Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 3
180
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   
By the way, you know all of this is a myth because even though the concepts behind the legal mythology (straw man, magic words, human being vs person) have all been around since the 1970s, there has not been one single court case that has won based on them.

If anyone can find me 1 single sustained (IE, did not lose on appeal) court case where the court record shows (A) someone tried out a legal "common law" (in quotes because this really isn't common law) concept and (B) the judge acknowledged that they were not subject to statute law or anything like that due to the use of these concepts, then I'll paypal you $1,000.00 tonight.

There has been 1 I am aware of, which was completely overturned on appeal and the judge found to be mentally ill.




posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helious
reply to post by thelongjourney
No, common law is not something that is made up. It is very real and you need to look no further than 1913 and the public trust that was used to get our gold and institute corporate or "private law. Please do some research about the subject before you make such bold and obviously wrong statements.


Yes, it is. You need to do the research. The common law as described in the OP is a made up concept. There is something called common law in real law, which is just as I described: decision making based on judicial precedent. Common law defined by you is actually "natural law" which is not a real law, but a philosophical concept.

You may wish natural law WAS common law, but its not. Its just a philosophy..one you may believe in, but not one that has any impact in the legal world:
www.iep.utm.edu...

There was no public trust used to institute "private law" - there is no such thing. If there was then you can do me the favor of showing me 1 court case where someone using these legal myths won because of them. Just one case is all it takes.
edit on 4-1-2013 by thelongjourney because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-1-2013 by thelongjourney because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by sir_slide
~snip~

He has been racking up thousands of dollars of fines for things and going to court for it, doing his thing and getting the case thrown out.

~snip~


Classy guy!



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   
As for proper paper work etc, my friend said the same thing too! He also sent me paperwork which I showed to a friend who is a lawyer. It was a document that my friend said gave him the right to sieze assets of a particular bank for failing to acknowledge a legal request. By not doing so they were in violation of certain articles that my firend outlined and sent to the creditor. I showed my lawyer friend and I forget what he advised it was but it was a legal resopnse acknowledging the "claim" but in no means gave him the power to seize anything or do anything. In fact he wasn't any closer to resolution than he was before.

You know this saying comes to mind: Don't hate the player hate the game. Because if you could play the game you'd be a player too. I say this because if we don't like the game then we shouldn't play. Why try to beat someone at their own game when the simple soultion is complete and total NON-PARTICIPATION. If no one plays then no one can win. Just some bankers at a wheel but no ones spinning cause no one is playing....
edit on 4-1-2013 by masta12d because: I called my Lawyer a liar....fruedian slip perhaps lol



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by thelongjourney
By the way, you know all of this is a myth because even though the concepts behind the legal mythology (straw man, magic words, human being vs person) have all been around since the 1970s, there has not been one single court case that has won based on them.

If anyone can find me 1 single sustained (IE, did not lose on appeal) court case where the court record shows (A) someone tried out a legal "common law" (in quotes because this really isn't common law) concept and (B) the judge acknowledged that they were not subject to statute law or anything like that due to the use of these concepts, then I'll paypal you $1,000.00 tonight.

There has been 1 I am aware of, which was completely overturned on appeal and the judge found to be mentally ill.


In the case of Heather's own property, she applied this common law and the foreclosure was cancelled, and property became hers with no debt. Her evidence and how she did it is clearly explained in the interview. Also her family members had a property dispute (I believe it was also a foreclosure, on a PAID property) and also, common law rendered the foreclosure null and void.

Remember, Heather and the folks of the Trust are not just random people not capable of handling a law case. They are lawyers, and they are licensed (verifiable by googling in a second) to practice law in WA. Perhaps elsewhere too, but don't know.


Please send the money to my paypal....












Just kidding, of course you want documents and I'll look for hers, not sure how easy they are to find but I'll take time. The money, while i could use it, could probably just stay in your hands and we'd all be happy too.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   
If you like I can redact some info and post the documents I was referring to for reference....



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Does anybody remember the guy that foreclosed on the Bank that tried to foreclose on his house? That hit mainstream media. That's another case of a successful common law approach.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Sorry,i don't know how to paste links from my phone, still new here, but at lawless america dot com,
Dated 9 Nov 2011, is a report about heather tucci-jarraf disqualifying ALL judges in the state
Of California from playing a part in this banking mess.

I just google searched heather ann tucci-jarraf. It came up on page 5.

Im no lawyer, but I've with/for a few, and, after reading through this stuff, the
Passed few hours, it all seams legit.
Any lawyers out there that can vett thus stuff???
edit on 4-1-2013 by JerkyBeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by fourthmeal
Just kidding, of course you want documents and I'll look for hers, not sure how easy they are to find but I'll take time. The money, while i could use it, could probably just stay in your hands and we'd all be happy too.


$1k isn't much for me, but it is for others - if you could use the money, and you REALLY think this stuff is real, then any 1 case from any jurisdiction anywhere in the US, UK, or Canada will do. As long as it meets requirements (1) and (2), the money is yours.

