Are you a Citizen? Or a citizen?

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by tinhattribunal
'they' [the UNITED STATES CORPORATION] have registered my 'domicile' in WASHINGTON , DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA , a place i have never visited , or intend to visit.

this is a fraudulent practice and , as such , it renders any contract , implied or otherwise, i may , or may not have with the above noticed entity , null and void.

Wellll, yes, to a point.
DC is not your residence. Unless you fill the shoes of your "Legal Person". Which would make you, the flesh and blood, living-soul the surety for the legal person. That's your name in ALL CAPS. The NAME on your SS card is not you. Same with your drivers license.... and all documents with the ALL CAPS name on them. What you need to do is "capture" your legal person and bring it from the public side to the private.

Your parents registered you there. It can be considered your share of stock in the commonwealth. Pre-paid, exempt from levy. They also got you to admit to residing in a Federal Zone by using the zip code and 2-letter state abbreviation. Also by getting you to admit you reside in, City of.... County of.....and State of........
There's lots of ways they can get you. The birth cert is the start.

At least I'm done with all that crap. I took my UCC-1 in to my employer and was declared tax exempt. No hassle from the IRS.




posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by JerkyBeer
 

Everyone should opt out. Weapons don't work against this type of thing. It's administrative. It's the same process they used to capture us in the first place. Once you learn the Administrative Process, and learn it well, you will be free. Guaranteed. I did it. I'm a non-taxpayer with no hassles from the IRS. And even if they did hassle me, I know what to do. And the one thing I would NOT do is get a British Agent to re-present me. Or re-present my legal person in my case.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
This is why we use the UCC
Several possibilities for dealing with the name issue come to mind. These statements are intended as satisfying essential elements. When your strawman’s name is called or the judge asks you your name, you could say one of the following (whatever you are comfortable with):


 “I am here concerning that matter.” Or,
 “I am here as a third-party intervener in that matter appearing as authorized representative for my client.”


The third-party intervener is you, the living principal, acting in your own interests because you have a pre-existing claim against the Defendant that precludes them from acting against any version of your all-caps name based on your prior contract therewith (such as your UCC, Specific Power of Attorney and Indemnity and Hold Harmless Agreement, your Employer ID, etc.)."


Then continue:


 “I accept for value and return for value all of the charging instruments in this matter and make my exemption available [not “offer,” since we never make offers] for discharge of all obligations and charges connected with this case. I do not dispute any of the facts in the charging instruments.”

freedom-school.com...



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Besides the "standard documents" that are utilized in this process, there are other documents that can benefit you greatly.
Affidavit of Reservation of Rights UCC 1-308/207 (the one I have is for SPC's but could be adapted).
Declaration of Domicile----------------------
Zip Code Exempt Letter---------------------These 3 can be used even if you're not an SPC. Immediately.
Affidavit of Status------------------------------

Read and understand. If you're not sure that you KNOW WHO YOU ARE. Then stop and learn WHO YOU'RE NOT. Picture how you would answer a cop or judge that questions you. There is a line in the sand here. Not a concrete and steel barrier. It CAN be stepped over. That other side of the line is where you REgain your birthright. One side is a cesspool, the other is.........
edit on 5-1-2013 by Bildo because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-1-2013 by Bildo because: Heh, corrected some typos



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   
For a good breakdown Dean Clifford is excellent. He also tells you about his in-court experiences. Some of them are pretty funny. A side by side comparison. Once you understand this, you're confidence will skyrocket. If these don't come out right feel free to correctly insert them.





posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 04:58 AM
link   
On the vid links, just put in everything after the = sign.
Now I can go watch them.


Originally posted by Bildo
If these don't come out right feel free to correctly insert them.





posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bildo
Here is another comment containg much information concerning the point I'm trying to make. This takes us from commonlaw to statutes and then to international law.


Now for a little more insight lets look to: 4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 110(d)
Notice here that the United states of america are foreign to the United States.
Evidence that the UNITED STATES is foreign in respect to united States of America is is found in the 5 points as follows:
(1) December 26th 1933 49 Statute 3097 Treaty Series 881 (Convention on Rights and Duties of States) stated CONGRESS replaced STATUTES with international law, placing all States under international law.



You can read the whole thing here:
www.rumormillnews.com...



Sorry, but from what I found I think this is BS at least on this one. I have not look at any others yet.

avalon.law.yale.edu...



