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: 27
237
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ajay59

Originally posted by WaterBottle
Who are the shareholders if the USA is a corporation?


That is a very good question. I do not believe it is we the people as it would have been intended!
the answer is within the Treaty of 1783.




posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by ajay59
 


The United States of America is not a corporation. It is a Republic.

correct


notice you did not use ALL CAPS

UNITED STATES / UNITED STATES of AMERICA ...

now that's a corporation!


we is gettin.' through to you,

yah think!



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by tinhattribunal
 


Explain exactly how all caps has any legal relevance at all. I'll even be kind and spot you an open chance to use 10 sources for evidence, while I will restrict myself to one in my reply.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Honor93
that's a really strange answer.
why would i borrow what doesn't exist in the first place ?

ETA -- and to take that one step further, if i trade property for property, what business is it of the government ?
they are tasked with protecting my rights, not restricting or infringing upon them.

Nothing you just typed is making any sense.

I have no idea what point you're attempting to make.
now that's a deflection i certainly didn't expect from you


likewise then, i have no idea what point you are trying to make with the use of imaginary currency ... care to expand on that thought ?

btw SO, thank you for joining this discussion.
whether we agree or not is irrelevant but i do appreciate the interest and value you've placed upon my opinion. thanks again

edit on 14-2-2013 by Honor93 because: add txt



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by vkey08

Originally posted by ajay59
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Are you stating that the government of the US is not a corporation? Can you state beyond a reasonable doubt that this country's government IS NOT on any books as a corporation?


Yes, I can state that as far as I am aware, that beyond any reasonable doubt the actual Government of the United States is NOT on any books as a C Corp or an S Corp or even a 50(?) C Corp.




yes.

the actual government of the United States is not a coporation.

but they have not elected any one to it in 100 years.

the foreign powers in WASHINGTON D.C.[well. ok. it's not foreign to them, as it is the military arm of the CROWN] are a corporation.

all this,right from the horses mouth

thanks



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Honor93
that's a really strange answer.
why would i borrow what doesn't exist in the first place ?

ETA -- and to take that one step further, if i trade property for property, what business is it of the government ?
they are tasked with protecting my rights, not restricting or infringing upon them.

Nothing you just typed is making any sense.

I have no idea what point you're attempting to make.
now that's a deflection i certainly didn't expect from you


likewise then, i have no idea what point you are trying to make with the use of imaginary currency ... care to expand on that thought ?

btw SO, thank you for joining this discussion.
whether we agree or not is irrelevant but i do appreciate the interest and value you've placed upon my opinion. thanks again

edit on 14-2-2013 by Honor93 because: add txt


he [S.O.]
has been participating the whole time.


i know stuff.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by ajay59

Originally posted by WaterBottle
Who are the shareholders if the USA is a corporation?


That is a very good question. I do not believe it is we the people as it would have been intended!
the answer is within the Treaty of 1783.


Where in said treaty is the answer?

As of 2013 only one article in the treaty is still in force..


Acknowledging the United States to be a free, sovereign and independent nation, and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, property, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof;



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by tinhattribunal

Originally posted by vkey08

Originally posted by ajay59
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Are you stating that the government of the US is not a corporation? Can you state beyond a reasonable doubt that this country's government IS NOT on any books as a corporation?


Yes, I can state that as far as I am aware, that beyond any reasonable doubt the actual Government of the United States is NOT on any books as a C Corp or an S Corp or even a 50(?) C Corp.




yes.

the actual government of the United States is not a coporation.

but they have not elected any one to it in 100 years.

the foreign powers in WASHINGTON D.C.[well. ok. it's not foreign to them, as it is the military arm of the CROWN] are a corporation.

all this,right from the horses mouth

thanks


What horses mouth? Are you referring to the law that granted Washington DC home rule government that is misunderstood by the Sovereign Movement?



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by tinhattribunal
 

i'll take your word for that but it's the first i've been participating in a thread of which SO is actively contributing ... just thought i'd say thanks.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 

before answering that silly question, any chance you'd care to 'source' your off-site content for the rest of us to review ??

oh and if you would, include the specific legislation that has voided/repealed or nullified any provisions of said Treaty.
edit on 14-2-2013 by Honor93 because: add txt



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by tinhattribunal


he [S.O.]
has been participating the whole time.


i know stuff.


no, you don't



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
likewise then, i have no idea what point you are trying to make with the use of imaginary currency ... care to expand on that thought ?

Please, just get to the point. Otherwise, I have no idea what you're pushing other than typical mortgage/currency nonsense typical of these OPPT Sovereign misinformed types.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Well I for one am not convinced either way.

Admittedly, this subject is what turned me onto government conspiracies some years ago and eventually brought me to this site. Still, I'm not convinced the subject matter of this particular conspiracy is true, but not convinced other wise either.

Dismissing definitions and legalese is a slippery slope. Many cases can be cited just on definitions alone. It wasnt too long ago when a particular Mr. Clinton posed the question ( paraphrasing ) "define *is*". I suspect he knew something about definitions that we laymen never think twice about. So, there's that.

If words and their meaning(s) are to be taken in common terms there would be no need for legal dictionaries and such. I believe it to be a grave mistake to take words for granted regardless how small ( see *is* ). I also haven't seen any evidence that defines the term BAR either way. Both sides of this argument really can't define it in absolute terms.

