Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 





Cops can be twits at times. Same goes for judges


There you go; now tell me why regardless of the real law, judges would actually follow it? Hell, Obama is commander-in-chief, and he doesn't even follow the Constitution...




posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 





Cops can be twits at times. Same goes for judges


There you go; now tell me why regardless of the real law, judges wouldn't just do what they want? After all, they rely on your ignorance of the law to get away with it; why else would you need a lawyer in court? He's in on the whole thing! Why would he need to go through the British Accredidation Registry? Hell, Obama is commander-in-chief, and he doesn't even follow the Constitution...
edit on 23-1-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by flyswatter
 




Cops can be twits at times. Same goes for judges. They are no different than any other human being in that respect. But I'm not going to pass judgement on someone just because they are a cop or a judge. Each case should be judged on its own merits. What I am looking for (case, name, etc) would allow me to see your proof of the argument working. If you're not able to provide it, why should anyone simply take your word for it?


If the cops and judges don't know the law, how would we know that this is all fake, if they just do what they want anyways? Yes, you very much missed it....The cops and judges do whatever they want; why would you think that they would easily let something like this fly? I have no reason to lie; why would I try to get people in trouble? All you can do is ask me to prove something, that isn't even going to be online?

I can't even find MY cases online; what makes you think every single court case in the world is uploaded to google?


Another analogy for ya; if I said that I dreamt last night about anything doesn't even matter, how could I prove that to you? Instead of asking for proof, how about just debunking it, hmm?


You'll find that a police officer is more likely to be ignorant (or completely disregarding) of the law than a judge. No group of people is perfect. But if a judge says "$500 fine" and bangs his gavel, you give him some argument about being a sovereign citizen and not liable for it, etc etc, and he cocks his head to the side, laughs at you, and walks out ... that doesnt mean that he's just doing what he wants
It doesnt mean that your interpretation of the law is correct, and his is not.

And I never said every case was online. I believe another poster may have eluded to that, but not me.

Whether the information is online or not depends on a few things - the age at which it happened, when it happened, and the state in which it happened. Some states maintain online repositories (some more extensive than others, I have found), but some dont; in those states, you're forced to get the documentation in another manner - phone call, fax, email, in person, whatever.

If the information regarding these cases is not online, no worries - it can be had in those other manners, provided it does not fall into a category that happens to be sealed (juvenile, etc).



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 



But if a judge says "$500 fine" and bangs his gavel, you give him some argument about being a sovereign citizen and not liable for it, etc etc, and he cocks his head to the side, laughs at you, and walks out
We don't argue in court. We agree with the prosecution. Most of the time it is all settled before it makes it to court. Doesn't even make it onto the docket. There is nothing to adjudicate when there is agreement between the parties. If, somehow, it does make it into court, since there is agreement between the parties, the "judge" is no longer in a judicial position. He is now in a ministerial position. He is a "Public Trustee" who MUST conduct himself according to Public Policy. And, no matter what they say, they are under the UCC. They must discharge the debt according to Public Policy. You can't pay debt with debt(FRN's).
You'll see all this if you are willing to study and research. You'll also learn where the UPU comes in. It's another jurisdiction. Hey, where did charles1952 run off to?

edit on 23-1-2013 by Bildo because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-1-2013 by Bildo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   
This is a often cited excuse by self-proclaimed sovereigns - that there is no proof because there was no case, thus nothing to cite. The problem with this claim is that ANY ACTION BROUGHT BY THE STATE CREATES A CASE NUMBER. Any action. From the lowest dismissed traffic ticket, just because something was never heard doesn't mean there is no information about it. This is PARTICULARLY TRUE when a case is thrown out on the basis of having no jurisdiction. So it should be extremely easy to provide just 1 court case where these sovereign tactics worked - we would see that Mr. Sovereign was brought up on charges by the state but pointed out the state has no jurisdiction over him as a living human being (instead of a corporate fiction). The file would then show the case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. This happens all the time in real cases where a court lacks jurisdiction. Yet I can't get a sovereign citizen to give me just one case number for when this happens to them.

The reality is the entire sovereign approach to courts is based on a legal mythology. Its not real. It has no real effect. I have no doubt YOU BELIEVE it does, but that's because you fundamentally don't understand the law. For example, you think because you filed some UCC-1 (this is a legal gibberish document when filed claiming you cant be taxed) and that your employer TOLD YOU that your tax exempt, that this story serves as proof. Even if this happened - and I am assuming it did - it proves nothing. Your employer is not the arbitrator of your tax liability, the IRS is. Its not surprising your average HR person doesn't understand the UCC-1 you filed, since it is the equivalent of legal nonsense but to those who don't know the law it looks impressive. Indeed, its even quite believable that the IRS has talked to you and have "been nice" to you - depending on what you've told them.

What sovereigns dont get is that, depending on how much money is at stake, it is indeed possible to file all these legal gibberish documents and have the IRS never go after you. That is because the amount involved may not be enough to go after -you still legally owe the taxes. The paperwork you filed did nothing, you might as well have filed pictures of purple unicorns. And thats what has happened in most cases. In other cases, if were talking "real" money here (>20,000 or so) you WILL get caught, its just a matter of time. It will take years though. Just because they didn't come after you immediately doesn't mean you are in the clear.

