It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The One People's Public Trust & Sovereign Citizens Movement Scams Broken Down.

page: 13
237
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   
double post, whoopsies
edit on 13-2-2013 by Mkoll because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by tinhattribunal
the reason j. boehner was not announced as interum president is because the OPPT STOPPED it.


Wrong, the reason he was not announced as interim President is it was just a silly story made up by OPPT


john boehner was put in the position of interum president


No he was not, just another made up story by the OPPT....


in addition it warned that the individual who would take the oath of office on the 21st of jan. 2013, would be now duly bound to support all OPPT initiatives.


So some group of people who made up a silly story are warning Obama to do what they say, or what?????


obama flubbed the oath [21st] , maybe he is not the pres.


He took the oath on the 20th, the oath on the 21st was just for the teeming masses.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mkoll

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by squarehead666

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I support people like alex jones, jessie ventura, david icke, david wilcox, and many other good/honest/hard-at-work to educate folks sincerly.

Now there's a rogues gallery of disinfo agents and loonies.....Good luck with making any sense out of their drivel.

(Except possibly Mr.Ventura, who I believe is merely a little gullible and misguided.)

PS: +S&F!

edit on 13-2-2013 by squarehead666 because: clarity


Coming from someone with a username of squarehead666, I guess I should take your harsh lies as a compliment. You do know the meaning behind *666*??

edit on 13/2/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)


I bet you're proud of that one.

Must have taken you a while.

You've got this argument in the bag for sure.


A lot of the disinfo agents openly brag about their intentions within their username and avatar. Then they prove themselves with their posts. I on the otherhand am quite sincere in what I post and advertise. I hate hypocrisy but it does not mean I am perfect either.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   
As for the Lawyers who join the BAR and take the title of esquire; should tell you all you need to know about the system in the USA. By the way, BAR is an acronym for British Accredited Registry


Maybe that’s why we call them “Public Pretenders.”


Pretend to defend you and send you up that river.


Then go knock a few drinks down with the DA and prosecutor while playing a round of golf



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 





Lastly what president, vice president, high ranking senator has gone to prison during america's existance as a nation? What was the last time a libertarian, green, constitutionalist, socialist, communist president, vice president, senator, governor, mayor got elected to office?


james traficant


Traficant's major legislative accomplishment in the House was the adoption of some of his proposals to constrain enforcement activities by the Internal Revenue Service against delinquent taxpayers.


posters on either side of this argument may want to study this one



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by IntrinsicMotivation
 


Um...yeah, because we borrow quite a bit of our legal system from England.


Try again.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 


I'll be honest, I find it really kind of creepy on its face. I would need to do more research on the BAR before passing judgement though.

A quick goggling reveals his assertion to be false en.wikipedia.org...

I forsee now an endless struggle in this thread between people who think it actually does stand for British Accredited Registry who will argue that these are falsehoods and the people who think that the bar refers to the bar dividing the solicitors and the barristers in the Inns of Court in British legal tradition will be unable to convince the other party and vice versa
edit on 13-2-2013 by Mkoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by IntrinsicMotivation
By the way, BAR is an acronym for British Accredited Registry


No it is not - care to show us a valid source for that claim?



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by IntrinsicMotivation
 


Wow.


You really believe any of that? Have you ever stood in a court room in front of a judge and asserted that we are under Admiralty Law?

Most judges would roll their eyes or laugh. Seriously.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by IntrinsicMotivation
By the way, BAR is an acronym for British Accredited Registry


No it is not - care to show us a valid source for that claim?


Students who officially became lawyers crossed the symbolic physical barrier and were "admitted to the bar". Bar being short for Barrier...

It's that simple..



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   
I also finished up my Business Law courses and will add that I discussed a lot of these principles with an instructor who was an attorney. I was surprised to hear no rebuttal from my instructor. In fact she took a lot of time to point out the inconsistencies concerning law.

I read the “Redemption Manual” before taking those courses and was curious of the U.C.C. So I researched it on my own and guess what I found?

My brand new Business Law books had the U.C.C. listed in it, I was ecstatic, until I seen that they were not up to date. By that I mean that there was no mention of U.C.C. 1-308. I found it word for word under U.C.C. 1 -207. I wonder why they would move such a code, seeing how it has to do with the reservation of ones rights.

Maybe they didn’t want people catching on, or it was a way to cause confusion. Everyone that was trying to reserve rights under the old code were not protected by it.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by tinhattribunal
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 





Lastly what president, vice president, high ranking senator has gone to prison during america's existance as a nation? What was the last time a libertarian, green, constitutionalist, socialist, communist president, vice president, senator, governor, mayor got elected to office?


james traficant


Traficant's major legislative accomplishment in the House was the adoption of some of his proposals to constrain enforcement activities by the Internal Revenue Service against delinquent taxpayers.


posters on either side of this argument may want to study this one


Thanks for that bit of info. Evidence continues to pile up that if you oppose the federal reserve and irs you either go to jail or get killed in mysterious circumstances like jfk did back in the 60s. It is impossible to ignore!