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bildo
Here is another comment containg much information concerning the point I'm trying to make. This takes us from commonlaw to statutes and then to international law.

This is so much nonsense.


Now for a little more insight lets look to: 4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 110(d)
Notice here that the United states of america are foreign to the United States.

This section says no such thing. It says, "[As used in sections 105–109 of this title] the term 'State' includes any Territory or possession of the United States." Sections 105-109 are about taxation, and how states (including territories and possessions) can levy income and sales taxes on activities in Federal areas. (Source)


Evidence that the UNITED STATES is foreign in respect to united States of America is is found in the 5 points as follows:
(1) December 26th 1933 49 Statute 3097 Treaty Series 881 (Convention on Rights and Duties of States) stated CONGRESS replaced STATUTES with international law, placing all States under international law.

All States have been under international law, i.e. "Treaties made ... under the Authority of the United States," since the Constitution was ratified. Specifically, Article VI. This does not "replace" statute law, because both statutes and treaties derive their authority from the same document--the Constitution. Congress enacts a large number of statutes every year.


(2) December 9th 1945 International Organization Immunities Act relinquished every public office of the United States to the United Nations.

I'm not even sure how to address this. Read the Act. It did no such thing. It granted international organizations the rights of foreign missions.


(3) 22 CFR 92.12-92.31 FR Heading “Foreign Relationship” states that an oath is required to take office.
(4) Title 8 USC 1481 stated once an oath of office is taken citizenship is relinquished, thus you become a foreign entity, agency, or state.

CFR Title 22, Part 92 is all about notaries, not public offices generally. Although the US Constitution does require an oath to take office in Article VI. Anyway, your US Code citation reads, "A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality ... taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof" (Source). That's a very specific circumstance, which your source seems to have disregarded.


That means every public office is a foreign state, including all political subdivisions. (i.e. every single court is considered a separate foreign entity)

That doesn't even make sense. Do you know what a foreign state is? It's an entity outside the United States with population, territory, and the ability to engage in international relations. Traffic court is not a foreign state. Taking an oath to faithfully execute the duties of traffic court judge does not renounce one's citizenship.


(5) Title 22 USC (Foreign Relations and Intercourse) Chapter 11 identifies all public officials as foreign agents.
4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 110(d). The term “State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States. ( Note: the use of the capital “S” in “State” is reference to the designated territorial “States” and possessions held by the Corporate “United States”.)

Title 22 does no such thing, and your source is abusing 4 USC 110(d) which, by its own language, only applies to sections 105-109 of that title.


TITLE 2-- CHAPTER 14 Sec. 431. Definitions
(12) The term ``State'' means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or a territory or possession of the United States.

"When used in this Act" being the key words that your source chose to omit. (Source) The Act in question is the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. Not sure what this section is supposed to prove, just pointing out another little deception.
edit on 6-1-2013 by FurvusRexCaeli because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


Your a yooper so naturally your a Citizen, Im a troll (not the ATS kind for all you non michigan folks) so that makes me a citizen.

Upper case C yooper Lower case C troll



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by CitizenJack
reply to post by rickymouse
 


Your a yooper so naturally your a Citizen, Im a troll (not the ATS kind for all you non michigan folks) so that makes me a citizen.

Upper case C yooper Lower case C troll


How come there is more water above the bridge than below the bridge?
We must have more C shore here
edit on 6-1-2013 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 

You're not understanding the difference between the dejure state and the defacto State. It was just defined for you.



shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality ... taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof" (Source). That's a very specific circumstance, which your source seems to have disregarded.

Again, you're not seeing it. The nation United States is not the same as the corporation United States. Since the bankruptcy of 1933 United States Inc has been operating in receivership. The receivers are foreign to the nation United States. Which makes the corporation United States foreign to the dejure Republic. The Supreme Court already ruled that there are more than one United States. If I remember correctly, there are 3 definitions of United States.

I'm not going to pick apart your responses because you are missing the underlying message in most of them.
Capitalization changes the "meaning" of the word. They are redefining it for you. And remember, when they use the word "includes" they are "excluding" everything else.
United States Inc. is FOREIGN to the dejure states of the union of states. You need to understand the ramifications of United States being a corporation versus being a country, or dejure government.



edit on 6-1-2013 by Bildo because: typos



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by j2000
 

If you are calling BS on this, here's some more to back up what I've been saying.

