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

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.

Yes it was.... why deny that? Simply go to their website and you will find it there....

reply to post by Honor93

how do you figure it's "not stealing" ??

Because it's not.

when did they OWN it ?

The moment you defaulted on your agreement to pay them back the money you owed them.

for that matter, when did they even have an 'investment' in it to re-claim ?

The moment you took their money.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord
What I mean to say is why is there a property tax at all? I understand what it does, it is a tax like all other. Why can't everyone just have a place to stay for free until you die, doesn't seem unreasonable does it? Here in Sweden for example I don't think anyone can escape property tax except for churches and governmental entities, we can buy our land but we still pay tax for it, makes sense? No it doesn't. There has never been any reason for property tax to exist except to control the populace and that is why it was put there in the first place and has since stayed there. It's a medieval tax and should be have stayed there.

reply to post by Konoyaro


How would towns and cities pay for police, fire, ems, road repair, etc if they don't collect some sort of tax?

reply to post by IntrinsicMotivation


Awesome! Tell you what... drive without a tag, license, and insurance - and then list those cases to the judge when you appear before the court. Then come back here and let us all know how that worked out for you? If you're lucky the judge will be kind enough to cite the cases, for you, that are a bit more modern than those that include cars and horse drawn buggies in the same context.

Basic civics... the Constitution clearly says that anything not enumerated within it falls under the auspices of the States laws. This is why your drivers license lists the state of issuance and is not a Federal document.

I'm just going to add that a right to travel has nothing to do with a car. It would be an amazing display of foresight if it did.

i have had an epithany :

and realised the uncanny parrallells beyween this OPPT / soverigh citizens etc and free energy / ZPE scams

both follow very similar paterns of "logic "

examples :

1 fuzzy claims and re-writing facts

the base claims of both ` camps ` rely on plain inventing facts or twisting accepted science / law into a perverse caricature

2 addressing critics

both mismiss critiics as " small minded " " closed minded " " unable to grasp the cmplexity " " cowards "

3 - addressing failure :

both blame the person who followed the vague " instructions "- but failed - " you did it wrong " they cry . - but cannot write instructions that do work

4 - transparency in sucess :

nither can actually put up a working model or precedent that is both unfalsifiable and denonstrably sucessfull in the public domain

thats it - just my observation

reply to post by Hefficide


How about from your home state of Ga.

The "Supreme Court of the State of Georgia" ruled:

In this connection, it is well to keep in mind that, while the public has an absolute "RIGHT" to the use of the streets for their primary purpose, which is for travel, the use of the streets from the purpose of parking automobiles is a privilege, and not a "RIGHT"; and the privilege must be accepted with such reasonable burdens as the city may place as conditions to the exercise of that privilege. See: Gardner v. City of Brunswick, 28 S.E.2d 135

Wow, look at that, it says automobile

As for the type of court you would be dealing with, an Administrative court where you are automatically guilty.

Anyways, according to this case, your neighbor can drive the streets there, but the municipality decided that if you want to park on public streets it becomes a privilege. In your case, in your state, you and your neighbor are technically right to a degree.

It's seems more like you're lacking fundamental knowledge in these matters.

Originally posted by Honor93
how do you figure it's "not stealing" ??

Because it is not. The entity providing the purchase loan places a lien on the property. This provides a right of repossession in the event of default.

when did they OWN it ?

In a lot of cases, never. The typical process is repossession, sale, distribution of funds. If you owe $100k on a house and don't pay, the lien-holder takes possession for the purposes of selling it. If it's sold for $200k, you get $100k minus all legal and cost-of-sale fees.

But... if they can only sell it for $50k, then you still owe them $50k plus repossession/sale costs. It's all in the contract.

Title/deed usually doesn't exchange from you to the new seller until the time of sale. Which further clarifies what oddities you're saying -- they don't own it if you don't pay, their lien allows them to take possession for the purpose of selling it.

for that matter, when did they even have an 'investment' in it to re-claim ?

The moment you signed the mortgage contract.

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.

See above.

contract with whom ??

We've been speaking in the abstract about mortgages.

property taxes vary year to year based on speculation

Typically, the variance is minor. It's been more noticeable lately because of the market volatility and home value cratering.

haven't found any such community (no taxes)

Vermont.

no 'contract' was signed with anyone after the mortgage was paid.

Tax obligations are typically required to be disclosed at closing. Changes in obligations come with your tax bill.

what of my property can you 'claim' when i don't repay the $1000 i borrowed from you minus collateral ??

Already answered.

reply to post by forgetmenot


I am forgetting to include a key concept in this. I apologize.

The law says it must be your property. If you are making payments and do not own the vehicle outright, then this does not apply.

reply to post by vkey08
There are plenty of other taxes, is there anything that is not taxed this days? I'm kidding of course, but its almost true. Taxes are not necessary when we have evolved this far to realize that taxes,in large, are not necessary. I realize that most have yet to see this point, so I'm here advocating it. You pay for what you use and what seems like a reasonable project to invest in, preferably you can even take part in it if you have the skills or maybe even learn from others, the horrid though of that just makes you squirm and shiver doesn't it? Responsibility to take care of the place you live? NO! Someone else will have to that. It all comes down to human kindness at its most basic level and I'm sure that is not just limited to me is it?

