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.
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
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
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
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
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
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