Why isn't ATS exploding with this info? One People's Trust and the return of Common Law

page: 16
180
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by fourthmeal
She at no point said she won, or lost during the interview. She said she used her house to "test" the system and learn how deep the corruption goes, and then was able to act. It is quite important to understand that I made the mistake, and thought that meant something else.


So she was "able to act" by losing her house...... so all the claims were just nonsense, like all their claims!




posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by fourthmeal
She probably learned a few valuable points by losing,


Like you should pay the debts you promised to pay, and if you dont then you lose the property you promised to pay for.... but why didnt she know that before not paying your debt? She claims to be a lawyer, and she didnt even know that!



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by fourthmeal
Small update...I've been scouring the comments in the ongoing threads of blogs all about this Trust stuff. Especially the whole issue of Heather's own case she lost.


All the claims in the op are just a lot of nonsense, she lost and is trying to hide that fact.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   
I doubt that took 3 separate replies to get across, are you trying just up your post count?


Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by fourthmeal
She at no point said she won, or lost during the interview. She said she used her house to "test" the system and learn how deep the corruption goes, and then was able to act. It is quite important to understand that I made the mistake, and thought that meant something else.


So she was "able to act" by losing her house...... so all the claims were just nonsense, like all their claims!



Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by fourthmeal
She probably learned a few valuable points by losing,


Like you should pay the debts you promised to pay, and if you dont then you lose the property you promised to pay for.... but why didnt she know that before not paying your debt? She claims to be a lawyer, and she didnt even know that!



Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by fourthmeal
Small update...I've been scouring the comments in the ongoing threads of blogs all about this Trust stuff. Especially the whole issue of Heather's own case she lost.


All the claims in the op are just a lot of nonsense, she lost and is trying to hide that fact.



Your point has been noted, recorded, and regarded for what it is. Did you listen to the interview?

Regarding the lost case, she was able to "ferret out" the corruption by letting her house be a target. Her choice, her sacrifice or whatever you want to call it. I certainly didn't get this the first time.

Regarding people paying debts they are supposed to pay... how about those bankers doing that then? Want to answer? How about corporate America paying up?


I am starting to understand this is your M.O. I was curious, when you started injecting your comments in the thread, if that's just a thing you do or if you just had passion on this topic. No. That's just what you do. In all threads, even your very first, you apply some very strange logic. I accept this as we all have a direction we go, but I don't understand why you keep restating your point over, and over again while belittling others...including Heather and those at the Trust.

They may be wrong, but I don't think they are trying to scam anyone or claim nonsense.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
I have been studying what you speak of in the OP for years,and have actually used it to keep from being prosecuted for petty victimless crimes several times.

If this information is used wisely,all the authorities can do is inconvenience you,waste your time,make you miss appointments by holding you up for hours while they call their supervisor to find out what they should have already known to even get their jobs.

I have made a point of engineering time into my schedule or day,to deal with these idiots without feeling rushed and showing impatience or being snyde about stuff because I am stressed out.

Some people just call me a slacker.

Don't fumble into any more contracts,and shed as many of the ones blanketing you as you can,and then seek out the rest you are not aware of.

And then you will be freeish,your fellow slaves hate seeing their peers break free.

Don't broadcast it.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by MyHappyDogShiner
 


He wanted to dismiss my statement about friend's driving without licenses with "Lot's of people do; when caught, they go to jail."

Funny, my friends didn't go to jail. All "Freeman claims are nonsense" are based around cherry picked evidence of people that spent 45 minutes online trying to research this, when that won't even cut it by a long shot. You must inform yourself, and there is a lot of paperwork you must fill out. File for executorship of estate, being signed by 4 witnesses and a notary is a good start.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by fourthmeal
Regarding the lost case, she was able to "ferret out" the corruption by letting her house be a target.


That is just her excuse as to why she failed.... and that is all the claims in the op's first post are, sign of failure.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
He wanted to dismiss my statement about friend's driving without licenses with "Lot's of people do; when caught, they go to jail."


Where did I say they went to jail? nowhere, of course that was just you making things up again!



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


I suppose you don't know what paraphrasing means do you?



A lot of people do that, but when they get caught they suffer the consequences.


Consequences would be jail and court....Are you really that dense or is it just deceptive? Which one is it?
edit on 10-1-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 

Look up "Enjoyment of Benefit",most people are afraid to be free because they would actually have to do something themselves then.

Also,if there is a dispute between my interpretation of a law,and the so called authorities interpretation of it,the original law of the land is in force.

The constitution states,in a nutshell,that you can do anything you please as long as you don't inhibit anyone else's life liberty and pursuit of happiness,don't do physical,monetary or property damage while making a complete ass of one's self.

If I am not mistaken,the constitution used to read "Preserve life liberty and the pursuit of profit",men of means and all that crap.

The constitution isn't for you or me,you and me have no constitutional rights,we don't need them because they are limiting parameters to keep the authorities from infringing on your "god given rights".

This argument works without all of the paperwork.If you wanna be greedy and amass useless crap,then you gotta do the paperwork to play the "contract law" or "negotiable instrument" game,so the criminals in charge don't do one of their "Unlawful Takings".

The little I have learned works for me,but one must remember,they hold the keys,they have the guns.

Common Law died the same day Common Sense did.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by MyHappyDogShiner
 


I'm familiar with the enjoyment of benefit...Zip codes, food stamps, social security, etc, are all federal benefits that if you accept or claim, you are pretty much entering into a contract with them so they can do as they please to you. You are indebted to them for those benefits.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by MyHappyDogShiner
 


He wanted to dismiss my statement about friend's driving without licenses with "Lot's of people do; when caught, they go to jail."