Our taxes these days are just generic waste money for people without conscience, reason and accountability to spend what can I say...defense budgets (not true for Sweden I should say we spend it on other ridiculous things), social security systems that are falling apart, this is very true for Sweden, still going but it's pretty much doomed, glad to the see the US jump on to the bandwagon, might be fun for a while but it just doesn't work in the long run, happy camping mates.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

i've made no assumptions and likewise, this doube-edge sword your wielding is rather scary.

does it matter what i 'think' the bank is doing ?
or do their actions speak for themselves ?

fancy words don't change the facts or reality.
so, let's use your example with different words.

they're giving me a debt to pay back.
the currency/debt they give me to trade with the owner of the home I just traded.
Let's start there.

fine, let's start there.
so, you get a debt to use as trade for real property owned by someone else ... and you really don't understand this concept ?
exactly ... they don't own either ... the real property or the debt/currency they are lending.

fiat currency IS debt and if you don't understand that, i can totally grasp why you are fighting the concept.

why would i 'offer' collateral for your loan of debt ?
that makes no sense whatsoever.

ppl don't 'offer' collateral to banks, either.
it is demanded to borrow more debt.

certainly it's forced or it wouldn't be in the contract.
none will 'offer' a contract without it, and, that could be perceived as extortion.

so, these two homes you bought don't require property tax payments ?
if they do require addl payments, you DON'T own them, you are essentially leasing/renting them from the State rather a private owner.

Never. Only against historic unpaid back taxes.

and that right there, is some classic double-speak.
i do hope others are paying attention.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

very well, thanks for clarifying ... i have no comment on a video i cannot view.

as for ppl being responsible for their actions, i compeletely agree.
as for ppl being personally responsible for their decisions, i completely agree.

as for ppl being duped into signing their rights away under fraudulent pretenses, i have a serious problem with that.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

 

as for ppl being duped into signing their rights away under fraudulent pretenses, i have a serious problem with that.

It is sad to think that this happens more than we all want to admit. When is the last time you stopped to read the fine print on anything completely before signing?

A great example of false advertisement - No contract cell phone plans, such as Boost Mobile. Then you go to their sight and realize that by purchasing time you agree to a conract where you have no rights except to in house arbitration provided by the company.

How fair do you think that turns out. I am sure the arbitrator rules in favor of the company paying them. If this was not the case, then they would leave you other options to settle disputes.

reply to post by Hefficide

treaties that predate the US as a nation

so, you're saying the US was NOT a nation in 1783 ??
proof please.

do share, how or where is it indicated that a corporation can use the UCC laws to its benefit and an individual cannot ? this has yet to be explained or even identified.

no, there really isn't more to the story and i find your assumption offensive.
[i could direct blame on the attorneys but i chose not to ... under their advisement, and much to her detriment, she elected to withhold 09's payment]

so, was it her decision, yes ... was it arrived at under the fairness of knowledge due all people, no.
were the 'attorneys' any help ? ... not to the client.

oh, and i suppose i should mention that the buyer of record is not a private individual ... but a corporate entity ... why was i not surprised.

sure it does ... it has everything to do with this conversation because such actions are exactly what the OPPT is attempting to end.

the truth is ...

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.

this comment is both false and unprovable.

and why would a bank even be involved ????
what do the 'banks' have to do with property taxes ??
please elaborate.

i don't live in Atlanta so i'll take your word for it, although i've heard different.

sovereigns are not generally squatters but many squatters claim to be sovereign.
there is a distinct difference.

reply to post by flyswatter

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.

yes, that is standard procedure.
doesn't make it right or just or lawful for that matter.

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.

hmmm, i can agree with the bank but private sellers ??
i'd guess you don't know too many.
my first property i bought for $1 ... and the rest is confidential.

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

i agree but what does that have to do with property taxes ?
they continue to exist and fluctuate long after the 'note' has been repaid.
and in light of that and the subsequent consequence for not paying the extortion, how can anyone believe they actually own it, outright ??

have you ever watched the housing market changes for longer than a decade or so ?
maybe you should.

Originally posted by Honor93
i've made no assumptions and likewise, this doube-edge sword your wielding is rather scary.

There's only one edge.

does it matter what i 'think' the bank is doing ?

It does to help clarify the context for the conversation.

so, let's use your example with different words.

It's best to use my words if you want to use something I've said as an example.

fiat currency IS debt

A monetary system based on Fiat is not a simple debt. I'm familiar with the "money as debt" concepts, and don't necessarily agree... neither does Kieth Hard of Anthropology Today

so, these two homes you bought don't require property tax payments ?
if they do require addl payments, you DON'T own them, you are essentially leasing/renting them from the State rather a private owner.

You are incorrect.

reply to post by Honor93


Because the UCC/Accepted for Value scam going round has people making something called a sight draft that's drawn against an imaginary fund held at the Federal Reserve in your name that was supposedly created when you were born and is actually the amount of collateral you are against debt to the IMF..

About 600K

That's how it becomes bank fraud.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

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.

since EVERY community pays property taxes, in a perfect world, all of what you mentioned would be resolved, expanded and beneficial for every member of said community.
in this world, where is that place again ??

Originally posted by Honor93

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.

yes, that is standard procedure.
doesn't make it right or just or lawful for that matter.

Why?

Consider the small community savings and loan owned by a local family working hard to give loans for homes to working class people in their community. (they still exist) Why should it be unlawful or unjust for the property to be collateral on the loan? You would rather default and ruin these hard-working people?