1. The IRS is Not a US government agency. It is an agency of the IMF (International Monetary Fund) (Diversified Metal Products v I.R.S et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-564, Senate report 94-1148 pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan No. 26, Public Law 102-391)

2. The IMF (International Monetary Fund) is an agency of the U.N. (Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Ed. page 816)

3. The United States has NOT had a Treasury since 1921 (41 Stat. Ch 214 page 654)

4. The U.S. Treasury is now the IMF (International Monetary Fund) (Presidential Documents Volume 24-No. 4 page 113, 22 U.S.C. 285-2887)

5. The United States does not have any employees because there is no longer a United States! No more reorganizations. After over 200 years of bankruptcy it is finally over. (Executive Order 12803)

6. The FCC, CIA, FBI, NASA and all of the other alphabet gangs were never part of the U.S. government, even though the “U.S. Government” held stock in the agencies. (U.S. v Strang, 254 US491 Lewis v. US, 680 F.2nd, 1239)

7. Social Security Numbers are issued by the U.N. through the IMF (International Monetary Fund). The application for a Social Security Number is the SS5 Form. The Department of the Treasury (IMF) issues the SS5 forms and not the Social Security Administration. The new SS5 forms do not state who publishes them while the old form states they are “Department of the Treasury”. (20 CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) Chap. 111 Subpart B. 422.103 (b))

8. There are NO Judicial Courts in America and have not been since 1789. Judges do not enforce Statutes and Codes. Executive Administrators enforce Statutes and Codes. (FRC v. GE 281 US 464 Keller v. PE 261 US 428, 1 Stat 138-178)

9. There have NOT been any judges in America since 1789. There have just been administrators. (FRC v. GE 281 US 464 Keller v. PE 261 US 428 1 Stat. 138-178)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 




TITLE 2-- CHAPTER 14 Sec. 431. Definitions
12) The term ``State'' means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or a territory or possession of the United States.

"When used in this Act" being the key words that your source chose to omit. (Source) The Act in question is the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. Not sure what this section is supposed to prove, just pointing out another little deception.

What deception?
What you missed is the capital "S" on "State". A state is dejure, State is defacto. It proves that the capitalization of the "s" makes a difference. A State is a possession/territory of Corp US. A state is one of the states of the union of states, which is outside the corporation jurisdiction.
"When used in this Act" is used alot because they need to define their words. Omitting that phrase, or not, makes no difference.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Bildo
 


Nope, just that one quote from that site.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by j2000
reply to post by Bildo
 


Nope, just that one quote from that site.

I popped over to the page/site you linked. Pretty good. Notice how it's immediately after the US bankruptcy was declared?
They are also mentioning "person". US Inc defines person as a trust; a corporation.
ARTICLE 1
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

ARTICLE 2
The federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law.

The corporate States are under international law.
Defacto is foreign to dejure. I guess I'm not picking up on what the BS part of it is. Maybe you could clarify?

And on a side note---The UN is apparently going to go after the States that now allow pot smokin'. Sounds like an international treaty/jurisdiction thing to me. The UN has no power over a dejure state, only the defacto States.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Bildo
 

Dear Bildo,

I'm sorry that you're in the spot you are in. It's hard to shake an idea, but in this case you really should try. Your sources are feeding you false information and it seems to be affecting you. From one of your more recent posts:

1. The IRS is Not a US government agency. It is an agency of the IMF (International Monetary Fund) (Diversified Metal Products v I.R.S et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-564, Senate report 94-1148 pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan No. 26, Public Law 102-391)
For the purpose of the case, it was explained to the court that the IRS wasn't defined as an "agency," it was a "bureau" within the Department of the Treasury (which is the "agency") Try this link: www.losthorizons.com...


5. The United States does not have any employees because there is no longer a United States! No more reorganizations. After over 200 years of bankruptcy it is finally over. (Executive Order 12803) Executive order 12803 was promulgated by Bush to encourage local units of government to explore privatization of some activities when it might be more efficient. It has nothing to do with ending the US.
www.presidency.ucsb.edu...


