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

Originally posted by vkey08

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

You've shown the former, NOT the latter.

I never debated or disputed that the LEGITIMATE usage of the Uniform Commercial Code is valid,

Anyone can use the UCC code legitimately.

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.

Here the ANC govt blamed apartheid for the pope resigning, but they do that a lot lately. /jk

So tell me why I need to research anything about the invalid use of the UCC,

Because you clearly don't know much about it.

But so far, noone has shown where any of this is legal.

Not legal no, LAWFUL. Legality is only the appearance of law.

1) In a foreclosure, there is a procedure that needs to be followed.

Yeah, that's why MERS has been declared an invalid agent to act in repossesions, because the banks broke those laws for years with impunity. MERS had never had the legal or lawful right to foreclose, how many lives have they ruined while breaking the law? Are you saying this system is working? Where families are ruined for profit? Is that your contention??

2) If this is legal

Asking questions isn't the same as presenting facts. You've still not given any facts, merely thrown questions at things you know nothing about, and returned to vague generalisations about "everything they say is a lie". Now sincerely, if you cannot grasp the difference between legal and lawful, and its application in commercial law you really should get out the MSM box sometime.

The flags really did bring me in here, but you don't deserve any of them, very poor thread

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

lenders expecting collateral to loan DEBT is the problem.
how are you missing that ?

weren't you the one who said ...

If I loan you money, what "collateral" must I have? None.

so, how is that any different than what the bank is doing ?
they don't OWN the property, heck, they don't even own the debt they're selling.

or are you suggesting "shark methods" are acceptable ?

if i borrow $1000 from you and don't pay you back, does that give you authority to 'steal' any of my property ?
if not, then why are ppl forced (mortgage agreement) to grant such authority to any lender ?

and, once they have paid for it ... why don't they OWN it outright ??
whenever was the government granted authority to 'claim' against real property based on future speculative payments ... ie: taxes ??

Originally posted by harryhaller
But of course, your'e the top of the economic food chain,

Very far from it.

you have to believe that your priviledge is earned.

I've never believed and I have any privilege. And, in fact, I favor many social programs and have never call them "entitlements."

why are you defending the criminals we know about?

I never did. I've only ever advocated personal responsibility.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

who mentioned "mortgage delinquency" ??
if that was in the video, my apology, i cannot view it.

however, this conversation wasn't about 'delinquency' of any kind except to the government via taxes.
you know, that ball & chain that seems to be FOREVER attached to any real property of ANY kind.

the issue i brought to the thread has nothing to do with mortgage delinquency.
you changing the issue to suit your argument is noted.

I still find it very difficult to follow your logic, as if there's some core assumption you have that I've not yet grokked.

Originally posted by Honor93
so, how is that any different than what the bank is doing ?

Not sure what you think the bank is doing. I think they're giving me a note to pay back the cash they give me to pay the seller of the home I just bought. Let's start there.

they don't OWN the property,

Correct.

heck, they don't even own the debt they're selling.

I'm not buying debt from them, so I don't know what you mean here.

if i borrow $1000 from you and don't pay you back, does that give you authority to 'steal' any of my property ?

Only if we're entered an agreement where you've offered collateral for that $1,000.

if not, then why are ppl forced (mortgage agreement) to grant such authority to any lender ?

No on is "forced," it's all in the mortgage contract.

and, once they have paid for it ... why don't they OWN it outright ??

They do. I've bought two homes from people who had no lien/mortgage on the home.

whenever was the government granted authority to 'claim' against real property based on future speculative payments ... ie: taxes

Never. Only against historic unpaid back taxes.

Originally posted by Honor93
who mentioned "mortgage delinquency" ??
if that was in the video, my apology, i cannot view it.

The video showed a stack of delinquent mortgage bills being held and shown to the camera by the person trying to keep the home.

reply to post by vkey08
No, I'm getting your point exactly, the organization itself being the creation of fraudsters and non-legal paperwork invalidates itself, it is null and void, sure I agree. But the core principles, having nothing to do with the organization itself, but possibly masquerading as supporters of.
Such as freedom from slavery for every man, woman and child under the debt system we call central banking (at least in the form it now consists of).
To level the playing field so to say, today we are born in to societies we're we are forced to play by the rules, there is no mention of there being other games to play.

- I don't like John's rules but he forced me to play and I want out
- Oh, but you have to, John is the king and if you don't play his kingdom falls apart.
- But he is the king and has all sorts of comforts of course he wants to keep those. I don't want his place but I don't want to be part of his game serving him when he doesn't serve me.
- But that not have it works, he is the king you see.

