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

reply to post by flyswatter

nothing you posted contradicts anything that I have said.

likewise.
you have done nothing to discredit or clarify how individuals using UCC correctly is 'illegal'.

i have attempted to show evidence of how and why it came to be, who it applies to and how to apply it against those who have endeavored to commit fraud against their own creator.
(DMV for example)

the rest is up to those who choose to employ it or not.
as always, caveat emptor.

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

Seriously?

An old/ill Pope resigning is being attributed to this silly nonsense?

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

i already said IOU = currency ... do you deny it ?

if you disagree, prove it.
aside from that, the rest is nonsense.

Originally posted by Honor93

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.

I fail to see the strategic importance of the engagement at Sandy Hook.

Howe defeated the allied french squadron that had come to invade Rhode Island and then went home when more redcoats show up.

And we won the damned war anyways. Mostly because the French joined in the war only after we had proven we had a shot at winning.

Now I ask to you to give me your reasons for why you think this battle is so important to American history and how that connects to the events that occurred recently there.

If you fail to do so I can only assume you are attempting to use the emotionally charged nature of that placename to make half baked historical pseudo connections to gain support through emotional manipulation rather than rational argument.

Originally posted by Honor93
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

Fine, here's the list of provisions of treaties that are still in effect and the years ratified.. You will note that under the treaty of 1783, it clearly states that only one provision is still in effect, anyone with access to Wikipedia would look up the reference, I shouldn't have to do it for you..

State Department Treaty List - Letter U

But of course you are the one claiming the treaty is where this all starts, and yet you cannot prove that without relying upon people like Miller et al and their youtube ramblings or blogs by more of the same.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by fourthmeal

 

thanks for the video references but i'll have to mark them for laters as i cannot view them on this machine.

however, in light of the conversation and the references to the Inns ... i thought i'd share this tidbit that i learned long ago from none other than Encylopedia Brittanica.

www.britannica.com...

The system broke down completely during the English Civil Wars; readings ceased in 1677, and only the fees survived. Having paid them, the student was deemed to have fulfilled his duties. With no readers to recommend students for call to the bar, the four Inns in the 18th century finally agreed to call students who had been in residence a stated number of terms. Later, it was settled that eating three dinners was equivalent to attending for the whole term. Meanwhile, the Inns of Chancery were no longer adequate for so large a group as the attorneys and solicitors, and these latter therefore created their own society.

-- i often wondered if that's where the phrase ... 3 hots & a cot ... originated

edit to add -- in case others aren't noticing ... the 18th century is when the BAR came to American soil ... 1747.

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

In your post you mentioned the Inns of Chancery.
The majority of corporations in the U.S. chose to incorporate in Delaware due to the favorable laws towards corporations.

The following is from "Business Law and the Legal Environment, by Beatty and Samuelson 5th ed. Pg 825"
Delaware has relaxed laws involving corporations, and many corporations that plan on doing business in multiple states incorporate there. Each year Delaware collects substantial filing fees and taxes from companies that, for the most part, conduct little business in the state.

Delaware offers corporations several advantages:
1) Laws that favor management. One of the first states to eliminate a rigid format of corporate charters.

2) An efficient court system. This special court is called "Chancery Court."

3) An established body of precedent. Lawyers feel they can more easily predict the outcome of a case in Delaware than any other state.

It goes on to say that some recent studies indicate that when a company reincorporates in Delaware, its stock price does not go down. Evidently, financial markets do not perceive shareholders to be at a disadvantage in Delaware.

It makes since that the Gov would be incorporated in Delaware as another poster pointed out. To those reading this, do not call B.S. This is straight from the text book from my college Business Law classes. If that is not acceptable as a source, then I do not know what to say.

Originally posted by Honor93
i already said IOU = currency ... do you deny it ?

Ah... there's the root of the confusion.

Your mind is made up, so there's no point.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by flyswatter

 

nothing you posted contradicts anything that I have said.

likewise.
you have done nothing to discredit or clarify how individuals using UCC correctly is 'illegal'.

i have attempted to show evidence of how and why it came to be, who it applies to and how to apply it against those who have endeavored to commit fraud against their own creator.
(DMV for example)

the rest is up to those who choose to employ it or not.
as always, caveat emptor.

Your definition of using it correctly appears to be at odds with those that actually have the power to make that determination. People attempting to "use it correctly" (by your definition) have ended up fined and imprisoned for doing so.

I'll grab some popcorn. You let me know when one of these Freeman or OPPT court cases ends in their favor.

reply to post by tinhattribunal


Please prove to me how the OPPT's foreclosure did anything except make them look rather silly. Not one governmental agency has been changed as a result of their filings, not one person has lost their job, Benedict stated last year that he was going to resign this year, it's no major surprise to anyone that's been watching, but it has ZERO to do with the OPPT foreclosing on the Vatican, as the Vatican is a nation, and therefore the OPPT wouldn't have the jurisdiction to foreclose upon them.

This is just pie in the sky fantasy, if you can't see that..

reply to post by Mkoll

Now I ask to you to give me your reasons for why you think this battle is so important to American history and how that connects to the events that occured recently there.

in a proper thread i would be happy to, however, i'm not engaging in such an off-topic derail attempt.

in this thread, that's the whole point ... the British actually won the war (not the North or the South or the American people for that matter) ... and, the Treaty specifies distribution of the spoils.

reply to post by Honor93


You're the person who brought up sandy hook in this thread in the first place.

