It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
yes, we've heard that.
and "understand" (as in "do you understand?") means "stand under," as in "do you stand under these words?" (i.e., accept the terms of our contract).
yep, thought so, thanks again
The English word "understand" derives from an Old English word meaning stand in the midst of - under
deriving from the Proto-Indo-European root *nter-, meaning "between" or "among", from where the modern English prefix "inter-" also derives.
Originally posted by fourthmeal
Fine, show me the transcript or audio show that explicitly states that Heather stated the gold has been taken off-world for safe-keeping.
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Hefficide
no, i'm focusing on the 'legal' definition, not the origin of the word.
btw, i notice this 'source' has never been brought forward, although, it does seem vital in this conversation so i do wonder why ?
In the law of contracts. This is a loose and ambiguous term, [color=amber]unless it be accompanied by some expression to show that it constituted a meeting of the minds of parties upon something respecting which they intended to be bound. Camp v. Waring, 25 Conn. 529. [color=amber]But it may denote an informal agreement, or a concur- rence as to its terms. See Barkow v. Sanger, 47 Wis. 507, 3 N. W. 10.
not sure about you, but that sure sounds familiar to me.
A general term referring to an agreement, either express or implied, written or oral.
The term understanding is an ambiguous one; in order to determine whether a particular understanding would constitute a contract that is legally binding on the parties involved, the circumstances must be examined to discover whether a meeting of the minds and an intent to be bound occurred.
Foreign phrases: Conventio facit legem.An agreement creetes the law, i.e. the parties to a binding contract will be held to their promises.
Ann Bressington (Australian politician) says she has put the OPPT stuff past a retired corporate lawyer in Australia and he confirms the OPPT UCC FILINGS have legs, the question is whether the people will enforce it! (Courtesy Notices and invoices people! NOW).
Also she says in the courts there are two sets of rules going on: the judicial run on UCC and lawyers run on statutes - hence why the people do not find remedy.
However, if you search the WA State branch of the Commercial Registry ( fortress.wa.gov... ), and search by file/receipt number you will see that they are no longer there, and the attached letter to this email is the purported basis why they were “removed”/”cancelled”…I only included one of the letters, but all the same.
Originally posted by fourthmeal
I see now people opposing OPPT (thus really opposing the People) have taken to attacking Ann Bressington.
Keep it up! Keep attacking the few people who are directly opposed to corruption.
I'm sure all people of the Earth would, when properly informed, love to hear about the folks that helped perpetrate Agenda 21 and other Club of Rome thinktank ideas of ruling the world.
I've never been more ashamed of being a member here.