We are now born into a very uneven playing field with no other options, it's seriously flawed and biased and the its curtains are falling down.

Where is the logic in listing a long line of appeals to emotion and using them as a basis to try and validate a claim??? For those quietly watching this interaction - pay attention to how a shell game operates. This is three card Monty and your freedom and good name are the wager that they are asking you to plop down on the cardboard box that they're using as a playing surface.

America was never a Democracy. It is a very specific form of Government called a Representative Republic. It is based upon Democratic principles, but is not, in fact, a true Democracy at all. If it were a true Democracy we'd all have to vote every single time our Government made any decision at all.

The fact that the USA, Inc. issue somehow got retabled just stymies me. But, hey, if folks want to believe that this country is actually a Corporation for amateur athletics, running out of Delaware, that owes just over a hundred bucks in back taxes, and was created by some woman in the late eighties? I suppose that falls under the auspices of personal choice.

It is almost surreal to me that it has been clearly demonstrated that people are going to jail over this and that fact is being rebutted with talk of treaties that predate the US as a nation and a few other straw man arguments and red herrings. I guess it is no surprise that a movement based upon some false understanding of the term "straw man" would feel comfortable using them for their own agenda.

It is easy for rhetoric to distract from reality in these conversations. Do I think that it's fair that a woman lost her home for a $3,500.00 tax bill? Of course not. I tend to think there is probably more to the story, but that doesn't really matter for the sake of this conversation. What does matter is that this woman losing her house has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. The truth is if that if this person sought to save her home by the tactics being discussed here she'd be out of her home and would be in jail for attempted bank fraud.

I live in the Atlanta, Georgia area and have a dog in this fight. For those reading, a quick Google will show you that Atlanta is pretty much the motherland for this movement. It's in our local news incessantly. Here it is a very common thing for "sovereigns" to try and take possession of empty houses. They squat, pull all sorts of attempted legal tricks, and end up going to prison after the law finally has enough time to process the paperwork, get the charges and warrants settled, and make an arrest.

One of the people I have to deal with in my real life is a firm believer in this stuff. It's rather funny. He and I will have heated and drawn out debates about it - standing in my front yard. He will tell me over and over again that he needs no drivers license, nor tag, nor insurance for his brand new truck - due to the commerce clause. He brags that every local cop assures him that he's right and that they are on his side. He brags that local judges support him and that even the insurance company has told him he is right.

At this I laugh because he does have a tag, and a license, and insurance. When I ask him why this is, he can never give me a straight answer. The best he can come up with is that is wife is uncomfortable exercising her rights and is still "asleep" - so he follows the artificial and irrelevant laws for her benefit.

Oh he also gets angry with me because I won't listen to his belief that there are seven ancient families in control of the entire galaxy - and that we're slaves of the lizard clan. But that's a different story.

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.

gotta agree with ya here and i think our education standard reverting to 'multiple choice' answers is exactly what has led us to this point and why so very many ppl can't or won't comprehend the difference.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

 

lenders expecting collateral to loan DEBT is the problem.
how are you missing that ?

weren't you the one who said ...

If I loan you money, what "collateral" must I have? None.

so, how is that any different than what the bank is doing ?
they don't OWN the property, heck, they don't even own the debt they're selling.

or are you suggesting "shark methods" are acceptable ?

if i borrow $1000 from you and don't pay you back, does that give you authority to 'steal' any of my property ?
if not, then why are ppl forced (mortgage agreement) to grant such authority to any lender ?

and, once they have paid for it ... why don't they OWN it outright ??
whenever was the government granted authority to 'claim' against real property based on future speculative payments ... ie: taxes ??

People that sign into mortgage agreements are acknowledging the fact that if they dont pay what they have agreed to pay, they are going to lose the home. I'm not aware of any bank or any private seller that will enter into a mortgage agreement into a buyer that does not provide for this.

Where's the problem with this? If the buyer thinks they might not be able to pay, they probably shouldnt be taking the risk.

reply to post by vkey08

1) if that's the definitive procedure ... then how did they lay claim to my home ?? back in 2007
[no appearances, no mediation and multiple pages of paperwork without proper signatures and some with clear evidence of robo-signing ... yet, they won, didn't they ?]

forget the fact that the one thing that could have stopped it all ... was a lawyer's signature on paperwork before an unexpected death.
all the while, keeping in mind, that the written and stated wishes of the property owner mattered not.

2) because the courts owe their allegiance to the Crown, always have, and probably will for some time.

and because i've never known any Captain to go down without a fight ... regardless how rough the seas become.

reply to post by flyswatter
What is property tax anyway? You have to pay to live on the earth you were born on? The most unfair and outright blasphemy against life itself. Must have been the executioner of satan that came up with that one.