As of recently I cannot help but remember Gary Johnson's critique of the media when running for 2012 presidential candidate along with his running mate jim gray for vp. "Do I get mentioned 6 times by the media for the 90 odd times obama and romney get mentioned?" An eerie silence befell the reporter for 5 seconds...



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 


The whole purpose was to show that Admiralty Law is administered in U.S. courts.
As for judges, I have been before a few in my days. These are contract courts.
My recent dealings over petty infractions “No seatbelt,” “10 mph over the speed limit” have shown me some more about the courts in my area; no one seems to know how things work in them (as in employees).
I submitted documents ahead of my court date so they had time to review my claims. The first time I tried to submit docs, the clerk said that they do not take paperwork.
I then gave her this paperwork and it changed her attitude real quick

NOTICE TO COUNTY CLERK


The minute you receive any affidavit, it is recorded. Should you refuse to record My affidavits, once deposited with you, you are committing a crime against justice under Statutes at Large Sec. 5403 and it is punishable by up to a $2000 fine and 3 years imprisonment. If your county attorney told you not to file any documents like mine, you are still responsible, as I do not accept any third party interveners. Any attorney, district attorney, or anyone from the lawyering craft are all third parties and do not have a license to make a legal determination in this matter as they do not represent Me and you, the county clerk, do not have the authority to represent Me.

Title LXX.---CRIMES.--- CH. 4. CRIMES AGAINST JUSTICE

(Destroying, &c., public records.)

SEC. 5403. Every person who willfully destroys or attempts to destroy, or, with intent to steal or destroy, takes and carries away any record, paper, or proceeding of a court of justice, filled or deposited with any clerk or officer of such court, or any paper, or document, or record filed or deposited in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer, shall, without reference to the value of the record, paper, document, or proceeding so taken, pay a fine of not more than two thousand dollars, or suffer imprisonment, at hard labor, not more than three years, or both: [See § § 5408,5411,5412.1]

Title LXX.---CRIMES.--- CH. 4. CRIMES AGAINST JUSTICE

(Conspiracy to defeat enforcement of the laws.)

SEC. 5407. If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws, each of such persons shall be punished by a fine of not less than five hundred nor more than five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment, with or without hard labor, not less than six months nor more than six years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. See § § 1977-1991, 20042010, 5506-5510.1

Title LXX.---CRIMES.--- CH. 4. CRIMES AGAINST JUSTICE

(Destroying record by officer in charge.)

SEC. 5408. Every officer, having the custody of any record, document, paper, or proceeding specified in section fifty-four hundred and three, who fraudulently takes away, or withdraws, or destroys any such record, document, paper, or proceeding filed in his office or deposited with him or in his custody, shall pay a fine of not more than two thousand dollars, or suffer imprisonment at hard labor not more than three years, or both-, and shall, moreover, forfeit his office and be forever afterward disqualified from holding any office under the Government of the United States.

As for the Justice system, it seems it is only geared towards "Just-Us"
edit on 13-2-2013 by IntrinsicMotivation because: One line was outta place. Moved to bottom of post.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by HIWATT

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by HIWATT
 



If it's been established by the owners of this site that this topic is forbidden now, then it should apply to both sides of the coin.


No. The intent of the ban was to prevent ATS from lending material support to a criminal enterprise.


Really?





Originally posted by Crakeur Recently, this site started seeing posts regarding The One People’s Public Trust (TOPPT). After one lengthy discussion, located here, the owners and administrators of ATS have decided to close down any future discussion on the topic as it was deemed to be nothing more than a new age scam.



ANY FUTURE DISCUSSION

Not my words. Crakeurs.

The fact that this thread has been allowed to stand, despite clear direction by the owners here, is evidence to everyone reading how duplicitous and hypocritical ATS really is.





I believe the thread is in the proper forum, where it was started at:

Deconstructing Disinfo & Deflection.



Since Crakeur is a site admin, and was consulted beforehand, as previously stated, to allow such a thread to continue is at his discretion.

To have a site owner (Sorry Springer, the flu's going around here too.
) pipe in and commend the OP, doesn't indicate hypocrisy at all, but rather shows the ownership and administration of ATS is fluid enough in their thinking to re-approach a topic, and when they approve of how a thread is being presented, well, that should tell other members that it's all about the way a topic should be introduced. You cannot break laws simply by stating you have come up with an imaginary way of circumventing them. In truth, that only upholds the motto of this site, "Deny Ignorance."

