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 sandmannc40
Yes, as of this morning 47 States have petitioned to secede the Union.
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Originally posted by Bildo
So, you deny the Act of 1871 exists. You deny the 1933 bankruptcy exists.
I don't know what act of 1871 you are refering to.
probably it exists and you just don't understand what it does....or, more likely, are deliberately misinterpreting it as something utterly different to what it is.
Certainly the "bankruptcy of 1933" is fantasy - going off the gold standard is NOT the same as being bankrupt - it's not even close, and if youbelieve it is you have some serious problems.
You deny HJR 192 exists.
Of course HJR 192 exists - stop telling lies about what I said.
It's all documented! You are worse than hopeless. If you don't have the intelligence to research this yourself I can't help you. You are the perfect definition of a "sheeple". And inside a box, too. C'mon, prove me wrong. Call the IRS. Call the Federal Reserve. Start asking questions. Or are you afraid?
What would I ask them, and why would I be afraid?
Your 3 points above are easily shown to be utter rubbish - time after time, in court and out as well.
edit on 14-11-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Bildo
Me---LOOK IT UP. Enter"The Act of 1871" into your search window. It's not difficult. Read it. It can't be "misinterpreted".
Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by hellobruce
Considering we are talking about the US, why would you think UK acts would be relevant? Come on, common sense bro
Originally posted by hellobruce
Originally posted by Bildo
Me---LOOK IT UP. Enter"The Act of 1871" into your search window. It's not difficult. Read it. It can't be "misinterpreted".
Ok, so we get www.legislation.gov.uk...
Dogs Act 1871
???? Just why do you think that is relevant?
or this one
en.wikipedia.org...
or this one
www.legislation.gov.uk...
you apparently know so little about how things work you apparently think there is only one act passed in 1871....edit on 14-11-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)edit on 14-11-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by hellobruce
Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by hellobruce
Considering we are talking about the US, why would you think UK acts would be relevant? Come on, common sense bro
Simply because some of the people believing in the freeman nonsense, the USA is really a corporation etc. claim pommie law is valid....
Originally posted by Bildo
With no constitutional authority to do so,
Congress cut a deal with the international bankers
(specifically Rothschilds of London) to incur a DEBT to said bankers.
Capitalization is NOT insignificant when one is referring
to a legal document.
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful buildings
Originally posted by hellobruce
Originally posted by Bildo
With no constitutional authority to do so,
Ok, exactly where does it state that it was unconstitutional?
Congress cut a deal with the international bankers
(specifically Rothschilds of London) to incur a DEBT to said bankers.
care to show us proof of this "debt"?
Capitalization is NOT insignificant when one is referring
to a legal document.
Actually, it is. care to show us something valid that states it means anything?
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Bildo
Right - so we have the 1871 disctric of Columbia act - I don't know why you weer so hostile to me asking about what it was when apparently you have written this quiet easily.
Soooo...... you claim congress had no right to pass this act? why not?
The Residence Act of 1790 had already created a Federal district to be the Capital of the country, and Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution gives Congress power over a federal district, stating:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful buildings
so right there in the constitution it allows for a Federal area of up to 10 miles square (=100 square miles). DC is now just over 63 square miles in area.
the 1871 act repealed the seperate chartes of the cities of Washington and Georgetown and established a single territorial government for the whole of DC rather than seperate ones for each city.
so how was the 1871 act illegal or unconstitutional or anything else dodgy??
District of columbia Act 1871 (3mb pdf)
Originally posted by Bildo
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Bildo
Right - so we have the 1871 disctric of Columbia act - I don't know why you weer so hostile to me asking about what it was when apparently you have written this quiet easily.
Soooo...... you claim congress had no right to pass this act? why not?
The Residence Act of 1790 had already created a Federal district to be the Capital of the country, and Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution gives Congress power over a federal district, stating:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful buildings
so right there in the constitution it allows for a Federal area of up to 10 miles square (=100 square miles). DC is now just over 63 square miles in area.
the 1871 act repealed the seperate chartes of the cities of Washington and Georgetown and established a single territorial government for the whole of DC rather than seperate ones for each city.
so how was the 1871 act illegal or unconstitutional or anything else dodgy??
District of columbia Act 1871 (3mb pdf)
You said it. The Residence Act of 1790 had already created a Federal district to be the Capital of the country But, then, in 1871 they come in and make a "government" for the District they already have?
See the Constitution for the specifics about congress---what their job is, what they're allowed to do? Did the states give this power to the District?
They went and formed a "Territorial Government". No longer national.
Originally posted by fripw
reply to post by rockintitz
It wouldn't hurt to throw out people that are that delusional. Though medical(mental) help would probably be more humane.