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

page: 13
5
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


....

Dude...By Eisenhower setting out the OFFICIAL guidelines for the Flag, and them going AGAINST that, is DESECRATING the flag....

Common Sense, please...




posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Honor93
 


Team Law doesn't know their stuff as well as they would like to give the color of such...Just a bunch of wannabe's with their own interpretation of the law...


Sir, it seems as if it is YOUR definitions (and those of the Freemen) have fallen on hard times as of late, as I dont see any of you getting anywhere with your arguments


Take the different definitions that have been provided on this thread and pose them to every bar admitted lawyer and every judge in this country ... with 100% certainty, I can tell you that a vast majority are going to give an opinion on it which is not consistent with yours. And regardless of how you or I feel about it, it is really their opinion that matters.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 


Ever heard of Black's Law Dictionary? Personal interpretation is hearsay....Whether they are lawyers or not...



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by flyswatter
 


Ever heard of Black's Law Dictionary? Personal interpretation is hearsay....Whether they are lawyers or not...


I'm not talking personal interpretation, I'm talking court interpretation. I'm talking lawyers and judges in courtrooms, not the keyboard warriors. Mind you, I'm going with the judges rulings as "opinions" here. Basically what I am saying is that the judge rulings and the lawyer arguments that lead to them are setting the standard here.

They say that you are wrong. Until the supreme court says any different, you will always be wrong. That isnt an opinion, that is fact.

When the supreme court comes along and says you are correct in your interpretations, I will eat my hat. And shoes. No sauce.
edit on 30-1-2013 by flyswatter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 


Black's Law

The interpretation by corrupt legal officials is hearsay...



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by flyswatter
 


Black's Law

The interpretation by corrupt legal officials is hearsay...


You first have to show that an individual is corrupt. There's a lot of judges and a lot of lawyers around. Better get moving on that, gonna take you a while. Good luck.

And keep in mind that you or I just saying it means nothing. If you're just saying the whole system is corrupt and that everyone is in on it, then you're just plain screwed for life. Move to China.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 


That is the problem....I shouldn't have to move to China....Whatever happened to the Land of the Free?

Would you please address my syllogism?




It is fairly obvious, that a created thing is never greater than, and can neither rule over it's creator. Follow this syllogism please..

1) God created Man, and rules over Man; therefore, Man can never be greater than, or rule over it's creator, God.

2) Man, created government, an artificial entity, as a service facility/slave;therefore, government can never be greater than, and can never rule over, Man.

3) Government then, created corporations and corporately colored entities (artificial persons/slaves; 14th Amendment), for the purpose of ruling over them (collecting revenue); therefore a corporation/corporately colored entity, can never be greater than, and can never rule over, the government that brought it into existence.

4) Therefore : A corporation/corporately colored entity, can never be greater than/rule over government; can never be greater than/rule over Man; can never be greater than/rule over God. A useful analogy would be, a child can no more order their parents about, than pink elephants can fly...


What gives them the right to treat us like slaves? We, the people, create them, the government...A created thing, can never be greater than it's creator. So why do we allow them to order us about, telling us what we can & can not do?

800,000 non-violent marijuana arrests every year...China has like 4 times our population, and we have more people incarcerated of bull# crimes, than they do.....What gives them the right to do these things? Freedom isn't only being free to do as they tell you...People reserve the right to self-government. It's called Sovereignty...


"The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. Through the medium of their Legislature they may exercise all the powers which previous to the Revolution could have been exercised either by the King alone, or by him in conjunction with his Parliament; subject only to those restrictions which have been imposed by the Constitution of this State or of the U.S."

Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89., 4 Wendel 9 (1829) (New York) "D." = Decennial Digest Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 1`67; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7. NOTE: Am.Dec.=American Decision, Wend. = Wendell (N.Y.)
edit on 30-1-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



From the context of the Preamble, one may conclude that the laws of the United States do not apply to People. The People, as ordainers and establishers of the country are sovereigns of the country, may not be involuntarily subjected to the laws of the United States. Because of Amendment X ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the government has no authority, and cannot assume any authority over the People. Government powers may not reach beyond that which is constitutionally granted. In order for the government to subject People to its law it is necessary for the People to relinquish their sovereignty. Sovereignty is a natural right which cannot lawfully be relinquished involuntarily. Any removal of sovereignty must be accomplished voluntarily by the subject himself.


