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

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by hawkiye
You can look it up on Dunn & Bradstreet They are all corporations now the local state and feds...

Don't mistake the default terminology of DUNS listings for official anything. It proves nothing. Many major companies don't even bother with DUNS numbers because it's really pretty much a scam.

It is right in the US code that I referenced that they are a corporation what more proof do you need?

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

www.law.cornell.edu...

D&B are not the only ones that list them you can look it up on any of the registries . Why do you say D&B are a Scam? What are they doing and who are they scamming? Why would they bother listing the US government as corporation if it were not true what would they have to gain? They list millions of corporations they search public records and databases for the information they are used all over the world to verify companies and corporations in fact the are the biggest listing agent used by business for that purpose.

All the federal government agencies are listed with them including DHS and even the Border Patrol and they are all corporations this is why they ignore the laws and the constitution this is why the ignorance of the people is killing this country:

The Clearfield Doctrine says they cease to be a government when they descend to the level of a corporation:

the government descended to the level of a mere private corporation and takes on the character of a mere private citizen . . . For the purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as an entity entirely separate from government.” Bank of U.S. v. Planters Bank, 9 Wheat. 22 U.S. 904, U.S. v. Erie Ry Co., 106 U.S. 327; Clearfield Trust Co. v. U.S. 318 U.S. 363 (1943).

“When governments enter the world of commerce, they are subject to the same burdens as any private firm or corporation.” U.S. v. Burr. 309 U.S. 22; See 22 U.S.C.A. 286e. Bank of U.S. v. Planters Bank of Georgia. 6 L. Ed. (9 Wheat) 244; 22 U.S.C.A. 286 et. Seq., C.R.S. 11-60-103.

These are supreme court rulings and the judges in every state are bound by them via the supremacy clause of the US constitution. We are dealing with a rogue government this is why Obama thinks he can do what he wants he is the CEO of a corporation posing as the president of the Federal republic like any CEO if he wants to do something he just issues an executive order. However We the people are not bound by it. Unfortunately most of we the people do not know this or their constitution...

Here is a thread I posted a memorandum of law to it is on the country sheriff but the first part is universal: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by hawkiye
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;

Also keep in mind that when "corporation" is not capitalized, the word typically is associated with an "Incorporated entity."

For example, we could have the Above Network Corporation -- capital C, as a corporate entity with shareholders.

But in the lower case, it could be used to describe a partnership, trust, conglomerate, group, etc. The Constitution does not allow the federal government to be a Corporation, but it does allow the government to create corporations -- such as the postal service.

One last post and I'm calling it a night...

Can someone that supports this simply answer me this:

If any of this had any shred of legitimacy, why aren't the richest people in the country doing it? These people have the best accountants and lawyers money can buy, right? They would be privy to the "scam" that the supposed "US, Inc." is running, right?

Can anyone just answer that? And if you can, please reference the public record of them doing so.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by hawkiye
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;

Also keep in mind that when "corporation" is not capitalized, the word typically is associated with an "Incorporated entity."

For example, we could have the Above Network Corporation -- capital C, as a corporate entity with shareholders.

But in the lower case, it could be used to describe a partnership, trust, conglomerate, group, etc. The Constitution does not allow the federal government to be a Corporation, but it does allow the government to create corporations -- such as the postal service.

I'm sorry this makes no sense. There is no difference between a corporate entity it's just another way of saying corporation. The United states code defines the title "United States" as a federal corporation. it does not get anymore clear then that. Capitalization or lack there of has nothing to do with what the code says there. Nowhere in law or statute is capitalization or non capitalization defined as making any difference and I have been studying this sort of thing for near 30 years now so if you can prove that wrong I am all ears.

