$14,000,000,000,000,000 Dollar UCC-1 lien filed against the Federal Reserve?

page: 10
5
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 

So, we can agree that you don't have to pass a bar exam to be a practicing attorney? That's a good start, now let's start correcting the other mistakes.

As far as "probably?" That's why I used that word, instead of "certainly." I thought I had heard of a Southern State that allowed you to get a license through a special apprenticeship program after working with an attorney, but I'm not sure of it.

But still, you don't have to pass a bar exam to be a Wisconsin attorney, so all of those lawyers are not controlled by England even under the silly assumptions above. (No lawyer that I know of has any allegiance to England.)

Now, can we get back to my questions?




posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Yah - i have no comment except the Federal Reserve is a Private Bank and the US Congress & Obama have no authority over them...so why the hell did you vote this past election?

They only control every aspect of your financial life...no big deal...move along cattle/sheeple/serfs.

& its the truth - Democrat/Republican - Capitalist/Communist - they own you!



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


we can agree that you don't have to pass a bar exam
no, we cannot agree on this point.
an exception in one state hardly validates your assertion.
like i said, exaggerating the facts isn't helping your argument in the least.

"probably" involves proven variables ... your statement did not and was subsequently proven False.

seems you wouldn't know very many lawyers then, eh ?
why should we bother getting back to your questions when you keep putting off everyone else's



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 

This is becoming quite interesting. The claim is made that all lawyers have to pass the bar exam. I show that thousands of them don't. For any reasonable person who can follow the rules of logic, the assertion is, thereby, disproved. But for some reason there is a reluctance to change the statement to "Some lawyers do, some lawyers don't." That would be accurate but it doesn't seem to be something you're willing to accept.

an exception in one state hardly validates your assertion.
like i said, exaggerating the facts isn't helping your argument in the least.
"probably" involves proven variables ... your statement did not and was subsequently proven False.


Actually, as I've pointed out, any exception proves my position. Do you think by saying "probably" another state allows for skipping the bar exam, I've exaggerated the facts? Do you think you proved by statement was false by merely claiming it was false?

In the United States, the diploma privilege is a method for lawyers to be admitted to the bar without taking a bar examination. Once used by as many as 32 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, Wisconsin is currently the only state that offers a broad diploma privilege for admission to its state bar. New Hampshire has offered diploma privilege to a limited number of students in a special practice-based program at the state's only law school since 2008.[1]
From "Diploma privelege" in Wiki.

So, there are two states which allow some lawyers to be admitted without a bar exam. My statement is proved to be true, yours is proved to be false.

why should we bother getting back to your questions when you keep putting off everyone else's{/quote] Because I started asking my questions on the first page of this thread and, despite repeated efforts, my questions have been dodged.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

you are presenting a fallacy and a false statement.
for the record ... i made no such claim ... if you believe otherwise, link it.

The claim is made that all lawyers have to pass the bar exam

and to top it off, straight from the Wisconsin State BAR ... things changed 6 years ago and active membership in the State Bar of Wisconsin is now mandatory !!!

read it for yourself

source
On Jan. 5, 2007, the court issued order 04-07 formally adopting changes, effective on July 1, 2007. In addition to these rules, the court imposes other requirements as a condition of practicing law in Wisconsin, including active membership in the State Bar of Wisconsin and fulfilling continuing legal education requirements.

any chance you'd care to retract your nasty comments and get on with discussing truth ??

back to the original claim ... please show us ANY state that doesn't have such requirements.


For any reasonable person who can follow the rules of logic, the assertion is, thereby, disproved.
the rules of the game state the above logic is unapplicable.

please, link where i said or implied, this ...

Some lawyers do, some lawyers don't
and, btw, we are discussing lawyers who are approved to argue/represent at the Federal level within the State ... not local, in-State issues.

ok, a PRIOR EXCEPTION in one state hardly validates your assertion ... Better ??

in this case, "probably" doesn't even exist unless you can prove such ... please, be my guest.

membership in the BAR is membership ... why would how they became members matter ??

who said anything about a BAR exam ??
we are discussing membership and loyalties, not evaluations.

being a bAR member certainly doesn't equate to improved quality of service so what purpose does it serve, really ??

i noticed several of your questions were answered directly which you then attempted to debunk

soooo, ... which questions do you think should be answered by anyone other than yourself ??
edit on 27-1-2013 by Honor93 because: add txt



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 

You're right, I got a little heated and I'm sorry.

