Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 35
237
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by tinhattribunal
 


I'm not sure what that has to do with my comment but I take it you are not looking at the picture of gold that is clearly stamped with its weight. As in "worth its weight in gold" - meaning gold is measured in weight and the weight is multplied by the current value ($/oz). So, in the case of these clowns stating 5 billion in gold, they are stating an amount that, today is measured in xxx tonnes of gold but, tomorrow, that amount will change.

Thus, their equation is impossible to declare.

Because gold is measured in weight, not dollar value.




posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by flyswatter
 





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



You have it backward. The US is a corporation and has non corporate entities. Although now days I doubt any of their entities are not corporations anymore. There is a reason the first definition is federal corporation. This beyond dispute.


The only thing that is indicated is that "United States" can be any of the definitions. You can change up the order and what it indicates will still be the same. You can call it any of the three, so if you want to call the United States a corporation, fine. Doesnt matter.

In the grand scheme of things, that definition is pretty irrelevant - when it comes to this thread, anyway. Until the laws themselves are changed, people attempting to work the system with bogus foreclosures and UCC filings will continue to be prosecuted and fined and/or sent to prison. Those individuals need to work to get the laws changed if they want any results.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Let's do a thought experiment....

Let's pretend your name is Joe Smith. I find this out, and I decide to go into downtown Atlanta and file to create a Corporation called "Joe Smith Inc."

Does that effect you in any way, shape, or manner? Does it negate or define you?
perhaps you should ask those who have suffered such identity theft ... it happens.


The delaware filing of United States of America, Inc as an amateur sports promoter as profession serves as reasonable doubt imo, so it is basically a shell company or otherwise more specifically a dummy corp. Big business uses such tricks to launder money, tax evasion, bribery and for other nefarious reasons.

It also guarantees relaxed restrictions. Makes perfect sense the ptb would file in delaware.
edit on 15/2/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 





The only thing that is indicated is that "United States" can be any of the definitions. You can change up the order and what it indicates will still be the same. You can call it any of the three, so if you want to call the United States a corporation, fine. Doesnt matter.



You simply don't know what you're talking about. Its not a suggestion it is being defined in the law for purposes of legal interpretation and the first definition is it is a federal corporation first and foremost.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by harryhaller

Originally posted by vkey08
So what's the problem you have really?


Well aside from the fact that you have much to say of little substance, anything you have said above could aply to barry and the bastards of the fed. Its all BS. You haven't been able to dispute that. So you're standing on a pile of BS (conventional politic) pointing at another pile of BS, that actually threatens your position.

1. There is a social contract,
2. It is misrepresented and enforced unilaterally, which voids ANY contract,
3. The "UCC" theory is entirely valid, it is just a cruder form of contract, and almost internationally recognised
4. The OP story is valid, OPPT is an organisation, but you attempt to rubbish the entire freeman movement at the same time. That's dishonest and false and ignorant.
5. Aside from pointing out that there are liars and thieves everywhere in society, moreso with barry and the bastards, you haven't provided any evidence? Just repeated an opinion ad infinitum.

Sorry OP, despite your scorn of people who wish to be free, you haven't actually debunked them? 33 pages and you tell us:


Originally posted by vkey08
No real research is needed


Shameful.


PS, so why did the Poep resign?


What is false and ignorant about showing that this movement, and anything associated with it is nothing but a scam?

I never debated or disputed that the LEGITIMATE usage of the Uniform Commercial Code is valid, I dispute what OPPT says that they can foreclose on anyone they wish using it. And with most of the Sovereign nonsense that claims that you can use the UCC to gain access to a trust account with unlimited funds and pay for bills by simply using the Accepted for Value method, please show where this is legal if you wish to rip into me.

As far as the Pope? He announced last year sometime (I think it was around July) that he would be resigning this year, he was hoping he could hang on but acknowledged that his health was failing and needed to go for the good of the church, the OPPT has and had NO part in that decision.

The evidence that they CAN do this, is nowhere to be found, and therefore, non existent, and as such makes the OPPT and by extension anyone who believes this UCC Strawman concept invalid.

So tell me why I need to research anything about the invalid use of the UCC, when it's all over the place and it's been made pretty clear that you cannot use it to gain free money or foreclose upon an entity that you dont' have claim to. It's just basic commercial law, that's why I say no research is really needed.

So to recap:

The OPPT CLAIMS to have foreclosed upon every company, government et al, in the world and made themselves, associated with a convicted con man, trustees of everyone's stuff.

The OPPT CLAIMS to have suspended the operations of all the above and issued Arrest Warrants for all people associated with above.

The OPPT CLAIMS that John Boehner was made the Interim President of the United States and that they (THE OPPT) prevented that from happening.

the OPPT CLAIMS that by everyone filing these UCC documents we can all have our part of this money they now have in trust.

But so far, noone has shown where any of this is legal. IN fact I asked a question last night, and it's been ignored by all the supporters.

1) In a foreclosure, there is a procedure that needs to be followed. Where is the summons, appearance, answer, mediation certificate, and order of strict foreclosure or foreclosure by sale... without all of those (although I don't think every state has mediation so I would let that one go) a foreclosure is not legal or binding.