Also where in the constitution does it forbid incorporation by the federal government? And since when does the federal government obey the constitution any ways? I am not defending this one peoples trust non-sense but never the less it is a fact that the current entity acting as the government is a corporation whether you believe they are the lawful government or not.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

wait a minute ... didn't you just assert that capitalization doesn't matter ?
(i don't really follow that argument)

if not you, others have - point is, if you understand it, please explain cause i really don't.
why would it matter if the entry was capitalized ?
isn't a corporation flexible in such a way as to be (all of what you listed) both at once ?

and if not, why would its function change its designation ?
i don't follow.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

it does allow the government to create corporations -- such as the postal service.

not sure where you got that idea but according to this info, not quite.
if they're wrong or i misunderstand, please clarify.

source
Although the USPS is often mistaken for a government-owned corporation like Amtrak, it is legally defined as an “independent establishment of the executive branch.”
As a quasi-government agency, it has many special privileges, including sovereign immunity, eminent domain powers, powers to negotiate postal treaties with foreign nations, and an exclusive legal right to deliver First-Class and Standard Mail.

In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the USPS was not a government-owned corporation and could not be sued under the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by vkey08

 

A trust in this sense is a monetary instrument that is used to hold collateral to be dispersed according to the trust setup.

As a novice, I think a trust itself does not require collateral. The trust is actual wealth, held and controlled by the trustee, for the benefit of the beneficiary.

The complexity of the trust concept is why it gets used by con men and why it could conceiveably be used by some form of controlling monetary power.

I take it that most of the OPPT's and the SC's rhetoric comes from the similarities between the PTB claim to our lives and property and the normal powers of a trustee in a trust.

I get the impression that because of your work you have seen that the OPPT and Sovereign Citizen Movement are becoming bigger? Or are they examples of many smaller but similar groups?

edit on 15-2-2013 by Semicollegiate because: the to they, no migraines intended

Unfortunately they aren't really getting "bigger" in the sense that they have more and more members, the membership that defines themselves as this movement seems to be changing to a more violent and confrontational bunch. Early on, every once in a while I'd come across someone who had gotten burned trying to do Accepted 4 Value or something like that, and they were genuinely sad that it didn't work, and we would just let them go on their way no harm no foul. Nowadays, esp with all this gun control stuff going on, they tend to be more confrontational, throwing around forms and misrepresented old rulings as proof they are 100% absolutely right in all ways.

Saw one of those little things in this thread that i need to respond to, namely the laws regarding Washington DC which are often used and misread to say that the Federal Government only exists in DC and that's when it became a Corporation, when in fact it was mean to allow Washington DC to be it's own "home rule" area, like most cities are.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

 

wait a minute ... didn't you just assert that capitalization doesn't matter ?
(i don't really follow that argument)

if not you, others have - point is, if you understand it, please explain cause i really don't.
why would it matter if the entry was capitalized ?
isn't a corporation flexible in such a way as to be (all of what you listed) both at once ?

and if not, why would its function change its designation ?
i don't follow.

no what he is saying is that in this instance the word Corporation with a capital C refers to an IRS recognized C, S or 501C 3 Corporation, that is legally a business. When the word corporation is NOT capitalized it refers to any number of types of organizations that are chartered as municipalities etc.. There is a difference there, and THAT is where this movement got the idea that if you Capitalize a name, it becomes a Legal Fiction, and that if you Capitalize the name of the country it becomes a C Corp, when in fact the distinction ONLY holds to the meaning of the word Corporation.

reply to post by Honor93


Honestly, if the State Department claims that only Article 1 is still active, then well Article 1 is the only still active one, I am not going to waste my time digging through years of congressional record looking for what you want, if you want to know when they went inactive then look for yourself, It's good enough for me to see that in the official record only article one of the Treaty of 1783 is still active..

But you can't prove anything you said still, so why should I do any more work.. This is not a one sided argument.

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by hawkiye
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;

Also keep in mind that when "corporation" is not capitalized, the word typically is associated with an "Incorporated entity."

For example, we could have the Above Network Corporation -- capital C, as a corporate entity with shareholders.

But in the lower case, it could be used to describe a partnership, trust, conglomerate, group, etc. The Constitution does not allow the federal government to be a Corporation, but it does allow the government to create corporations -- such as the postal service.