Anyway, I'm extremely interested in this topic so I hope the conversation continues. That's my half cent for the moment....



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   
An interesting video that I came across as a result of this thread. The guy seems to have had some success, and lives in my own backyard:



It's hard not to respect such a position. The guy just doesn't want government intrusion in his life-much like the rest of us I'd imagine.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Honor93
likewise then, i have no idea what point you are trying to make with the use of imaginary currency ... care to expand on that thought ?

Please, just get to the point. Otherwise, I have no idea what you're pushing other than typical mortgage/currency nonsense typical of these OPPT Sovereign misinformed types.
really ?
i thought you joined in to discuss facts not purport the misconceptions that have enslaved us all.

however, i asked the simplest question and you deflected, so let's try this again.
currency = IOU/Fed Reserve
so, why would i wish/ask to borrow your IOUs ??

and, since no collateral would be necessary for me to borrow your IOUs, why would a bank demand collateral to borrow their IOUs ??



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by tinhattribunal
 


Explain exactly how all caps has any legal relevance at all. I'll even be kind and spot you an open chance to use 10 sources for evidence, while I will restrict myself to one in my reply.


so anyway,
i got in a fight with a cop the other day.

i was riding my [expensive] mountain bike, and i rolled thru a stop sign on my way to the trails.

he pulls me over, i give him my dirvers licence,

he gives it a glance, then he starts givin me the 'third degree', accused me of 'everything in the book'.

i forgot to mention one important detail.

he NEVER IDENTIFIED ME.

i had a FULL FACE HELMET,
OAKLEY BLADES, GLOVES,
CHEST PROTECTOR, PADS, CAMLEBACK , ETC...

i was FULLY COVERED UP!
there was NO WAY he could make a POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION!

one thing led to another and he had to 'take me down', we struggled,
he cuffed me, ran my ID.

it was clean. he let me go.

AT NO TIME DID I REMOVE MY HELMET, GLASSES, OR ANY OF MY PROTECTIVE GEAR.

he never made a positive identification, he was only interested in my CITIZENSHIP STATUS.

i don't think i made his day.

sorry, no hotlink.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by tinhattribunal
 


I am lost as to what that has to do with the concept of Capitis Diminutio Maxima???



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by flyswatter
 

rather elaborate, how 'bout you explain the effects of the Treaty of 1783 ... that should answer the question without re-phrasing it.

also why, coincidentally,
that same year, the division of Admiralty was established in the UK Parliament ?

if you are not aware of either, perhaps these will help ... source
i wonder how many ppl know just how important "Sandy Hook" is to our own history ??

Earl Howe

In 1776 he was appointed to the command of the North American station, where, in his sympathy for the colonists, he tried conciliation. When France declared war and sent a powerful squadron under the Count d’Estaing, Howe was put on the defensive, but he baffled the French admiral at Sandy Hook and defeated his attempt to take Newport in Rhode Island by a fine combination of caution and calculated daring. On the arrival of Adm. John Byron from England with reinforcements, Howe left the station in September, returning to England.

and before someone says the Admiralty Board existed long before, yes, it did ... so, why then the need for a specific Division whose creation just happened to coincide with the signing of the Treaty ??

or you could just dispute this ... source
or this one


Sooooo ... you cant elaborate on the question? Thats fine by me, it was your question, not mine.

Anyway ... not one bit of what you posted above has even the slightest bit of relevance to anything that I have posted in this thread, so I'm not quite sure what the point of you even mentioning all of this was. I have said several things here ... the United States has a corporation, but does not exist solely as a corporation ... multiple people have spent time in jail for attempting the work the system ... OPPT people shouldnt fight over the interpretation of the law, they should fight to change the laws themselves ... nothing you posted contradicts anything that I have said.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
however, i asked the simplest question and you deflected, so let's try this again.

Can't find anything simple, just odd rhetoric.



and, since no collateral would be necessary for me to borrow your IOUs, why would a bank demand collateral to borrow their IOUs ??

What are you referring to as "IOUs"?



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by vkey08

Originally posted by tinhattribunal

Originally posted by vkey08

Originally posted by ajay59
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Are you stating that the government of the US is not a corporation? Can you state beyond a reasonable doubt that this country's government IS NOT on any books as a corporation?


Yes, I can state that as far as I am aware, that beyond any reasonable doubt the actual Government of the United States is NOT on any books as a C Corp or an S Corp or even a 50(?) C Corp.




yes.

the actual government of the United States is not a coporation.

but they have not elected any one to it in 100 years.

the foreign powers in WASHINGTON D.C.[well. ok. it's not foreign to them, as it is the military arm of the CROWN] are a corporation.

all this,right from the horses mouth

thanks


What horses mouth? Are you referring to the law that granted Washington DC home rule government that is misunderstood by the Sovereign Movement?


no.

i am talking about the structure of the former ruling state that the OPPT has forclosed upon.

the VATICAN is its' HEAD ...
forclosed upon [notice the pope has stepped down]

the CROWN being the financial arm, which includes the FEDERAL RESERVE.
[their employees have been absorbed into the treasury, as they have been forclosed upon]

WASHINGTON D.C. is their military arm.
they are forclosed upon, and are begining to comply, under common law.

these are the corporations that you work for.

but i suspect you may be too 'compartmentalized' to know that.



new topics

top topics



 
237
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join