To get back to more fundamental questions from Page 1 of the thread:

Is there a secured debt instrument from the government of the United States, showing a secured lien? If not, a UCC-1 is inappropriate.

If the US is a foreign owned corporation, which country owns it and which treaty did they sign agreeing to be subject to the Uniform Commercial Code? And if it is a bankrupt corporation, why bother to look to them for $ 14 quadrazillian? If it is a bankrupt corporation, when were the bankruptcy papers filed? In what court?

Yes, in 1993, Trafficant gave a speech in which he said the US was bankrupt. Several politicians have said the same thing to express the financial problems we face. But there is nothing saying we were bankrupt in 1933 in any legal sense of the word.

I will have to go back through the thread and see where my questions have been answered. It is possible that I missed them. If that is the case I will owe you and all the other readers a huge apology.


who said anything about a BAR exam ??
we are discussing membership and loyalties, not evaluations.

VeritasAequitus did, on Page 9. That's what got this whole thing started.

And since the word BAR comes from Barrister, and ergo England, it is not farcry to suggest that the British Crown approves Lawyers; after all, you have to pass their test don't you?
I've never said anything about bar membership, I've talked only about the bar exam, which two states have some provision to avoid.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

thank you for the apology.
there really is no need to be nasty.
(unless we are pressuring a nerve ??)

also, there hasn't been a secured debt instrument from the government since the establishment of the Fed Reserve.

why would a treaty need to be involved in the establishment of UCC ?

the rest of those questions, would be best answered by the person filing the claim, don't you think ??

i am simply adding to the conversation, not disputing the claim.
are you diputing the claim without evidence ??

hmmmm, i'm still reviewing Congressional records so i reserve comment on that opinion.

you have yet to show anything that says different and that's the problem.
'no, no, that's not so' isn't sufficient without source or substance.

(balanced budget that year ? maybe just a banking modification ? or perhaps, gold confiscations or was that 34? and, if there was no bankruptcy, why 3yrs of the confiscations ??)

in the post of VAs you are referencing ...

you have to pass their test don't you?
is a question, not an assertion


no, you deflected there from the comments indicating that lawyers, the BAR and England are all relative to one another.

besides, we are not discussing an exam of efficiency ?

we are discussing the agents of the Crown appointed as trustees of the afore-mentioned bankruptcy
... which by the way has now been established that ALL lawyers are, in fact, required to join the BAR ... so, where does their loyalty reside ??



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 



we are discussing the agents of the Crown appointed as trustees of the afore-mentioned bankruptcy ... which by the way has now been established that ALL lawyers are, in fact, required to join the BAR ... so, where does their loyalty reside ??
Exactly. Plus, I found out that, at least in Wisconsin, the Board of Examiners does NOT issue a "license to practice law".
I've gone to a bunch of .gov websites and I'm seeing that certain years in the past have been "blacked out". These years are the ones that contain the information about the bankruptcy, etc. I don't know when they did this but it seems there are a minimum of 38 sites that contain the information that the "gov" does not want us to see.

Unfortunately, for some, these sites are generally labeled as freeman, sovereign, truth, etc. Those who don't believe that the bankruptcies happened need to go to these sites and correct all the "lies and disinformation" that these sites are putting out there as truth.

One question I would have, for the bankruptcy debunkers is: why did Corp US change from Public Law to Public Policy in 1937/1938? They went from law to policy. Big difference.

I asked our DA for his license to practice law. He handed me his BAR card. I tossed it back on his desk and asked again for his license. Why do they turn different colors, reddish-purple, and make up any excuse to get away, when asked these questions? Couldn't he have just stated that Wisconsin does not issue licenses to practice law? Or would that have opened up a big can of worms on his part?