I'm sorry this makes no sense. There is no difference between a corporate entity it's just another way of saying corporation. The United states code defines the title "United States" as a federal corporation. it does not get anymore clear then that. Capitalization or lack there of has nothing to do with what the code says there. Nowhere in law or statute is capitalization or non capitalization defined as making any difference and I have been studying this sort of thing for near 30 years now so if you can prove that wrong I am all ears.

Also where in the constitution does it forbid incorporation by the federal government? And since when does the federal government obey the constitution any ways? I am not defending this one peoples trust non-sense but never the less it is a fact that the current entity acting as the government is a corporation whether you believe they are the lawful government or not.

edit on 15-2-2013 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

It seems that people choosing to define the United States in this manner are always leaving off the B and C from what United States can mean -

(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

What the above means is that when United States is referenced, it can be any of the above. It does not mean that it is always (A) a Federal corporation, or always (B) an agency, etc, or always (C) an instrumentality of the United States.

People just cant seem to grasp the fact that the United States HAS a corporation, but does not exist solely AS a corporation.

And to all of the OPPT and Freeman "sympathizers" out there ... you go right ahead and follow their recommended methods of UCC use and ways to "foreclose" on the government. If the thought of "being a martyr" and living in a jail cell is what you think "freedom" is, have at it. I'll sip my coffee and enjoy my work day while reading about more of you fools landing in jail.

Awesome thread!!

The best DISINFO deconstruction i've ever seen. Not even 200+ flags can hide the smell.

The singularly one sided contribution by ATS staff is quite revealing, the premises in the OP were weak, poorly researched, the same POV as the federal government's new organised response to "sovereign citizens".

Sovereign citizens are the new terrorists, convenient and in your homeland. Anyone who believes that the current social contract is anything more than an elaborate lie should really read more. I can't endorse the sovereign movement, as much as i appreciate their perspectives, but the current social order is a failure and a scam.

Some good information in this thread, good to see the ATS spirit is still alive.

reply to post by MystikMushroom


there's no legitimacy to the toppt argument. Take the promise of gold, for example. Everyone is entitled to either 5 or 10 billion dollars of gold. Gold is measured by weight, not dollars, because the value fluctuates and, therefore, weight would be a better means of measuring amounts. Of course, if they said everyone was entitled to xxx tonnes of gold, the value of said gold would be worthless anyway but the dollar value is appealing, the tonne amount is both ludicrous and prohibitive.

Originally posted by harryhaller
Awesome thread!!

The best DISINFO deconstruction i've ever seen. Not even 200+ flags can hide the smell.

The singularly one sided contribution by ATS staff is quite revealing, the premises in the OP were weak, poorly researched, the same POV as the federal government's new organised response to "sovereign citizens".

Sovereign citizens are the new terrorists, convenient and in your homeland. Anyone who believes that the current social contract is anything more than an elaborate lie should really read more. I can't endorse the sovereign movement, as much as i appreciate their perspectives, but the current social order is a failure and a scam.

Some good information in this thread, good to see the ATS spirit is still alive.

If you are using the staff response as your meter of how valid the One People's Trust is then you haven't' been paying attention to what's actually written. TOPPT is a sham, plain and simple, no amount of making things up, trying to claim that the UCC is the end all be all, and Sovereign nonsense is going to change the fact that it was set up by people in league with a scammer that was jailed for just this sort of thing, had a People's Trust scam going a few years ago with one of the current people and have made outrageous claims of foreclosing upon every bank, corporation and government in the world..

No real research is needed to know that you cannot simply file a UCC-1 form and foreclose upon the government and then issue sham documents and press releases claiming that all government officials are suspended form operation and that the government is somehow shut down. You cannot just issue fraudulent press releases that claim that John Boehner is the Interim President and that because of the OPPT they never announced it, and that somehow Obama is bound by this trust. And most of all you can't claim in press releases that you are indeed responsible for something you aren't, namely Benedict's retirement.