Read the bold & underline : Like I dunno, registering a Birth Certificate as a 'citizen of the United States'?
edit on 30-1-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by flyswatter
 


That is the problem....I shouldn't have to move to China....Whatever happened to the Land of the Free?

Would you please address my syllogism?




It is fairly obvious, that a created thing is never greater than, and can neither rule over it's creator. Follow this syllogism please..

1) God created Man, and rules over Man; therefore, Man can never be greater than, or rule over it's creator, God.

2) Man, created government, an artificial entity, as a service facility/slave;therefore, government can never be greater than, and can never rule over, Man.

3) Government then, created corporations and corporately colored entities (artificial persons/slaves; 14th Amendment), for the purpose of ruling over them (collecting revenue); therefore a corporation/corporately colored entity, can never be greater than, and can never rule over, the government that brought it into existence.

4) Therefore : A corporation/corporately colored entity, can never be greater than/rule over government; can never be greater than/rule over Man; can never be greater than/rule over God. A useful analogy would be, a child can no more order their parents about, than pink elephants can fly...


What gives them the right to treat us like slaves? We, the people, create them, the government...A created thing, can never be greater than it's creator. So why do we allow them to order us about, telling us what we can & can not do?

800,000 non-violent marijuana arrests every year...China has like 4 times our population, and we have more people incarcerated of bull# crimes, than they do.....What gives them the right to do these things? Freedom isn't only being free to do as they tell you...People reserve the right to self-government.


I've addressed the fact that I do not agree with your interpretations in regards to real/fictional persons, the US as a corporation, etc, etc.

But on a grander scale ... in the end, its still man vs. man, regardless of what side of the fence that each man is on. The fight of telling the "others" that their interpretation of the laws is incorrect is obviously not going your way, so how about you fight to change the laws, instead? Couldnt go any worse than your current battle.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 





I've addressed the fact that I do not agree with your interpretations in regards to real/fictional persons, the US as a corporation, etc, etc.


Not agreeing with the interpretation is not the same as rebutting the syllogism...

If the US isn't a corporation, why is it listed as such on Dunn & Bradstreet?


Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. (NYSE: DNB) is a public company headquartered in Short Hills, a community in Millburn, New Jersey, USA[2] that licenses information on businesses and corporations for use in credit decisions, business-to-business marketing and supply chain management.



D-U-N-S® Number: 16-190-6193 Company Name: Government Of The United States Also Known As: U S

Government Mail Address: The U S Capitol Washington, DC, USA 20515-0001

View Map County: District Of Columbia MSA: Washington-Arlington-Alexandria Country Phone Code: 1 Phone: 202-224-3121 Web Address: www.firstgov.gov

Location Type: Headquarters Subsidiary Status: Non Subsidiary Plant/Facility Size: 1,600 Sq Ft Owns/Rents: Owns Foreign Trade: Import/Export Year Established: 1787

Ownership: Public Accountant: David M Walker Comptroller Ge Prescreen Score: Low Risk Corporate Family Tree for this Company Employee Count: (All Sites) 2,717,080 Employment: (Individual Site) Current Year: 3 Executives: Barack H Obama - President Mr Joseph R Biden - Vice President



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by flyswatter
 





I've addressed the fact that I do not agree with your interpretations in regards to real/fictional persons, the US as a corporation, etc, etc.


Not agreeing with the interpretation is not the same as rebutting the syllogism...

If the US isn't a corporation, why is it listed as such on Dunn & Bradstreet?


Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. (NYSE: DNB) is a public company headquartered in Short Hills, a community in Millburn, New Jersey, USA[2] that licenses information on businesses and corporations for use in credit decisions, business-to-business marketing and supply chain management.



D-U-N-S® Number: 16-190-6193 Company Name: Government Of The United States Also Known As: U S

Government Mail Address: The U S Capitol Washington, DC, USA 20515-0001

View Map County: District Of Columbia MSA: Washington-Arlington-Alexandria Country Phone Code: 1 Phone: 202-224-3121 Web Address: www.firstgov.gov

Location Type: Headquarters Subsidiary Status: Non Subsidiary Plant/Facility Size: 1,600 Sq Ft Owns/Rents: Owns Foreign Trade: Import/Export Year Established: 1787

Ownership: Public Accountant: David M Walker Comptroller Ge Prescreen Score: Low Risk Corporate Family Tree for this Company Employee Count: (All Sites) 2,717,080 Employment: (Individual Site) Current Year: 3 Executives: Barack H Obama - President Mr Joseph R Biden - Vice President




I dont have any need to rebut your argument. You'll go into long winded explanations of why you are right, and those explanations are not going to change the minds of the people that make the decisions on these sorts of things. Based on current law as interpreted by those that are charged with doing so, you will always be wrong. Which is why you would be much better served putting your effort towards changing the laws themselves rather than bickering about the "proper" interpretation of them.