Shortly after that I walked into a courtroom that had just finished up and asked the City Prosecutor under what jurisdiction he was bringing his cases to court under. More color changing and all he could say was, " I do not wish to chat with you." Apparently, the jurisdiction is a secret and us common folk are not to know what it is. How can anyone prepare a proper defense when they can't find out the jurisdiction that the court is operating under?



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
I can't find the comment where someone said something about the US not being contracted or under the UCC. If that is so then why is United States defined in the UCC as a single entity located in DC?

Uniform Commercial Code - Article 9
§ 9-307. LOCATION OF DEBTOR.(h) Location of United States.
The United States is located in the District of Columbia.

(h) [Location of United States.] The United States is located in the District of Columbia.


www.law.cornell.edu...

Wow, a whole "country" located in DC.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   
A little more on public policy and the UCC. You can look up any cases yourselves. This is why all crimes are commercial. It's because we are under public policy, not law.

The change in our system of law from public law to private commercial law was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Erie Railroad vs. Thompkins case of 1938, after which case, in the same year, the procedures of Law were officially blended with the procedures of Equity. Prior to 1938, all U.S. Supreme Court decisions were based upon public law -- or that system of law that was controlled by Constitutional limitation. Since 1938, all U.S. Supreme Court decisions are based upon what is termed public policy.

Public policy concerns commercial transactions made under the Negotiable Instrument's Law, which is a branch of the international Law Merchant. This has been codified into what is now known as the Uniform Commercial Code, which system of law was made uniform throughout the fifty States through the cunning of the Congress of the United States (which "United States" has its origin in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, as distinguished from the "United States," which is the Union of the fifty States).

All of our courts today sit as legislative Tribunals, and the so-called "statutes" of legislative bodies being enforced in these Legislative Tribunals are not "statutes" passed by the legislative branch of our three-branch Republic, but as "commercial obligations" to the Federal United States for anyone in the Federal United States or in the Continental United States who has used the equitable currency of the Federal United States and who has accepted the "benefit," or "privilege," of discharging his debts with the limited liability "benefit" offered to him by the Federal United States ... EXCEPT those who availed themselves of the remedy within this commercial system of law, which remedy is today found in of the Uniform Commercial Code at Section 1-308.

freedom-school.com...
You can get it from a different source if you don't like this one. This is why when we are contacted by a court we file an Affidavit of Reservation of Rights UCC 1 308/207. We reserve our rights under Common Law.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Bildo
 

oh yeah, the railroad case

{as a PA native, it was 'local' talk so to speak}

i thought about that the first time i read Atlas Shrugged ... often wondered about the correlation and the timing ... it was just 20yrs later that the book was first published.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
Because I started asking my questions on the first page of this thread and, despite repeated efforts, my questions have been dodged.


Charles, I admire the effort and time you have spent trying to bring logic and reason into this thread but alas I'm afraid your dealing with "TRUE BELIEVERS" here. Your talking on a totally different basis of reality for them. They are not operating in a realm of logic or reality, they are operating in a realm of legal mythology where the US is a corporation and thus these gibberish documents mean something. Thus, when you try to use logic and reason in order to have a discussion, you are going to get no where. They are not interested in logic and reason, only in spreading the legal fantasy about the "US corporation."

We are now 10 pages in and I am STILL waiting for ANYONE to cite a single court case that shows these foundational legal concepts are real and not made up sovereign citizen mythology from the US Montana freeman movement in the 1970s. I have a feeling I am going to be waiting a long time.