To deconstruct disinformation, well, that's the goal of this forum. Hypocrisy is stating beliefs that you don't actually hold, and I believe that it's apparent the ownership and administration are quite firm in stating their beliefs.

Duplicity? That's the best part of owning your own website. You get to utilize discretion, and make decisions. You see, the owners go by the T&Cs, as they wrote them, and revised them, and revised them, and.....
They issue more revisions, and adapt to changing times. They stay up-to-date, and directly interact with members. Policies must flex to stay current in this modern technological age, but they never flex outside the realms of the T&Cs. Is this thread violating the T&Cs in any way? Nope. Is it in the right forum? Yep. Is it wise to criticize the administration's decisions? Well, they are very tolerant of criticism. Fact is, the owners, management, and staff on ATS are some of the most understanding people, and yet they uphold strict standards. Upholding those standards requires certain flexibility. Interacting with them before posting a new thread tends to quell any misunderstandings, and by doing so, allows the staff to query the owners and administration, if required, as to presentable topics.

I've seen a few members say they are done. Well, ok. It's your choice to read and post here. Mad? Move on, please, and find a better site on the internet.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by squarehead666

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I support people like alex jones, jessie ventura, david icke, david wilcox, and many other good/honest/hard-at-work to educate folks sincerly.

Now there's a rogues gallery of disinfo agents and loonies.....Good luck with making any sense out of their drivel.

(Except possibly Mr.Ventura, who I believe is merely a little gullible and misguided.)

PS: +S&F!

edit on 13-2-2013 by squarehead666 because: clarity


Coming from someone with a username of squarehead666, I guess I should take your harsh lies as a compliment. You do know the meaning behind *666*??

edit on 13/2/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)

Cor.....Do you really work for SG-1?

Nope, just chose the image 'cos it amused you didn't it......Well freaking out godbotherers amuses me.

That OK with you is it?



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Mkoll
 


Our concept of law comes straight from England. That Is FACT.

I have also shown that words have multiple meanings. BAR is one of those deals also. I should have included its other meanings as well. I do not deny that the bar also represents the barrier or railing that separates the general public area from the area reserved for judges, attorneys, parties and court officials.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by vkey08

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by IntrinsicMotivation
By the way, BAR is an acronym for British Accredited Registry


No it is not - care to show us a valid source for that claim?


Students who officially became lawyers crossed the symbolic physical barrier and were "admitted to the bar". Bar being short for Barrier...

It's that simple..

In the UK they were literally bars.....The Inns of Court:

en.wikipedia.org...

Legal terminology is usually very straightforward.
edit on 13-2-2013 by squarehead666 because: clarity/link



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by IntrinsicMotivation
By the way, BAR is an acronym for British Accredited Registry


No it is not - care to show us a valid source for that claim?


No problem. What is a valid source to you?

I will refrain from using wiki to source anything.

Here you go, from an encyclopedia Link

Encyclopedia > British Accreditation Registry
There is some speculation that British Accreditation Registry (also known as aka British Accredited Registry) is the long form for of the acronym "B.A.R." as in American Bar Association; however this may be a Conspiracy Theory. See the alternate explanation under Bar association.


Does that appease you?



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by fourthmeal
 





problems integrating and dealing with the higher dimensionality of the topic


Bold mine. Is there a lower dimensionality of the topic? Simple rhetorical query.



If it doesn't resonate with you, fine.



res·o·nate /ˈrezəˌnāt/ Verb

1. Produce or be filled with a deep, full, reverberating sound.
2. Evoke or suggest images, memories, and emotions.


Your terminology denotes a "New Age" inference. Catchy sounding terms. But no, I don't resonate with the movement.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Here is where a 'sovereign citizen" tried to use OPPT nonsense in a legal document....


In a recent filing, the judge said, Leaming used the word “REGISTRY” in all uppercase in a pleading that was “undecipherable.” On at least five occasions during the course of the case, Leaming has filed documents that used the phrase “Mandatory Judicial Notice,” including one in which Leaming asserts he “relies in good faith on the public/commercial REGISTRY entries as published at www.peoplestrust1776.org, inclusive of Universal Law Ordinance, UCC #2012096074 . . . .” the judge said.

“For lack of a better term, this is gobbledygook,” the judge said


I think that term covers the claims made by OPPT very well.
www.patrickpretty.com... elieve/

Some people are trying the UCC nonsense in canada.... where the UCC does not apply!
www.patrickpretty.com... s-divorce-case-leads-to-extaordinary-dissection-of-various-schemes-and-introduces/




top topics



 
237
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join