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: 9
5
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
Look up the Titles of Nobility Act, which was ratified, but later 'removed'....


So let us look at it....


No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state



Basically, anybody who accepts a Title of Nobility, like Esquire, which Judges, Lawyers, and Attorney's do;


You missed the bit without the consent of the Congress.... and it has not been removed.

Those names have the consent of congress....


they are no longer considered, 'citizens of the United States'.


Why make stuff up? Where is that in the act?


Quite a few copies of the Constitution can be found with this listed as an amendment,


The first part, yes. but not the bit you added.




posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


What is the BAR association?

Found the one I was looking for earlier..

edit on 25-1-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
What is the BAR association?


A bar association is a professional body of lawyers...



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


It stands for the British Accreditation Registry, to some...But of course we aren't supposed to know that now are we?..Why would the Crown, need to approve or 'pass' Lawyers?

Also; where would their title of esquire come from?
edit on 25-1-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
It stands for the British Accreditation Registry, to some...


It does? care to show a valid source for that claim....


Why would the Crown, need to approve or 'pass' Lawyers?


What makes you make that silly claim?


Also; where would their title of esquire come from?[


www.abajournal.com...


In Opinion 1995-14 (1995), the committee traced the origins of esquire to the Middle Ages, when it was a title conferred on candidates for knighthood in England. Later, the term was extended to other mid-level dignitaries, including sheriffs, sergeants, justices of the peace and “barristers at law.”
edit on 25-1-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 




Originally posted by hellobruce
It does? care to show a valid source for that claim....


Try and read a little better, or at the least not just quote what you want from my comments...


Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
It stands for the British Accreditation Registry, to some...But of course we aren't supposed to know that now are we?





What makes you make that silly claim?


A) Is it possible for you to have a debate with someone without all the need for attacking them with 'silly', 'conspiracy', 'liar', etc? No, it isn't because you are all about trying to discredit people...I know your MO, very well..

B) It was my awareness that the Crown must award all Titles of Nobility...Esquire is a Title of Nobility...




In Opinion 1995-14 (1995), the committee traced the origins of esquire to the Middle Ages, when it was a title conferred on candidates for knighthood in England. Later, the term was extended to other mid-level dignitaries, including sheriffs, sergeants, justices of the peace and “barristers at law.”


Who do you think did the 'conferring'???
edit on 25-1-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-1-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
Try and read a little better,


As I expected, no source for that claim. But no surprise there, like most conspiracy claims no valid source is available.


It was my awareness that the Crown must award all Titles of Nobility...Esquire is a Title of Nobility..


Wrong again!


Who do you think did the 'conferring'???


Again you are very confused. What makes you think the Crown gives a title to a yank?
edit on 25-1-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 01:30 AM
link   
This thread is an inoperable cancer. It is growing and spreading in unpredictable directions. There is no controlling it, kill it quick.

A claim is made, it's shown to be bogus, a different claim is made, it's shown to be bogus, etc. There are probably fifty more bizarre claims to be made, and when we get to the end, the promoters of these erroneous claims will just leave and start the thread over again in two months.

No, lawyers are not connected to the (mythical) British Acreditation Registry. No, "Esquire" is not a title of nobility. And if I pull up the cases where that is shown to be the case, I'll just be told "Of course the judges and lawyers aren't reporting the truth." And an entirely different issue will be raised and we'll do it all again.

I'm still waiting for answers to questions. I'm still waiting for somebody to say, "Yeah, I guess this claim is false." I'm still waiting for the return of logical thought. Aarrgh, I'm ranting, but this thread deserves it.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Actually, he completely ignored the copy from the TONA that I presented...As well as many other things....What gives?


Esquire — A rank next below that of Knight. Besides those Esquires who are personal attendants of Knights of Orders of Knighthood, this title is held by all attendants on the person of the Sovereign, and all persons holding the Sovereign's commission being of military rank not below Captain; also, by general concession, by Barristers at Law, Masters of Arts and Bachelors of Law and Physic.


What is this about being Sovereign??


Esquire (abbreviated Esq.)[1] is a term of West European origin. In the United Kingdom, it is a title of respect previously accorded to men of higher social rank.

Esquire is cognate with the word squire, which originally meant an apprentice or assistant to a knight. The title "Esquire" has been used continuously since it was created in the late 14th century and many uses continue uninterrupted today.


en.wikipedia.org...

Knight and Esquire, are both listed on here...


Since the Early Modern period, the title of knight is purely honorific, usually bestowed by a monarch, as in the British honours system, often for non-military service to the country.



The most common definition of 'squire' is that to which refers to the medieval times. A squire would be a teenage boy, in his training to become a knight.


ORLY???
edit on 26-1-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 02:12 AM
link   
to all the debunkers who do so from -0- experience.
while i haven't engaged in this activity just yet, i'd like to point out that those 'failures' in court were failures simply because they were IN court.

as you unravel the layers of BS, you might begin to see the bigger picture.
here's a question for all you ... you still have to pay taxes ppl ... which taxes (minus payroll if any) would a non-profit pay without credit or refund ??

and which taxes do 'citizens' pay without credit or refund ?



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Bingo! That was a crucial aspect of the exemption status....Apparently earning a living is illegal to do unless you want to be taxed.....Income would be profit, or gains(which I have a SCOTUS case on somewhere)....Generally involving the screwing over of one individual so that you can benefit from their labors, or fruits...

This is why not-for-profits, don't pay taxes....


/E: Updated with Link to SCOTUS Cases Defining Income
edit on 26-1-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:19 AM
link   
www.dailypaul.com...