The problem is...it isn't real. I've made this offer over the years to countless believers in this stuff. Not one person has been able to come up with an example of an actual case. Heather may have indeed, as a practicing attorney (if she really is one), been able to spot real foreclosure fraud and get to keep her home due to the fraud. But it was because of real fraud covered under the real law, not this fake legal mythology covered under "common law." If in her case it shows she used even 1 fake common law concept and it was accepted, the money is yours.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by fourthmeal
Does anybody remember the guy that foreclosed on the Bank that tried to foreclose on his house? That hit mainstream media. That's another case of a successful common law approach.


No, its not. Bank made an error and didnt pay the penalty, he used a court order to seize property. Thats not common law. Thats the real law. The case was brought based on the bank's violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The bank violated the Act (NOT some nebulous legal "common law" concept), and was forced to pay up.
edit on 4-1-2013 by thelongjourney because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by JerkyBeer
 


Yes this is a fun one, and I believe she won it, and it sets precedence, one that every state in the country could then follow.

Basically what happened here is that they were disqualified because their pensions and benefits serve a conflict of interest!

www.farms.com...



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Document:



Lawyers response:

What I see here is simply a UCC financing statement. It perfects a security interest in collateral and sets priority as against other creditors A financing statement does not create a lien nor does it create any additional rights. The filing of a financing statement just gives notice to others and places them below in priority to whatever rights the creditor has. It’s typically used when a loan is secured by personal property. Think car loan…the car secures the loan (though different rules apply to cars but you get the general idea.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by fourthmeal
reply to post by JerkyBeer
 


Yes this is a fun one, and I believe she won it, and it sets precedence, one that every state in the country could then follow.

Basically what happened here is that they were disqualified because their pensions and benefits serve a conflict of interest!

www.farms.com...



You do realize that as long as I pay the filing fees I can serve anyone in any capacity for anything? If I wanted to, tomorrow I could serve you for stealing my purple unicorn. Purple unicorn's don't exist, but as far as the court is concerned in filing the initial paperwork it doesn't matter - service is just notifying someone of a civil action. The civil action can be completely bonkers. This particular civil action WAS completely bonkers, which is why they were served in October and yet California is still doing everything they claim they were disqualified from.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by masta12d
Document:



Lawyers response:

What I see here is simply a UCC financing statement. It perfects a security interest in collateral and sets priority as against other creditors A financing statement does not create a lien nor does it create any additional rights. The filing of a financing statement just gives notice to others and places them below in priority to whatever rights the creditor has. It’s typically used when a loan is secured by personal property. Think car loan…the car secures the loan (though different rules apply to cars but you get the general idea.


Sovereigns and people who believe in this stuff file fake UCC-1's all the time. States used to not be able to crack down on it because they didn't have the systems in place, but they have recently - google "State Strategies to Subvert Fraudulent Uniform Commercial Code Filings"

Alright I know Im going no where (this is ATS after all) but my offer of $1k for 1 CASE FROM ANY JURISDICTION IN THE US, UK, OR CANADA is open indefinitely. If there was even a GRAIN of truth to ANY of this, someone could find me 1 CASE.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   
18 USC § 1964

(a) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of section 1962 of this chapter by issuing appropriate orders, including, but not limited to: ordering any person to divest himself of any interest, direct or indirect, in any enterprise; imposing reasonable restrictions on the future activities or investments of any person, including, but not limited to, prohibiting any person from engaging in the same type of endeavor as the enterprise engaged in, the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or ordering dissolution or reorganization of any enterprise, making due provision for the rights of innocent persons.
(b) The Attorney General may institute proceedings under this section. Pending final determination thereof, the court may at any time enter such restraining orders or prohibitions, or take such other actions, including the acceptance of satisfactory performance bonds, as it shall deem proper.
(c) Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee, except that no person may rely upon any conduct that would have been actionable as fraud in the purchase or sale of securities to establish a violation of section 1962. The exception contained in the preceding sentence does not apply to an action against any person that is criminally convicted in connection with the fraud, in which case the statute of limitations shall start to run on the date on which the conviction becomes final.
(d) A final judgment or decree rendered in favor of the United States in any criminal proceeding brought by the United States under this chapter shall estop the defendant from denying the essential allegations of the criminal offense in any subsequent civil proceeding brought by the United States.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by fourthmeal

Are people so skeptical that they can't see the evidence in front of their eyes? Or is the paradigm of scarcity and control such a powerful thing that it continues to grip people and maintain the illusion?



Maybe we're just all so severely numbed in shock by the steady flow of BS that's been fed to us all our lives, that our jaws are dragging on the ground and our feet are frozen in place like a deer caught in headlights.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by thelongjourney
 


I didn't post this to get your $1k lol. In fact I agree with you.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   
I appreciate that and will work on providing you what you ask.

Since I don't speak this language I am at a disadvantage. What papers would be necessary to qualify? What would be the name of the document in latin or whatever it would end up being?

Am I looking for a ruling, a precedent, what?



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by fourthmeal
 


A ruling that sets precedence.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by masta12d
 


Sorry, I should have delineated that second comment. I know you were providing further evidence all this is a scam...my second portion there was directed any of the "believers". Your lawyer friend is quite right about the UCC-1, of course.





new topics

top topics



 
180
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join