To summarize: UCC-1 filings like this are nonsense, as is the sovereign citizen ideology. It has a 0% success rate when its tried except when the people doing it make so little money the IRS just doesn't care.
edit on 23-1-2013 by thelongjourney because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by thelongjourney
 


Did you miss where he said he spoke to the IRS and they agreed?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
Did you miss where he said he spoke to the IRS and they agreed?


"I read it on the internet so it must be true"

Keep believing that, it is so funny!



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 



Unless the defendant can establish that he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS possesses authority to attempt to determine his federal tax liability." The case is U.S. v. Slater 545 Fed Supp. 179, (D. Delaware) (1982)



All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Now, notice how in both of these that the word 'citizen' is spelled with a lower-case c, correct?


No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.


Notice how the word 'Citizen' is spelled in the Constitution, with a Capital C, correct? Not just once either...


No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.


Mentioned 11 times in the first article of the Constitution...As Citizen....There is no doubt there is a difference, because the law is very precise, especially in matters of grammar and spelling...This is why Obama doesn't have a Birth Certificate; it makes you the 'citizen' under the 14th Amendment; as the Constitution quite clearly states, you must be a 'Citizen of the United States'.

Unless the IRS can prove you are the 14th amendment 'citizen' you do not have to pay them taxes...



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


That's not at all what I just said.....You are trolling.

Do you have any proof he is lying? No? Well shut up, then mkay?

It is your own fault if you suffer from cognitive dissonance...But you have no right to just declare him to be lying, without any basis other than your own issues with what he is saying...



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

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
Do you have any proof he is lying? No? Well shut up, then mkay?


Do you have any proof he is NOt lying? Like a actual court case... funny how despite all the claims not 1 court case is available that shows them winning!



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
Mentioned 11 times in the first article of the Constitution...As Citizen....There is no doubt there is a difference, because the law is very precise, especially in matters of grammar and spelling...


www.usconstitution.net...

Just the way They did Things back Then. As to spelling, what about the spelling mistakes in the Constitution....


This is why Obama doesn't have a Birth Certificate;


Yes he does, but you keep believing your fairy story.
edit on 23-1-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


There are no spelling errors....They are punctuated for a reason, it is an internal style, meant to note importance.......Of course you don't understand that....

SHOW ME HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE...I mean a real one, not some phony that was debunked from the whitehouse.gov, and not some 'official' from a corrupt government department waving it away, because he has 'seen' it..I wanna see it. You can not be a 'citizen of the United States' and be President, or did you fail to notice that?
edit on 23-1-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


I can't even find my own court cases; what the hell are you going on about? I mean; the cases must be real if they are on the internet, right?

See how that works...

Now quit derailing the thread you troll...Do YOU have any proof he is lying? No? Mkay, well shut up then, and prove UCC doesn't matter.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by thelongjourney
 
Ok, here's a quick one for ya.
About 3 years ago the IRS sent me a letter charging me with a "frivolous filing" and wanted me to send them $5000.00 as a fine. If I remember correctly, they also mentioned a prison sentence if I don't pay-up.
I replied within 10 days asking them to supply me with copies of this "frivolous filing" and any other documents that would back up their claim(signed and sworn affidavits). I also asked that they sign their name to their documents when they communicate with me so I know who to hold liable for damages in case they "injure" me.. I'm still waiting for a reply. Do you think they are so busy that, when I reply immediately to their employee code identifier, it would take 3 years? They know who I am. They know where I live. 3 years and counting.
Personally, I don't care if you believe this or not. I know it happened. And so do those around me that I showed this stuff to.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
You can not be a 'citizen of the United States' and be President, or did you fail to notice that?[


That is just not true - remember, you do not even have to have a birth certificate to be the President.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
I can't even find my own court cases; what the hell are you going on about? I mean; the cases must be real if they are on the internet, right?


They do not have to be on the internet - just show 1 case where the nonsense has worked - but you are unable to even do that. That tells you something about the nonsense.

As to the $14,000,000,000,000,000 Dollar UCC-1 lien, notice how no mainstream financial site is carrying the claim, and there is no discussion on it apart from conspiracy sites....
edit on 23-1-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 
What does a court case have to do with my tax exempt status? There is no court action required on this matter. Can't even keep your own crap straight. You believe things on the internet only when it suits you. You are incapable of non-biased research. I go after things to prove them wrong, and most of the time I lose. I interpret that as a good thing. Go read through the Federal Reserve Circulars. That'll keep you occupied.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 





remember, you do not even have to have a birth certificate to be the President.


I'm almost certain you are either a troll or a shill..Not just because you disagree, I'm fine with people that disagree; I'm referring to your methods of argument....

A birth certificate, registers you as a 'citizen' of the United States. As a 'citizen' of the United States, you forfeit your rights as a 'Citizen' of the United States....Only "Citizen's" of the United States, may be a Senator, and or President....If you aren't a troll or shill, you must be acting willfully obtuse...



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 





They do not have to be on the internet - just show 1 case where the nonsense has worked - but you are unable to even do that. That tells you something about the nonsense.


You assume much; I can not show you something that I do not have access to...Of course, you know that, and are arguing for argument's sake in the name of TPTB.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 





Just saying hello, I am from New Zealand and interested in why people make up conspiracy theories and ignoring the facts. I also love the way American politics works.


You aren't even an American citizen....I love how you guys are always the ones to show up and debate politics or the laws of a country you don't even live in....





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join