Amendment 16 says: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration". This Amendment thus places this tax under the “Indirect Tax” classification of the Constitution. The 16th Amendment is Constitutional because it does not tax your labor, salary, wages or tips. Those are the “sources” from which any income derived (made), would be taxable under that Amendment.

There is a clear distinction in the use of the words “FROM” and “ON” in that Amendment and the high Courts have made that distinction. The definition of Income doesn’t really matter. What the Congress “can” tax is what matters. The 16th Amendment states that the Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, “FROM” whatever source derived, not “ON” whatever source derived. If the income tax was on your labor, then making labor would be income, but it’s not. Since the 16th Amendment and Title 26 (IRS Code) only tax income “FROM” your labor, you must first have labor and then derive income from that labor, like investing it in a CD, or savings account. The interest on that labor (the source), not the labor, would be income.

Sounds completed but it’s not. Here’s a perfect example. Just like a capital gains tax, the tax on a property purchased for $100,000 and sold for the same amount is zero. Why? No gain. The capital gains tax is not “ON” the property itself, it’s “FROM” the gain on the property. You see? The capital gains tax on a property purchased for $100,000 and sold for $150,000, has a capital gains tax of $50,000. No gain, no tax. So in this example the capital gains tax is just like the income tax, the tax is derived “FROM” the gain on the property, not “ON” the property itself. So the property in the above example is the same as the property being your labor. Your labor is not taxed, any gain from your labor is subject to the taxing power of the 16th Amendment.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:19 AM
link   
www.dailypaul.com...


Amendment 16 says: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration". This Amendment thus places this tax under the “Indirect Tax” classification of the Constitution. The 16th Amendment is Constitutional because it does not tax your labor, salary, wages or tips. Those are the “sources” from which any income derived (made), would be taxable under that Amendment.

There is a clear distinction in the use of the words “FROM” and “ON” in that Amendment and the high Courts have made that distinction. The definition of Income doesn’t really matter. What the Congress “can” tax is what matters. The 16th Amendment states that the Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, “FROM” whatever source derived, not “ON” whatever source derived. If the income tax was on your labor, then making labor would be income, but it’s not. Since the 16th Amendment and Title 26 (IRS Code) only tax income “FROM” your labor, you must first have labor and then derive income from that labor, like investing it in a CD, or savings account. The interest on that labor (the source), not the labor, would be income.

Sounds completed but it’s not. Here’s a perfect example. Just like a capital gains tax, the tax on a property purchased for $100,000 and sold for the same amount is zero. Why? No gain. The capital gains tax is not “ON” the property itself, it’s “FROM” the gain on the property. You see? The capital gains tax on a property purchased for $100,000 and sold for $150,000, has a capital gains tax of $50,000. No gain, no tax. So in this example the capital gains tax is just like the income tax, the tax is derived “FROM” the gain on the property, not “ON” the property itself. So the property in the above example is the same as the property being your labor. Your labor is not taxed, any gain from your labor is subject to the taxing power of the 16th Amendment.


Income from Court Cases
edit on 26-1-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-1-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Honor93
 


Bingo! That was a crucial aspect of the exemption status....Apparently earning a living is illegal to do unless you want to be taxed.....Income would be profit, or gains(which I have a SCOTUS case on somewhere)....Generally involving the screwing over of one individual so that you can benefit from their labors, or fruits...

This is why not-for-profits, don't pay taxes....


/E: Updated with Link to SCOTUS Cases Defining Income
edit on 26-1-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)

not looking to be a grammar nazi but let's clarify a couple things, k ?

taxes are paid by NPs ... payroll taxes (if employees present / no so with volunteers), sales tax, fuel tax, disposal tax, property tax, communications tax, (other i know i'm forgetting) and if they are providing "wages" for employees, then income tax also.

point is ... NPs get to claim all of them on their Fed taxes ... citizens don't.

and an addition ... the landlord i've been discussing our options with ... at first rather stand-offish is now helping research cause based on our 'suggestion', she's realized that $300/mo can be claimed as a "tax deduction" she previously had to report as 'income' from the rental property.

there are other benefits to said agreement but those are for each to discover for themselves.

and, an interesting point to the 'wages' argument ... when a NP is providing 'wages', they are also deductible as an operating expense
edit on 26-1-2013 by Honor93 because: typo



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 

in addition to your source, here's one i reference often ... constitution.org...


Section 9 - last sentence
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Section. 10.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

to those who disagree or simply don't understand ...
what does Congress have to do with the BAR again ??
and why are soooooo very many BAR representatives members of Congress ??
please, tell us all what the States or Congress have to do with the BAR, except that they bend over backwards to their demands ??



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 
You said:



Those names have the consent of congress....
Show us where congress consented.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Bildo
 


Show us where congress consented.
After you've answered my questions.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Because you were proven wrong in regards to Esquire not being a Title of Nobility....

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?
edit on 26-1-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


Because you were proven wrong in regards to Esquire not being a Title of Nobility....
Esquire is a title of nobility in England. It is not, and hasn't been, in the United States. I assumed you were talking about America. If you are talking about the US, then no, I am not wrong.


And since the word BAR comes from Barrister, and ergo England,
Nope, "Barrister" comes from "Bar," not the other way around.

it is not farcry to suggest that the British Crown approves Lawyers; after all, you have to pass their test don't you?
No, the British Crown doesn't approve lawyers. I know of at least one state, probably more, where you don't have to pass a bar exam to become licensed to practice law.

So, Ok, now will someone answer my questions?



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

probably not cause you keep exaggerating the truth.

I know of at least one state, probably more, where you don't have to pass a bar exam to become licensed to practice law.
the only ONE on record is Wisconsin ... care to show which others you claim amount to 'probably more' ??





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join