55. You are doing 75 heading to the Hospital and I stop you. The letter of the law says I should write you a ticket for exceeding the speed limit and breaking the law in the process. However, the speed limit was not put into place to prohibit exigent circumstances. I let you off with a warning and you head on your way. The law was only intended to limit speed as a reasonable person understands it.

Also, Caveat Emptor comes to mind...

9.who earns money from this experiment called america
To those who beleive in the American Dream and work
for it. This country is refered to as the Great Experiment for a reason. Its there for those who want it. There is nothing standing in your way to becoming a millionaire, President, bum.

10.did these tricks of law trick people into thinking they are free when they are not?

This is a matter of opinion, imo a wrong one, but I digress. We do not live in a Democracy, we live in a Representative Republic. If you dont participate in the process, then I could see how one could assume they were lied / tricked about a law.

The simple fact you are able to ask these questions, have your opinions, and challenge others, I think, proves the statement to be false.

I love this country.. We get to overthrow our Government every 2 years. Where else in the World can you do that without smiling for rifle fire?

I hope this answers some of the questions, or brings about better debate.

My parting thought is this. This country is what we all make of it, both as a group, and as an individual. If you dont like something, then challenge and change it. There is nothing stopping the American people from forcing the Government to get rid of the Federal Reserve system other than apathy towards participation.

We take for granted what others yearn for. That alone speaks volumes.

Thanks

[edit on 18-8-2010 by Xcathdra]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Ive watched the video twice now and all I am seeing is someone taking bits and pieces from various sources / laws / court rulings to make an argument for certain view.

You are getting snippets that when viewed on their own says what the vide is saying. If you look at the whole piece though you will see how it falls into place and at the same time refutes the initial charges made in the video.

I would recomend that when you watch the video, pause at each accusation and look up the info the video is showing in its entirety.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by Xcathdra]



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join