2) If this is legal, why are the courts passing motions that nullify and void all of the OPPT's liens and documentation against all of these companies.

Answer those two questions someone.....



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by flyswatter
 





The only thing that is indicated is that "United States" can be any of the definitions. You can change up the order and what it indicates will still be the same. You can call it any of the three, so if you want to call the United States a corporation, fine. Doesnt matter.



You simply don't know what you're talking about. Its not a suggestion it is being defined in the law for purposes of legal interpretation and the first definition is it is a federal corporation first and foremost.



Not really sure how you can make that assumption since absolutely nothing indicates that, but fine. As I said, call it any of the three, call it all of the three. Call it a one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people eater. Whatever you want.

That changes nothing about the legality of the foreclosures or UCC filings that people are being thrown in prison for. Regardless of how you or I feel about the interpretation of the law, if the court system and the rest of the government says that those people are breaking the law, it's not really disputable - they are breaking the law. They are the ones that are charged with interpreting and enforcing the laws, so their word pretty much trumps our assumptions. This is why I have explained time and time again that efforts of these nuts would be better drected at changing the laws themselves.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by vkey08
The OPPT CLAIMS that John Boehner was made the Interim President of the United States and that they (THE OPPT) prevented that from happening.


i'm mainly just following this to see what comes of it but did want to clarify this point. From what i have read over the past few weeks this point was NOT made by the OPPT themselves. It was made by people covering the OPPT but the info was from their other "intel" sources. When this announcement didn't happen those people then claimed that there was no announcement because what the OPPT had done with foreclosing on everything stopped that plan from happening.

And i say "that plan from happening" because the whole thing with boehner being interim president was a "plan" by the "cabal" but with a new "face". IE the cabal was trying to implement a new system (NESARA) to make people all happy and go back to their reality TV shows and what not but really behind the scenes it was still the cabal in control. This all didn't play out because the OPPT filings stopped the cabal from doing anything.

anyway, just wanted to "clear" that up



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackangel13

Originally posted by vkey08
The OPPT CLAIMS that John Boehner was made the Interim President of the United States and that they (THE OPPT) prevented that from happening.


i'm mainly just following this to see what comes of it but did want to clarify this point. From what i have read over the past few weeks this point was NOT made by the OPPT themselves. It was made by people covering the OPPT but the info was from their other "intel" sources. When this announcement didn't happen those people then claimed that there was no announcement because what the OPPT had done with foreclosing on everything stopped that plan from happening.

And i say "that plan from happening" because the whole thing with boehner being interim president was a "plan" by the "cabal" but with a new "face". IE the cabal was trying to implement a new system (NESARA) to make people all happy and go back to their reality TV shows and what not but really behind the scenes it was still the cabal in control. This all didn't play out because the OPPT filings stopped the cabal from doing anything.

anyway, just wanted to "clear" that up


Doesn't change the fact that all that you just wrote is a major fantasy..



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 


not denying that at all. just wanted to put that out there since its not "true" so that the argument against OPPT isn't devalued in the eyes of the people that are for OPPT when stating "facts" that aren't "true"


/grabs popcorn and goes back to watching from the sidelines
edit on 15-2-2013 by blackangel13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyswatter

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by flyswatter
 





The only thing that is indicated is that "United States" can be any of the definitions. You can change up the order and what it indicates will still be the same. You can call it any of the three, so if you want to call the United States a corporation, fine. Doesnt matter.



You simply don't know what you're talking about. Its not a suggestion it is being defined in the law for purposes of legal interpretation and the first definition is it is a federal corporation first and foremost.



Not really sure how you can make that assumption since absolutely nothing indicates that, but fine. As I said, call it any of the three, call it all of the three. Call it a one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people eater. Whatever you want.

That changes nothing about the legality of the foreclosures or UCC filings that people are being thrown in prison for. Regardless of how you or I feel about the interpretation of the law, if the court system and the rest of the government says that those people are breaking the law, it's not really disputable - they are breaking the law. They are the ones that are charged with interpreting and enforcing the laws, so their word pretty much trumps our assumptions. This is why I have explained time and time again that efforts of these nuts would be better drected at changing the laws themselves.


I am not making an assumption it is well settled in law that a secondary definition is subordinate to the primary definition there is no interchanging willy nilly of the secondary with the primary. Legal terms are to define specifically and precisely their exact meanings for legal purposes. see Blacks law 4th deluxe pgs. 510, 1519

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



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Just to clarify what we are seeing here, OPPT is most likely not going to take foot right now but there is a certain psy-op going on here as well. They are spreading awareness that there is something beyond government and from what I've heard at least that part seems sincere so I'm is most likely done knowingly, it's something akin to Ron Paul's run for presidency but far from as clever or well spoken.