8. There are NO Judicial Courts in America and have not been since 1789. Judges do not enforce Statutes and Codes. Executive Administrators enforce Statutes and Codes. (FRC v. GE 281 US 464 Keller v. PE 261 US 428, 1 Stat 138-178)

9. There have NOT been any judges in America since 1789. There have just been administrators. (FRC v. GE 281 US 464 Keller v. PE 261 US 428 1 Stat. 138-178)
Of course, FRC says nothing of the kind. Here's the syllabus with links to the actual case.
supreme.justia.com...

Nothing presented by your sources has turned out to be true. Please check the links for yourself, don't just take someone's word for it. Your sources have misled you in the past, give up on them. (Oh, the reason I didn't debunk every one of the nine points was simply laziness, I just chose a few that seemed easy to check.)

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

I just went to the site you sourced: supreme.justia.com... and saw what you missed. It does say what was quoted, you have to SEE it:


Our conclusion is that the proceeding in that court was not a case or controversy in the sense of the judiciary article, but was an administrative proceeding, and therefore that the decision therein is not reviewable by this Court.

Administrative not judicial. There's a difference. They are administering under the bankruptcy. I won't go further debunking your debunking. We can throw this kind of stuff back and forth all day, and then some.
Bureau, agency. Ok, that still does not take into context the fact that IRS, Dept of Treasury, etc are an actual part or division of the "government". They are separate corporations. Not an office, agency, or bureau of the dejure government. They are mixed in with the corporation United States.
I've been correcting the sourcing when I can but it usually comes down to the debunker missing a subtle point like I just showed you.
As to the main questions that we're trying to answer:
How did a corporation get authority over you?
How did the bankruptcy of Corp US of 1933 affect us?
Why did we go from public law to public policy around 1938?
What is the law and who is subject to statutes and why?
There's more and some need to be read into a bit. Like when someone doesn't realize that a capital letter can change the definition of a word, and that Corp US has many common words with a totally different definition but BS is called because someone didn't catch that subtle detail.
I'll try to keep a better eye on my sources. Alot of what we have to do is debunk the debunker who is debunking another debunker who has already been debunked, by another debunker........... For about 5 years now I've been showing the debunkers what they missed. Each time it comes down to a letter or word they didn't catch. Just like this time.


edit on 6-1-2013 by Bildo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse

Originally posted by CitizenJack
reply to post by rickymouse
 


Your a yooper so naturally your a Citizen, Im a troll (not the ATS kind for all you non michigan folks) so that makes me a citizen.

Upper case C yooper Lower case C troll


How come there is more water above the bridge than below the bridge?
We must have more C shore here
edit on 6-1-2013 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)


Touche sir !!! Touche.

I unfortunatly have no witty or clever respone to that.

SCORE
Yopper : 1
Trolls: 1

edit on 7-1-2013 by CitizenJack because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-1-2013 by CitizenJack because: no scoreboard



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Bildo
 

Dear Bildo,

I don't believe I missed anything in FRC.

I just went to the site you sourced: supreme.justia.com... and saw what you missed. It does say what was quoted, you have to SEE it:
"Our conclusion is that the proceeding in that court was not a case or controversy in the sense of the judiciary article, but was an administrative proceeding, and therefore that the decision therein is not reviewable by this Court."
Administrative not judicial. There's a difference. They are administering under the bankruptcy. I won't go further debunking your debunking. We can throw this kind of stuff back and forth all day, and then some.
What FRC said is that if some administrative agency makes a decision, then it's a problem for the administrators unless there is some legal question that needs to be resolved by a court.


Bureau, agency. Ok, that still does not take into context the fact that IRS, Dept of Treasury, etc are an actual part or division of the "government". They are separate corporations. Not an office, agency, or bureau of the dejure government. They are mixed in with the corporation United States.
Internal Revenue has been a part of the government since 1862, and it's authority has not been successfully questioned.

But there's a larger question overshadowing the whole thread, "So what?" If, as I will never admit, all of this silliness is true, what difference does it make? What are you suggesting we do differently than we already do? Are you suggesting we don't pay taxes because we are non-resident alien citizens who are natural bodies not owned by the IMF of a corporation that has a fringe on its flag (Or, something like that, I might have it mixed up.) Are you suggesting we don't have to buy license plates for our car? What, in short, is the point of all this?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


we have little if any input with respect to all the important things, the fiscal debacle and its impotent solution being the best recent case in point solving debt with the incurrance of all the more debt





new topics
top topics
 
21
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join