Justify your claims

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

I do believe I stated they would make this claim several days back.

this is pure nonsense.

reply to post by IntrinsicMotivation


All the other poster did was prove that someone (or some ones ) registered corporations with similar names in Delaware, not that the Government was registered as Corporations there..

reply to post by Honor93


Yeah the treaty was heavily in favor of the newly formed United States if you actually read it...

Preface. Declares the treaty to be "in the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity," states the bona fides of the signatories, and declares the intention of both parties to "forget all past misunderstandings and differences" and "secure to both perpetual peace and harmony."

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;

Establishing the boundaries between the United States and British North America;

Granting fishing rights to United States fishermen in the Grand Banks, off the coast of Newfoundland and in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence;

Recognizing the lawful contracted debts to be paid to creditors on either side;

The Congress of the Confederation will "earnestly recommend" to state legislatures to recognize the rightful owners of all confiscated lands "provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated belonging to real British subjects [Loyalists]";

United States will prevent future confiscations of the property of Loyalists;

Prisoners of war on both sides are to be released and all property left by the British army in the United States unmolested (including slaves);

Great Britain and the United States were each to be given perpetual access to the Mississippi River;

Territories captured by Americans subsequent to treaty will be returned without compensation;

Ratification of the treaty was to occur within six months from the signing by the contracting parties.

reply to post by flyswatter


Here is an example that worked out well for a “Freeman”

About 4:25 into is when the Freeman takes controll of the court. Standing on desk and everything. This would not happen over here. It is worth the watch and the lesson he serves the court made my day.




This also highlights a big difference between US and UK courts. In the U.S. good luck even attempting what this man did. Also notice that they were able to record in court, this is not so in the US. They can record you, but you cannot document for yourself, unless its hidden. I have seen people turned away from courthouses because they had a voice recorder or camera in their bag. Funny huh? Why so secretive, what do they not want getting posted online? This is why the only footage we can get from regular peoples interactions come from cell phones, but that too is only a matter of time till it is not allowed in courts.

reply to post by IntrinsicMotivation


I am guessing there's a heck of a lot more to this story than just that little video, knowing some of the Metro people I know, this probably did not end there, but of course we won't ever hear about that, right


And wow.. post the actual treaty articles and the thread goes silent.. guess people are trying to figure out how to counter nothing that looks like giving up or losing...

reply to post by vkey08

actually, you are projecting and incorrectly at that

But of course you are the one claiming the treaty is where this all starts, and yet you cannot prove that without relying upon people like Miller et al and their youtube ramblings or blogs by more of the same.

i never said this all began with a Treaty ... you'd be mistaken.
i suggested answers to a particular question can be found within it and that's still true.

as for the nonsense quoted ... hahahahahahahahahaaaaa
i have never once referenced Miller or read any of his whatevers.
i don't have the capability to view any of the videos (as stated previously multiple times)
and i don't believe i've linked any 'blogs' ... just historical records and accountings, where are yours ?

oh that's right, the State Dept link you shared is quite interesting and although after 20pgs i have found NO reference to the Treaty of 1783, i have discovered some other interesting points not being discussed in this thread.
so, if you don't mind, i'll bookmark it for laters, thanks

if you are familiar with the exact entry, could you please copy/paste it ?
also, not that it matters, but i'm not a fan of Wiki, i prefer source documents.

hopefully, you are aware that it is anything but a recent publication or a 'source document'.
(2007 ?? i thought you said you had 'connections' )

got anything relative to the nullification of provisions in the Treaty we're discussing ?

reply to post by vkey08


All I am pointing out is that any corporation the U.S. "may" or "may not" be or have, would make perfect sense to be located in Delaware.

And to think that I am posting this on a conspiracy site.....

Right now I cannot tell........

As for mention of the US as a Federal Corporation. Let’s look at Cornell University Law Schools web page. That is credible here right?

Cornell University Law School

You will be looking at 28 USC § 3002 – 15. Scroll down to (15)

(15)“United States” means—
(A)a Federal corporation;

reply to post by vkey08

And wow.. post the actual treaty articles and the thread goes silent.

i was watchin the video
its' 7 min long
i'm only 1/2 way thru it
it's f***n awesome
kinda loud though
and then i'd have to search [no link provided] for that treaty
which is a waste of time cuz it;s all null 'n void anyway.
OPPT BABY!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by Honor93


Parts of the treaty were nullified by time passing, and that which they referred to no longer being relevant. There's no Congressional action that does that, time does.

And in the State link (that pdf) under United Kingdom and Peace Treaties is the Treaty of 1783, as well as 1823 (i think it was 1823) It has a footnote that only one article is still in force, the last time the State Department updated it was 2007, they don't update it every year. And that is, and will remain a source document, until they change it, at which time it will be replaced.

Now, you've made a lot of silly claims, and won't answer to any of them, at least I'm putting out what's there in black and white. Start putting up some of your proof, then at least i'll know what i'm looking for to counter it..

oh and page 16,

PEACE TREATIES UNITED KINGDOM — PEACE TREATIES^ Definitive treaty of peace.1 Signed at Paris September 3, 1783. Entered into force May 12, 1784. 8 Stat. 80; TS 104; 12 Bevans 8. UNITED KINGDOM — PEACE TREATIES^ Treaty of peace and amity. Signed at Ghent December 24, 1814. Entered into force February 17, 1815. 8 Stat. 218; TS 109; 12 Bevans 41. NOTE 1 Only article 1 is in force.