Gandhi have good saying for what we are seeing here:
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

We are somewhere between the laugh and fight stage but the seeds are taking root. That's also why there is such a hot debate over this matter. This forums existence is in itself a testament to that. Despite what OPPT really are and whether or not you even like the idea, it is there, like marketing you see, they may not be executing in manner which will succeed but it's certainly a good idea for mankind to pick up on. Most realize that I think. At the moment only a few people are willing to fight and will end up in prison, the rest of us will just have to wait until it's safe to move in on the prey, to put it bluntly.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Konoyaro
 


OPPT will NEVER take root, they rely upon slight of hand, fraudulent filings and just flat out making up stories, how is that good for anyone?



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

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?

what's so "hooey" about that statement ?
haven't you ever had anything 'stolen' by the government ??

i would enjoy observing you explaining your "hooey" statement to a friend who just lost her home for less than $3500.
5 generations in this home, mind you ... but, cancer and two unexpected deaths made tax payments impossible ... recently, it sold at a TAX Auction.

so. rather you spreading nonsense or calling reality "hooey" ... why don't you explain how the State/Fed or government of any kind has the right or authority to ASSUME and sell that which they've NEVER owned ??
{no, she didn't possess 'title/deed', the sister who died unexpectedly did and the sale took place before the deed could be transferred}

and let's not forget, quite a few slitherin' types use this "method" to steal property, daily.
need a link ?



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 

i didn't ask you to 'do more work', just prove your assertion.
obviously, that was asking too much.

regarding Article 1, since it doesn't it include "commerce", that clearly reverts back to the Crown, doesn't it ?

and that, is my whole point which you have yet to prove wrong.
i don't have to prove i'm right, the Article says so and you have provided no proof to the contrary.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

For example, the country's "social contract" with the government would have been nullified and void based on the fabricated evidence that brought us to war in Iraq.

You've stated an abstract utopian ideal that has no basis in reality.


No sir, you have?

While we'd agree that the US government should be dropped like a hot potato by any sane being, clearly they're doing alright. Despite more than half the people being very unhappy, the circus continues. And NOBODY has a clue about anything. Tell me that's their fault, that people were all taught a good understanding and strong base for life?

But of course, your'e the top of the economic food chain, and like good capitalists, you have to believe that your priviledge is earned. You're wrong of course. You got lucky, made some good calls etc, but someone else made the same calls and got unlucky.

The only Utopia is inhabited by the 1% who have trampled their way across the rest of mankind for that position. The rest of the world is in misery thanks to that same 1%. I won't even get into have the system has gone completely bonkers over future promises which have no value, yet somehow become worth more then all the available currency on earth.

It's ludicrous, morese than anything presented in this OP, and clearly criminal, why are you defending the criminals we know about?



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
i would enjoy observing you explaining your "hooey" statement to a friend who just lost her home for less than $3500.

It's sad and unfortunate, but not stealing.



why don't you explain how the State/Fed or government of any kind has the right or authority to ASSUME and sell that which they've NEVER owned ??

It's in the contract. Property taxes are required. If you suspect you may not be able to pay property taxes, or don't want to, then perhaps you should either rent or pick a community with very low or no taxes?

It's not stealing when a party reneges on a contractual obligation, and one of the remedies for the other party is possession. It sucks, yes. But it shouldn't surprise anyone.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by vkey08
 

i didn't ask you to 'do more work', just prove your assertion.
obviously, that was asking too much.

regarding Article 1, since it doesn't it include "commerce", that clearly reverts back to the Crown, doesn't it ?

and that, is my whole point which you have yet to prove wrong.
i don't have to prove i'm right, the Article says so and you have provided no proof to the contrary.


How do you get that commerce reverts back to the crown from Article one just because it's not listed in there, have you looked through the list of about 900 or so other treaties with the UK to see if it's addressed elsewhere? I honestly don't have the inclination to, as as far as I'm concerned, nothing has ever shown that we pay the crown anything or are in any way still associated with Great Britain other than our mutual defense treaties from NATO (among other things we share but not subordinate to)

So the Article does not mention commerce, yet you say it does and doesn't in the same sentence..

Anyhow until anyone answered to how this place the OPPT foreclosed on anyone without proper procedure, I dont' have to do squat for you all. I've now asked twice, and at least that's about the topic at hand, the Treaty of 1783 has NOTHING to do with illegally using the UCC to gain money etc.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 
Now now..you are putting words in my mouth or I may have written it in such way that you misunderstood, in that case I apologize, the OPPT itself will surely never take root...but the principle for which is stands is immortal.

America unfortunately has moved from republic where every citizen has a voice to democracy which is just one step backward towards dictatorship. I wouldn't even go so far as to call it a democracy but anyhow it's masquerading as one, the same goes for whether or not it is a corporation, it's a conglomerate of corporations masquerading as a national government.

It's fairly evident by now that they prefer democracy to individual power as it easier to control, but by no means is it good for the individual. Since the advent of the internet and it's means to empower the individual it seems reasonable that next model of society would also follow it as a blueprint for individual freedom.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Konoyaro
 


And you're missing my point, they have no principles, they are piggybacking on everyone's desire for change with immoral acts.. That shows a distinct lack of principles...



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I can't believe that people do not understand the definitions of the expressions "republic," "democracy" and "democratic republic," nor seem to know what system pertains to the United States. Please, at least take a basic Civics course before you try to argue law.






top topics



 
237
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join