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.
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.
Originally posted by Honor93
perhaps you should ask those who have suffered such identity theft ... it happens.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 ??
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.