The unhappy facts for the true believers are this:
(1) The US is not a corporation. The US has corporations. This is a key difference. There is nothing inherently wrong or evil with the corporation as a legal structure. In fact, its a legal structure which enables you to more easily engage in legal action against agencies like the IRS. The great irony of the "oh noes, the US is a corporation!" myth is that the government's use of corporations is actually something that makes it easier to enforce your rights.
(2) You can file UCC 1 liens all day and night and it wont do anything. You cannot lien the government in this way to begin with because it required there otherwise to be a valid debt owed. UCC is not some mystical magical law, its commercial law in the US that only applies to the US and companies that choose to operate within it from abroad.
(3) No amount of filing gibberish UCC documents in a a criminal court is going to get you anywhere. And your not going to get anywhere in civil court either unless your actually dealing with a UCC matter...which most people are not. Even if you happen to be in the rare case where your average person is involved in a civil matter where UCC actually applies, the gibberish documents posted here are just that - gibberish in any context. They use words and terminology that don't actually apply the way True Believers think they do. At best the court will ignore them, at worst they will recommend you go under a mental evaluation or hold you in contempt.
edit on 28-1-2013 by thelongjourney because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by thelongjourney
We are now 10 pages in and I am STILL waiting for ANYONE to cite a single court case that shows these foundational legal concepts are real and not made up sovereign citizen mythology from the US Montana freeman movement in the 1970s. I have a feeling I am going to be waiting a long time.


The sad thing is some people seem to believe by filling in some paperwork suddenly they do not have to pay tax, or need a drivers license etc. Or in the case of those that believe in the One Peoples Public Trust everyone will get $5billion, and thus be rich!



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by thelongjourney
 


You are wrong...The US is a corporation... 28 USC section 3002


(15) “United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation;


www.law.cornell.edu...

It also defines debtor rather nicely...


Debtor” means a person who is liable for a debt or against whom there is a claim for a debt.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by thelongjourney
 


You are wrong...The US is a corporation... 28 USC section 3002


(15) “United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation;


www.law.cornell.edu...

It also defines debtor rather nicely...


Debtor” means a person who is liable for a debt or against whom there is a claim for a debt.


This is why at this point I can't take you seriously anymore. You really do not, even at a basic, fundamental level, understand how laws work. When statute law defines definitions, it is defining it FOR THAT SPECIFIC STATUTE ONLY.

Corporation has multiple meanings, and a FEDERAL corporation has nothing to do with being a private business. The key word is a "FEDERAL" corporation. Here is your interpretation debunked for you in a clear, easy to understand way. But I know you will ignore it.

Im done. Any further posts in this thread and I will likely have a stroke from the sheer unadulterated insanity.
edit on 28-1-2013 by thelongjourney because: (no reason given)



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

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by thelongjourney
We are now 10 pages in and I am STILL waiting for ANYONE to cite a single court case that shows these foundational legal concepts are real and not made up sovereign citizen mythology from the US Montana freeman movement in the 1970s. I have a feeling I am going to be waiting a long time.


The sad thing is some people seem to believe by filling in some paperwork suddenly they do not have to pay tax, or need a drivers license etc. Or in the case of those that believe in the One Peoples Public Trust everyone will get $5billion, and thus be rich!


Yeah, its quite sad. Thats why I give up. People want to believe in these myths...they will only destroy themselves. And I'm still waiting for that $5 billion from The One Peoples Public Trust...and St Germain Trust...and NESARA...so many prosperity funds, we should all be drowning in gold bullion by now!



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by thelongjourney
 


You can link some blog as a valid source, yet we can't?

Not to mention that the title says "Anti-Banker" in it....Oh dear....I think you put too much faith in your slave owners...



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by thelongjourney
 


By the way; are you aware that the current 'American' flag is actually a maritime flag?

commons.wikimedia.org...

Scroll down to the United States..

Now have you ever seen this one?

en.wikipedia.org...:United_States_civil_flag.svg



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
By the way; are you aware that the current 'American' flag is actually a maritime flag?
commons.wikimedia.org...

Scroll down to the United States..


If you had bothered to do that you would have seen the note:


1.^ Civil ensign is identical to the national flag.


Oh dear, another silly conspiracy theory bites the dust due to facts....



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 



A war flag (military flag or battle flag) is a variant of a national flag for use by the nation's military forces on land.


I'm afraid not; but by all means act like it doesn't matter...


An ensign is a national flag when used at sea, in vexillology, or a distinguishing token, emblem, or badge, such as a symbol of office in heraldry. The word has also given rise to the military rank of "ensign", a rank of junior officer[1] once responsible for bearing the ensign.


An ensign is a national flag when used at sea; why would they use the military flag in courtrooms, which are obviously not at sea...Why not use the real civil flag?
edit on 28-1-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join