Anatomy of a Scam

page: 3
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 


OK, so that's where this is all going off track.

That's a big problem, I'm now seeing exactly how this all went wrong. I thought this was completely understood.

I'm not sure how to proceed. The facts of Admiralty Law and the subsequent commerce discussion are required to continue.

ETA

I understand the whole issue with freeman and strawman and all that, but the facts remain that it is true...it just doesn't go anywhere because judges have already read the book on how to handle these cases (I have a link to the book if you don't already have one), and they know how to catch them out and ruin it all, because it isn't easy to play the game.



We are stuck, right here. Until it is clear and valid that we are under Admiralty Law and not common law, this is done. Never mind the "Even-If" portions, because that doesn't matter. A full understanding of what is currently going on is required, and we're not there.

I recommend, just observing and watching then. If the movement has legs then changes will make mainstream news in short time. If not, then we're stuck with something that doesn't matter anyway. I won't bring it up again until either A: We can all agree that we're under Admiralty Law (or whatever you want to call it... it is not common law or Constitutional but CORPORATE), or B: sufficient info comes out where the topic is mainstream and obvious.

All I ask is that you let me keep my signature, that should be enough for those that truly want to know more to get the basic info and decide for themselves what to do next.
edit on 11-2-2013 by fourthmeal because: ETA




posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by fourthmeal
 


Actually we are under Constitutional Law


Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text provides that these are the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.

The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. - United States Senate[1]

Supremacy Clause

That is where everyone that believes this hookie gets it wrong

The United States Constitution, Federal Statutes and US Treaties are "THE SUPREME LAW of the LAND

Can't get much more clear

You may not like it, but it is what it is

Semper
edit on 2/11/2013 by semperfortis because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


If we were, then we wouldn't be in the situation we are in. Go to court and ask if the jurisdiction is under common law, things don't line up. The codes aren't congruous with common law, aka law of the land. So I submit that we are not. At some point, Maritime law was enacted. Obviously I can point you to links and you can point me to links, but here's the issue: Why are things the way they are if we are under common law?

Your quote, I want nothing more than that. But that's not what we have! If we did, none of this would even be under discussion. There would be no reason to have the UCC with its codes and statutes that has enslaved us, for one.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   
If you lived on the water full time and derived your well being 100% from the waterways I suppose you could twist some of the Admiralty Law to fit your agenda, but only then and not even close to what some dreamers have fashioned


Since admiralty courts, however, are courts of limited jurisdiction (which does not extend to nonmaritime matters), 28 USC § 1333(1),


Cornell University



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by fourthmeal
 


You seem like a nice and genuine enough fellow, so I'm going to be as honest and blunt as I can without deliberately being hurtful.

This stuff has been around for years, and it's all nincompoopery. No we're not under "Admiralty Law" and gold fringed flags have no special meaning.

This is why the discussion serves little purpose. You either know enough to know why this is all nonsense, or you're a potential victim. Jordan Maxwell is a kook, but only dangerous if you take him seriously. Much like David Icke. Two examples of several hundred, but those who aren't aware of Maxwell (where a lot of this nonsense originated) will have heard of Icke, so the comparison is in my opinion, valid.

If you're referring to the YouTube link from your signature, it doesn't help your case. Maybe preaching to the choir with the "Light Workers" stuff, but you're not going to get any converts with it.

There are an awful lot of gullible people out there. This has the potential to do a lot of damage to some of them. We'd prefer to not be a part of that.

I think this is one of those things that has the potential to linger on for a good long time, like a lot of other viral Internet bullhockey. There'll always be a reason why the resolution is right around the corner, or soon, or impending. But it'll never happen. Because it can't. Because it has no basis in reality.

We can revisit this in 6 months, or 5 years and it'll be the same.

Admiralty Law. See that's a brick wall because whatever is shown to be a counter about all that will be 'disinfo from the elites' or some such nonsense from people who 'just don't understand'.