Sure, in some places you can buy the land and not pay a penny, but that is rare and so incredibly expansive that few do it. It does ensure that the poor, who by this logic, cannot be allowed freedom and must be kept in perpetual slavery. Why is it still so that only the rich can buy themselves free? What makes a poor person any less of man than someone rich? Sometimes I realize we still live in the medieval times, it saddens my heart.

reply to post by flyswatter

This is why I have explained time and time again that efforts of these nuts would be better drected at changing the laws themselves.

and this is why so many others assert that those who are 'supporting' these 'laws' are lawbreakers themselves.

wouldn't it be more appropriate for those 'in the know' to lead the way ??
oh that's right, that's exactly how we got here ... silly me.

edit to add this personal disclosure ... i don't know what the promoted recovery of this plan really is or how it's figured but this "assault" on the characters of those supporting such a movement is ridiculous.

if i were to receive any amount of $$ from such a movement, it would likely go straight to a charity of my choosing ... however, i'm well aware that i don't represent the majority.
point being -- it has never been about the $$ -- and, if that is what is driving the opposition, they have my sympathy cause no amount of $$ can ever fill the void they must endure.

Originally posted by Konoyaro
What is property tax anyway?

In a perfect world, all tax is an investment in society. Property tax is intended to be an investment in the community in which the property resides. Pay for schools, roads, social services, facilities for others in the communities such as libraries and skate parks, programs for the poor, etc.

Now... we live in an imperfect world, so it's not all going to work that way. But sometimes it comes close enough to serve as an incentive for people to pay their property taxes.

Originally posted by Hefficide

One of the people I have to deal with in my real life is a firm believer in this stuff. It's rather funny. He and I will have heated and drawn out debates about it - standing in my front yard. He will tell me over and over again that he needs no drivers license, nor tag, nor insurance for his brand new truck - due to the commerce clause. He brags that every local cop assures him that he's right and that they are on his side. He brags that local judges support him and that even the insurance company has told him he is right.

Concerning the driving issue…..

TO TRAVEL IS A "RIGHT," NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED "PRIVILEGE”

Even if we wanted to trade are inalienable rights for man-made privilege, we cannot.

How about some precedent proving this, No problem, here you go.

The "RIGHT" to travel is a part of the liberty of which the Citizen "cannot be deprived" without due process of the law under the 5th Amendment. See: Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125

Even the legislature has no power to deny to a Citizen the "RIGHT" to travel upon the roadways and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, through this "RIGHT" might be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 N.E. 22

"Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, sign, etc., NOT a privilege that requires permission, i.e.; licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc..

The use of the roadways for the purpose of travel and transportation is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE, but a "COMMON AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived. (Emphasis added) See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, supra; See: Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934; See: Boone v. Clark, 214 S. W. 607;

The term "Public Highway," in its broad popular sense, includes toll roads, streets, highways-and roadways which the public has a "RIGHT" to use even conditionally, though in a strict legal sense it is restricted to roads which are wholly public. See: Weirich v. State, 140 Wis. 98.

The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public roadways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under the "RIGHT" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. See: Thompson v. Smith, supra.

The streets and roadways belong to the public, for the use of the public in the ordinary and customary manner. See: Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wn. 657; 168 P. 516;

The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, obviously differs radically from that of one who makes the highways his principal place of business and uses it for private gain ... See: State v. City of Spokane, supra

I haven’t even scratched the surface of case law refuting what you are saying to your neighbor. Please do not tell me that precedent and rulings by the Supreme Court do not count either.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord
Yes, I understand what it does in practice. But that specific tax in itself is the spawn of the devil, the chains of oppressed, it cuts the very wings of the angel. You forever pay your debt for being born, thank you it really enriches my life, it is almost completely unavoidable. I really can't understand why you should pay anything to live on the earth itself, you don't really have a choice. I'm not saying you can go in and take someone else place, that is their right and they can claim a reasonable living space till the day the die. I'm mean we must exist therefore property tax is the antithesis of life as it lays claim to be of higher status than your own existence.

No the world is perfect but we choose to make it imperfect, it is really quite a mystery why we choose to make things so convoluted and complex, we can't even recognize it for what it is any longer.

Originally posted by Konoyaro
I really can't understand why you should pay anything to live on the earth itself,

Lots of people get along without owning property and paying taxes on the property. Paying such taxes are not a prerequisite to living.

reply to post by harryhaller


How is it in South Africa that you can even begin to understand what the Uniform Commercial Code of the UNITED STATES is? I've posted several times what the UCC is and isn't and what the lawful usage of it is and isn't.. so here goes yet again.