Funny, my friends didn't go to jail. All "Freeman claims are nonsense" are based around cherry picked evidence of people that spent 45 minutes online trying to research this, when that won't even cut it by a long shot. You must inform yourself, and there is a lot of paperwork you must fill out. File for executorship of estate, being signed by 4 witnesses and a notary is a good start.
Yup, cherry-picked evidence from hope-for-the-best-quicky defense.

There you go. It all deals with "the Estate". I believe you might be thinking about a person I'll call Tami P. Executorship, the quorum of signatures, etc....The House of.......heirs vs successors...
And especially the "Reorganization" (United States Inc).
Correct me if I'm wrong.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Now when we're talking about banks and property, we should also be talking about the history of common law and equity law. The distinction, relevant to what you guys are bangin' on about (and quite rightly), comes down to the award of damages (excuse my legalese) and exclusive treatment of property owners. Under common law (which existed for 2/300 years prior to equity), only monetary awards are granted as remedies, which pissed some folks off...

So here's a little simplified story that some folks might find interesting:

Back in the day, in England, common law was seen as rigorous, rather rigid and convoluted for particular types of disputes. People felt that precedent should give way to the idea of what's fair (for all involved in the dispute), aka equity, which became based on the opinion of, later, Chancellors. So, soon enough, after a couple of hundred years, the Crown's secretary started to resemble a court, known as the Court of Chancery. If folks weren't happy with common law remedies, they could literally walk down the road and be heard by someone else, not bound by precedent, to get a better deal. Over time they merged, which is why today we see some decisions that encompass remedies previously independently awarded by both equity and common law. This is off the top of head so if anyone wants to correct me then go ahead.

Now how does this relate to the fraud of the banks / mortgage brokers? Unfortunately the contract between a home owner and a lender, under the circumstances we find ourselves in today, is rather plain. These contracts can not be discarded under common (contract) law as they are very much legal. Both parties to the contract knew what they were getting into. Now if equity still existed as a seperate court, forclosure victims could toddle down the road and get a better deal, which is what I think should be available today.

The only way these lenders (banks, whatever) can be held accountable is in the deceptive way they bundled and sold assets (not to mention LIBOR, rating agencies etc etc), which was criminal (not common), which leaves little to no hope for a remedy for those afflicted by the recent large spate of forclosures, as those contracts were between investors and banks, not homeowners and banks. Now if we were to rely solely on common law for a remedy, precedent (which is what common law is based on) would dictate that indeed the contracts are lawful, and the remedy sought by the rightful owner (banks) to the property would probably be granted, which is what has been happening. The biggest shame of all this is that even though the banks are getting way with crazy sh&t, and should be held accountable for it, legal processes under common law won't benefit homeowners (or those threatened with forclosure), in my opinion.

Now don't get me wrong it's all the 'banks' fault, their (illegal) decisions led to a collapse, for which they should sit in a dark cell for a while, but I'm not convinced that common law will help here. We need a new court based on fairness. For example, people are paying off loans for overvalued (or now undervalued) property. In equity, I would imagine a judge could dictate a new set of terms that resets the terms of the mortgage, so future principle repayments reflect current property prices, and the banks take the hit, not the collective taxpayer who actually saved these bastards in the first place.

Some of us want the banks to be regarded as criminal, some want the banks to be more fair, some just want their homes back. At the end of the day, to me, the most important lesson here is one of fairness. It could be retrospective fairness (bit of restitution for those afflicted by forclosure in the past), but if anything it should be designed with the future in mind. This'll include greater regulation (legislative), greater punitive action in the cases of fraud and a new accessible court that can alter the terms of property mortgages for us lowly folk, but perhaps not chattel mortgages.









edit on 10-1-2013 by spoogemonkey because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-1-2013 by spoogemonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by schadenfreude
 
You can't use the constitution in court as of about 1938. That was when we went from public law to public policy(statutes). I believe case law prior to then can't be used either.

edit on 10-1-2013 by Bildo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:03 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by MyHappyDogShiner
I have been studying what you speak of in the OP for years,and have actually used it to keep from being prosecuted for petty victimless crimes several times.

If this information is used wisely,all the authorities can do is inconvenience you,waste your time,make you miss appointments by holding you up for hours while they call their supervisor to find out what they should have already known to even get their jobs.

I have made a point of engineering time into my schedule or day,to deal with these idiots without feeling rushed and showing impatience or being snyde about stuff because I am stressed out.

Some people just call me a slacker.

Don't fumble into any more contracts,and shed as many of the ones blanketing you as you can,and then seek out the rest you are not aware of.

And then you will be freeish,your fellow slaves hate seeing their peers break free.

Don't broadcast it.
They should stop bothering you once they are affected by your fee schedule.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:02 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 




Like you should pay the debts you promised to pay, and if you dont then you lose the property you promised to pay for.... but why didnt she know that before not paying your debt? She claims to be a lawyer, and she didnt even know that!
Ummmmmmm,
Do you not realize that you are not "paying" anything with FRN's? They're DEBT NOTES!



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 
Cool, I know her indirectly. Her knowledge level is (I can't describe it). VERY HIGH. understatement.
Good, so you are accumulating intense, but, in a way, fairly simple knowledge. The history we might never have known. And the cure for the disease. I've been pushing the UCC over in my thread, but I have to admit, Tami is better. I just finished an 86 page pdf that really opened my eyes. And she mentioned Dean Clifford. That reinforces alot of what I already knew.

edit on 10-1-2013 by Bildo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bildo
reply to post by hellobruce
 




Like you should pay the debts you promised to pay, and if you dont then you lose the property you promised to pay for.... but why didnt she know that before not paying your debt? She claims to be a lawyer, and she didnt even know that!
Ummmmmmm,
Do you not realize that you are not "paying" anything with FRN's? They're DEBT NOTES!


Seconded...






top topics
 
180
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join