You're heading down a rabbit hole that is at best a terrible time sink, and there's no good news at the bottom of it.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by fourthmeal
 


That is what you are not getting

We are NOT under Common Law.. Not on a Federal Level.. Some states, 4 I believe, have adopted Common Law Statutes, but NOT Federally. Some states are Common Wealth and the remainder some form of Statutory Law.. It differs greatly from state to state

However

Constitutional Law is the SUPREME Law of the Land

It really can not get much more clear



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by fourthmeal
 


Huge difference in our links my good friend

Your links are YouTube videos

My links are SCOTUS and Federal Court Rulings




posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by fourthmeal
reply to post by semperfortis
 


If we were, then we wouldn't be in the situation we are in. Go to court and ask if the jurisdiction is under common law, things don't line up. The codes aren't congruous with common law, aka law of the land. So I submit that we are not. At some point, Maritime law was enacted. Obviously I can point you to links and you can point me to links, but here's the issue: Why are things the way they are if we are under common law?

Your quote, I want nothing more than that. But that's not what we have! If we did, none of this would even be under discussion. There would be no reason to have the UCC with its codes and statutes that has enslaved us, for one.


Every link you have provided so far are to people that have taken this whole Strawman (IE: you are not really you but some fiction that your birth certificate is really collateral to some unseen corporation and we're under Admiralty Law because the flag has a decorative fringe upon it and oh look lions and tigers and bears oh my!)

It is unfortunately you who do not understand the Uniform Commercial Code, which is simply, a set of rules on how companies who provide a good or service and the consumers of goods and services may act/resolve differences with each other. Without those laws, we wouldn't have the ability to sue a company for defective merchandise or get refunds if something wasn't what you wanted. Albeit there is a lot more in depth stuff with it, BUT it is not the all encompassing law of the land that courts use in civil and criminal trials. In fact a lot of our civil laws are in fact common laws, and our criminal laws are somewhat from common sense (Thou shalt not kill for example) to codified USC's and CFR's and on the state level, whatever the states call them. (In New Hampshire for instance they are New Hampshire Revised Statues, Annotated)

So the UCC is just one part of all of that, it's not easy to understand, heck I know lawyers that have trouble keeping it all straight, but the bottom line that you need to remember is:

1) We are NOT under Admiralty Law
2) You are not a fiction, your name in caps is the same as your name
3) The UCC does not govern our lives or give places more rights than the Constitution
4) Trying any of these things will ensure you lose everything you own at the least, and thrown in jail at the worst.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Gold fringed flags? It must be a conspiracy!



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by forgetmenot
Gold fringed flags? It must be a conspiracy!


Part of the claim is that because a lot of our flags are decorated with the pretty fringe that it means we are operating under Admiralty Law, because that type of decoration wasn't originally mentioned in the Constitution as being part of the flag. It has zero basis in fact, and is just another fiction to try and explain how you are property, such as in this little gem quote I came across:


Let's go over this again, when you came down your mother's birth canal you came out of her water, making YOU a maritime admiralty PRODUCT. That is right you became a PRODUCT of commerce at the time of your birth. Your mother also needs to sign your birth certificate. If you notice on your birth certificate where your mother signed, she is not listed as parent, nor is she listed as mother. Where your mother signed your birth certificate she is known as informant!


Well I know on my daughter's BC's I'm listed as Mother, not Informant, and they were both born naturally (well I had plenty of Morphine but that's another story) so this is just poppycock.. like most of the UCC Strawman movement.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


That's how it SHOULD be I agree, but the statues and codes do not line up with common law, law of the land.

Oh man, this must be where all of this went horribly, horribly wrong. I thought all of you understood the likes of Jordon Maxwell and the Rosicurian info, huge info dumps like this one www.barefootsworld.net... etc etc.

Yep, without understanding that, I can see how all this went bad.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by fourthmeal
reply to post by semperfortis
 


That's how it SHOULD be I agree, but the statues and codes do not line up with common law, law of the land.

Oh man, this must be where all of this went horribly, horribly wrong. I thought all of you understood the likes of Jordon Maxwell and the Rosicurian info, huge info dumps like this one www.barefootsworld.net... etc etc.

Yep, without understanding that, I can see how all this went bad.



So now you are claiming that somehow you are smarter than us because you link to sites that purport that these scams are legit? I mean places like your link and bibliotecapleyades are hardly bastions of truthful documentation.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by DarKPenguiN
 


I smelled scam on this when it first came up.

Though, if it was true, a mile long brick of gold would do me wonders....