The Uniform Commercial Code was an attempt to codify and regulate commercial transactions in the United States (not internationally, not intergallactically, within the United States) Not every states codes are identical but they are close enough, and there's some bit of uniformity to them.

Corporations use these codes to do business with other corporations and banks, as well as sometimes (as not all UCC codes apply) to individuals the purchase a good or service from that corporation or bank. (such as a toaster or a mortgage)

Now..

The OPPT and other Sovereigns try to use these legitimate forms for illegitimate purposes. They file the UCC-1 in an attempt to "lock" up their funds then try to file other documentation and UCC amendments to attempt to get funds from their Birth Certificate Holding Fund (or US Treasury Direct Account) which of course doesn't exist. Therefore they are breaking the law by using these documents for something other than their purpose.

Now take it a step further.. Are you with me still?

Ok.. The One People's Public Trust has used the UCC documentation to foreclose upon something thaty have no legal (or lawful) claim to, namely banks, corporations, and the government. Since they were never debtholders, to place these documents into file, is an illegal act, and as the courts catch up, they dismiss all of them as they go. It does not mean before they are dismissed that they are legal in any way, just that it takes time to catch up.

It would be like me, foreclosing upon the Above Network by filing a UCC statement claiming debt owed. I have no business relationship in writing or implied that makes Skeptic Overlord in any way responsible to me for any debt, and therefore he has not pledged to me the site as collateral in either writing or verbally. I cannot then, lawfully take form him that which i never had an interest in.

Are you still with me?

This is the basis for the OPPT's claims that they have the legal and lawful standing to take whatever they want, by simply filing the right forms, and it's not going to go anywhere except put some more people into an already overcrowded prison system. Now what part of that didn't you understand?

I know that I went into work all week and not one person did not receive their paycheck, not one person was thrown in jail for having an OPPT arrest warrant out on them, not one office was closed due to foreclosure, and not one thing has changed in realityland with regards to the way the Government operates.

Does this mean that the government is all great and infallible? Hardly, it just simply means that the OPPT is using a misconception of the laws to try and get their way, and it's doomed to failure.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by flyswatter

 

This is why I have explained time and time again that efforts of these nuts would be better drected at changing the laws themselves.

and this is why so many others assert that those who are 'supporting' these 'laws' are lawbreakers themselves.

wouldn't it be more appropriate for those 'in the know' to lead the way ??
oh that's right, that's exactly how we got here ... silly me.

edit to add this personal disclosure ... i don't know what the promoted recovery of this plan really is or how it's figured but this "assault" on the characters of those supporting such a movement is ridiculous.

if i were to receive any amount of $$ from such a movement, it would likely go straight to a charity of my choosing ... however, i'm well aware that i don't represent the majority.
point being -- it has never been about the $$ -- and, if that is what is driving the opposition, they have my sympathy cause no amount of $$ can ever fill the void they must endure.

edit on 15-2-2013 by Honor93 because: add txt

I dont have any issues at all with the end-game of these people of wanting to be "free". What I have a problem with is the path that they promote and encourage people to take to get there, which often results in a LOSS of freedom. Working to change the laws themselves would avoid this problem, and their end game would be (in theory) possible if they succeeded in getting these laws changed, and without any prison time or fines involved in the process.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

how do you figure it's "not stealing" ??
when did they OWN it ?
for that matter, when did they even have an 'investment' in it to re-claim ?

if you don't OWN it, yet claim it for yourself ... what is that again?

ohhhh, it's only 'stealing' when the less fortunate do it to the more fortunate ??
is that what your promoting ?

seems you want it to be both at once ... how is that possible ?
according to you -- it's "stealing" when ppl haven't earned or owned it -- check and agreed.

but then you insist it's "not stealing" when ppl who have NEVER owned it, claim and sell it for profit" -- please explain how that works.

contract with whom ??
mortgage was paid years ago ... what contract are you referencing ?

property taxes are a rip-off, that's the whole point.
property taxes vary year to year based on speculation ... and that's illegal when others do it.
it's been called all kinds of things ... but it is still illegal.

haven't found any such community (no taxes) ... but there are other ways around it
unfortunately, i didn't learn such until after the fact.

what contractual obligation ??
no 'contract' was signed with anyone after the mortgage was paid.
ohhh, you must be talking about that 'social contract' ?? maybe.

let's not forget ... the 'roads' that everyone uses as an example ... only transferred to the 'commerce dept' under Truman ... need a link?

so, based on your argument ... what of my property can you 'claim' when i don't repay the $1000 i borrowed from you minus collateral ??

really dude, it doesn't work both ways no matter how hard you try.