Why is it listed as such by D&B? Dont really care, to be honest. I know that the US *HAS* a corporation, but a complete answer to your question I do not have.

edit on 30-1-2013 by flyswatter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 



(14) “State” means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, or any territory or possession of the United States. (15) “United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or (C) an instrumentality of the United States.


Law Cornell



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by flyswatter
 



(14) “State” means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, or any territory or possession of the United States. (15) “United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or (C) an instrumentality of the United States.


Law Cornell


Please refer to my previous post about you being wrong, and why you are wrong. That didnt change in the last 5 minutes.

For a more constructive path to change, change the law. Define what you want to happen, determine which laws need to change to allow that to happen, and plot the course to arrive at your destination. It is logical, and it will offer you a much more effective way to combat that which you do not like.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 




(15) “United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation;
I don't see anything about "has" a corporation. Do we need to tear apart the word "means"? I just can't see interpretation necessary. This is very straight and simple.
There is also no rebuttal possible to Veritas argument. The information he provided really cannot be rebutted.

edit on 30-1-2013 by Bildo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bildo
reply to post by flyswatter
 




(15) “United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation;
I don't see anything about "has" a corporation. Do we need to tear apart the word "means"? I just can't see interpretation necessary. This is very straight and simple.
There is also no rebuttal possible to Veritas argument. The information he provided really cannot be rebutted.

edit on 30-1-2013 by Bildo because: (no reason given)


You really shouldnt selectively quote. Here's the whole item:

(15) “United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or (C) an instrumentality of the United States.

Speaking solely about that line, (15) says that "United States" can mean one or more of those three things. It does mean that it is all of those at once. I am not interpreting which it means; you two are the ones narrowing the definition.

As I said, I dont need to rebut anything, as I dont care one way or the other. If you say I cant, then I'm fine with that. Then I cant. Whatever. All irrelevant, as it is not my opinion that matters here. I stated facts, and I gave him a way to fight the system that would be much more effective than what he is doing now.

*EDIT*
As far as the US having a corporation, that's never been a secret. Its been discussed in numerous threads, and I believe was brought up before in this thread. Not that it really makes a difference in the argument one way or the other, but you can go look for it if you like.
edit on 30-1-2013 by flyswatter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 


It takes more than one person to make a difference; hence the need to convince others to take up the flag of change as well...



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 



(15) “United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or (C) an instrumentality of the United States.
Ok, I guess we need to tear this down.
United States means--a Federal corporation
Since United States has been defined:
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the Federal corporation
(C) an instrumentality of the Federal corporation

It's all really very simple.



you two are the ones narrowing the definition.
Yes, we are. So that you can understand.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bildo
reply to post by flyswatter
 



(15) “United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or (C) an instrumentality of the United States.
Ok, I guess we need to tear this down.
United States means--a Federal corporation
Since United States has been defined:
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the Federal corporation
(C) an instrumentality of the Federal corporation

It's all really very simple.



you two are the ones narrowing the definition.
Yes, we are. So that you can understand.



You missed an A in there, sir.

It's saying that it exists as A, B, or C. Not as A, then also B or C.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by flyswatter
 


It takes more than one person to make a difference; hence the need to convince others to take up the flag of change as well...


I agree with that, 100%. But when you are trying to convince others to take up a fight, you need to be able to show them the light at the end of the tunnel. You need to be able to get those people to follow you to that light. The fight that you are taking on right now isnt moving away from the light, but its also not moving towards it. You are stagnating in a battle that is unwinnable.

I understand that you dont like the way things are right now and that you want change, but you need to shift your focus. Rather than telling the lawyers and judges and politicians that their interpretation of the law is all wrong, you need to take that energy and put it into changing the laws themselves. It sure wont be an easy fight, but at least that is a battle that you have at least a small chance at winning.

As you can see, I dont have a problem with your frustration over the current state of this country. I'm just trying to offer you a path that will help you fight the fight a bit better.





top topics
 
5
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join