I can finally be the most interesting Toastman in the world, no wait. I am that already. But I do have some bills to pay and a prison-like home situation I want to break out of.

@fourthmeal

Tell you what. If you get a mile long brick of gold from TOPPT or whoever they are, take a bunch of unshooped pictures and I'll believe you. Then I can go all in for this as well.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Maxwell is a fraud... Remember when his webmaster posted all thbose videos and audio clips about him on his own site? Classic stuff.

Regardless, maxwell = Fraud.

Granted, he is interesting to listen to, and some of his info seems plausable but upon close inspection it turns to bunk.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by fourthmeal
 


No what has gone apparently wrong is your inability to understand that Common Law is NOT the law of the land in the United States

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Trumps ALL OTHER

Sorry but no manner of hype from anyone can change that..




posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by fourthmeal
 


No what has gone apparently wrong is your inability to understand that Common Law is NOT the law of the land in the United States

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Trumps ALL OTHER

Sorry but no manner of hype from anyone can change that..



Too bad there were no stars in this forum.. I would give you one just for that..

(begin major sarcasm)

*sigh* But Semper.... didn't you know that all of that went out the window when so and so decided that the law of the waters overtook the law of the land ,it's true, you know your mother and my mother's water broke and therefore we're property of some super-secret cabal that uses or Birth Certificates as collateral and we can get that 600K back if we just write some fancy legal looking things like Accepted For Value in RED ink because under the UCC it says we can?

And oh yeah did you know that this trust is going to solve all of our problems by foreclosing on the governments of the world and turning all that land back over to the three of them so that they can benevolently rule over the new world of no debt and all happiness? I mean who would ever think that this was a scam?

(end sarcastic commenting)

What gets me is that i must get about 500 calls a week from people that read this drivel and think it's true, and use all the same arguments about Admiralty law and the like... I have to remind every one of them that it's a fraud and thank them for calling..



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   
I recognize the problem we have here and I have no recourse other than to recommend we just put a wait-and-see attitude to this.

Its a freaking mess. If we weren't under Admiralty Law and if there was no issue with the freeman / sovereign thing, there would be no need for this book:

www.scribd.com...

But there it is.

Also this guy explains a lot of this crap www.youtube.com...

But man, we're stuck if you guys think we are still under common law / Constitutional Law. All the rest of this is... just going to have to hit you.
edit on 11-2-2013 by fourthmeal because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by fourthmeal
 


are you one of the trucker trustees? If you aren't, how can you ignore the truth being posted, over and over again regarding the reality of the us legal system?



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   
And again, the conversation goes to a mile long brick of gold. The only person that brought that up was Crakeur I believe, not me or anybody in the Trust for that matter.

Again, made up BS used to distract from the real issue.


We're done, if you guys don't realize we're under Maritime Law, there's nothing I can do.

Here's some links, not sure what else I can do.

www.thinkorbeeaten.com...
archive.org...



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by fourthmeal
I recognize the problem we have here and I have no recourse other than to recommend we just put a wait-and-see attitude to this.

Its a freaking mess. If we weren't under Admiralty Law and if there was no issue with the freeman / sovereign thing, there would be no need for this book:

www.scribd.com...

But there it is.

and it was put out because of the people following this nonsense and disrupting court cases and filing frivolous documents tying up the courts time. Attempting to win by burying the courts in needless paperwork is about as bad as screaming incoherently at a judge, they did need to be warned about people trying this. Just because there's a warning and a note on how to deal with disruptive people, does not mean that the substance of the disruption is valid, just that people are claiming it is and will be disruptive.. You can't use one to make the other true.



Also this guy explains a lot of this crap www.youtube.com...

And hmm.. this is what happened to Mr Foust..when they tried to respond to a Domestic Violence call as he was apparently engaged in assault and battery against a woman.


Before Wilson arrived, the suspect, Foust, had fled the area. While the officer was talking with the female victim, Foust returned and engaged in a heated argument with the woman. According to the sheriff's office, Foust was "upset, loud and confrontational with the officer." Wilson and Foust went outside the business and were soon involved in a physical altercation. Foust, according to the sheriff's office, attempted to gain control of the officer's Taser. "The officer discharged his service weapon, striking Foust," stated a press release issued by the sheriff's office.





new topics
top topics
 
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join