So what's the problem you have really?

reply to post by vkey08

Unfortunately they aren't really getting "bigger" in the sense that they have more and more members, the membership that defines themselves as this movement seems to be changing to a more violent and confrontational bunch.

earlier you all [ATS staff] were accusing them of being new age long hair hippy types
associated with ashtar command / galactic federation.

then the acusations change to malitia men, violent, otta control.

when , in reality, they're just regular people

get your disinfo straight guys,

you're making yourselves look bad.

reply to post by vkey08

No real research is needed

Originally posted by tinhattribunal
reply to post by vkey08

 

Unfortunately they aren't really getting "bigger" in the sense that they have more and more members, the membership that defines themselves as this movement seems to be changing to a more violent and confrontational bunch.

earlier you all [ATS staff] were accusing them of being new age long hair hippy types
associated with ashtar command / galactic federation.

then the acusations change to malitia men, violent, otta control.

when , in reality, they're just regular people

get your disinfo straight guys,

you're making yourselves look bad.

No, You are lumping two different things together.. I stated that the One People's Public Trust was associated somehow with Ashtar Command, not that ALL Sovereigns are.. Again a distinction you are ignoring to cherry pick an argument.

Originally posted by Honor93
however, by accepting 'citizen' status, i have voluntarily relinquished said ownership (and simultaneously granted 'authority') regardless of the payment record.

ABSOLUTE HOOEY!

Where do you and others come up with such utter absurd nonsense? And, how are you able to spew such drivel while (apparently) keeping a straight face?

Originally posted by hawkiye
Why do you say D&B are a Scam? What are they doing and who are they scamming?

They're scamming businesses. If my business has a very low DUNS credit score simply because it's new, they indicate the business is "likely to default" on payments to vendors. However, for a mere $2,495, they can "help me fix" that low score.

Ask anyone who's owned a real business for more than a couple years -- they spit on DUNS.

Why would they bother listing the US government as corporation if it were not true

The DUNS listing says "company" which is the default field name for the entity name.

www.youtube.com...

Please watch this, It's not oppt related but exposes the banking repossession scam.

Let’s get something straight here concerning a “Republic” & “Democracy”

A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.

Republic: That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated.

Democracy: That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]

Let’s see what the legal dictionary has to say

Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.

In a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. To solve a problem, only the whole body politic is authorized to act. Also, being citizens, individuals have duties and obligations to the government. The government's only obligations to the citizens are those legislatively pre-defined for it by the whole body politic.

In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people, is obliged to its owner, the people.

The people own the government agencies. The government agencies own the citizens. In the United States we have a three-tiered cast system consisting of people ---> government agencies ---> and citizens.

Now look at those last words “people ---> government agencies ---> and citizens”

We are all citizens and as such are subject to and inferior to the government as it has been pointed out by legal definition in Blacks Law by me and a couple other posters. If we are by that term “inferior to” and “subject to” this conflicts with the point of a “Republic” in which the government is hired by the people and is obliged to its owner, the people. So with the 14th amendment, we the people were transformed into citizens and as such are below the government.

We are not a “Republic” in practice. If so we would not have all these violations against it happening.

We are constantly told by our government we are a democracy, and as such, they justify these wars with the premise of “Making the world safe for democracy.” This makes no sense. Why make the world safe for democracy when it breeds a dictatorship?

If we really were trying to help other countries, wouldn’t we be better off helping them form their own republics?

But hey, if you can’t swallow those facts lets read what the U.S. Department of State has to say about Democracy U.S. Department of State

Supporting democracy not only promotes such fundamental American values as religious freedom and worker rights, but also helps create a more secure, stable, and prosperous global arena in which the United States can advance its national interests. In addition, democracy is the one national interest that helps to secure all the others.

With these goals in mind, the United States seeks to:
• Promote democracy as a means to achieve security, stability, and prosperity for the entire world;
• Assist newly formed democracies in implementing democratic principles;
• Assist democracy advocates around the world to establish vibrant democracies in their own countries;

The United States remains committed to expanding upon this legacy until all the citizens of the world have the fundamental right to choose those who govern them through an ongoing civil process that includes free, fair, and transparent elections.

Guess what word is not present on this official Gov website page I linked?
Republic