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

page: 41
237
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by CheckPointCharlie
 


Sure, tomorrow when I can use the pc. Tablet typing is one thing but copying links is another.

In almost every legal document you look at, names, addresses, terms etc are bolder, capitalized etc to ensure they can be seen properly lest there be complaint, later on, that one party didn't see it.

Never mind the wait, see below
edit on 15-2-2013 by Crakeur because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Legal definition of conspicuous
definitions.uslegal.com...


And Cornell explains the all caps in names on ucc docs here
www.law.cornell.edu...



§ 2-103. Definitions and Index of Definitions.

(1) In this Article unless the context otherwise requires

(a) "Buyer" means a person that buys or contracts to buy goods.

(b) "Conspicuous", with reference to a term, means so written, displayed, or presented that a reasonable person against which it is to operate ought to have noticed it. A term in an electronic record intended to evoke a response by an electronic agent is conspicuous if it is presented in a form that would enable a reasonably configured electronic agent to take it into account or react to it without review of the record by an individual. Whether a term is "conspicuous" or not is a decision for the court. Conspicuous terms include the following:

(i) for a person:

(A) a heading in capitals equal to or greater in size than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same or lesser size; and



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 

the small savings & loans were destroyed some decades ago.
yes a few are still around but very few.

the 'community' financial institutions are generally member-owned Credit Unions, not banks.

why are you stuck on defaulting a loan ?
i have never defaulted on a loan in my life.
then again, i haven't had many to default on either, i know better.

heck, the last time i acquired an automobile, i traded $50 and some sewing tasks.
regardless the actual cost of the automobile, the taxman got his 6% of the 'stated' value.
{for all anyone knows, i could have paid $5000 cash for it}

now, had i bought thu a retailer, my tax bill might have been out of my affordability range ... and quite frankly, that isn't for the taxman to decide.

and, i'm relatively sure that regardless the amount of actual 'tax due' no hard-working person was ruined following said transaction.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 


I do believe in Aliens but if they wanted to control us they wouldn't need this group of people to do it for them.
I can't see how anyone can win against the governments but I like to see people try.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
i've proven you absolutely wrong on numerous posts in this thread and not once have you even acknowledged your own error

You've not proven anything but your fundamental misunderstanding of basic financial concepts.



whatever, theft is theft ... i don't care what name you give it.

You are very much wrong... and it relates (apparently) to your fundamental lack of knowledge about contracts and finance (or, your obtuse stubbornness to accept anything other than your preconceived absurdities).

Taking possession of property identified in a loan agreement as collateral in the event of default is not, never has been, never will be theft. In fact, in a case were YOU defaulted, YOU are the thief as you've stolen money and reneged on your promise to pay back.



i understand the process,

By your words, you've demonstrated many times you have nothing that approaches understanding.



we are discussing eternal extortion ... generational even ... so, how is that not stealing ??

Oh. We were discussing mortgages at one point.

Apparently you equate being taxed by the municipality in which you chose of your own free well to take up residence with your own plot of land and domicile as extortion. So then... why did you buy a house?



you cannot lawfully repossess property that has been PAID IN FULL.

I can't, but the municipality can when certain conditions of tax delinquency has been met. But even then, they are required to sell the property to obtain their compensation, and return any amounts in excess of their due-bill to you. It's rather fair. Sucks. But fair.



and if a retailer were to try it, they would be jailed.

Retailers do not have a claim to the My Little Pony boxed DVD set you just bought.



transferring a title doesn't necessarily involve sale or purchase.

It always does.



i was referring to the TAXman, not the mortgage company and you know it.

No I didn't. As I've said before, your logic is often hard to follow. You quite often flipped from rhetoric that appeared mortgage-related, to uncommon terminology and references for taxes and tax levies.



when did the State/taxman ever even have an 'investment' to re-claim via perpetual, fluxuating extortion ?

Impossible to answer as you're not using terminology that makes any sense.

But if I guess... I think that particular question has been answered -- you need to pay your taxes.



no, my point has been 'taxes' and theft, just like what the OPPT appears to address.

Taxes suck. They suck worse when the government sucks. But it's not theft.



Vermont ?? no thanks, i left the north for a reason.

I love the culture in Vermont. Just not the climate.

New Hampshire is also very cool from a culture standpoint. Live free or die.



no, you avoided it then and you're avoiding it now.

You're avoiding the truth and layering it in a stinking pile of fabricated horse manure.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
why are you stuck on defaulting a loan ?

Because that was the actual topic of the post you replied to... for which I then replied.

(@@)



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by LEL01

I can't see how anyone can win against the governments but I like to see people try.


As do I. What I don't like is when someone comes here, promoting a scam.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
Legal definition of conspicuous
definitions.uslegal.com...


And Cornell explains the all caps in names on ucc docs here
www.law.cornell.edu...



§ 2-103. Definitions and Index of Definitions.

(1) In this Article unless the context otherwise requires

(a) "Buyer" means a person that buys or contracts to buy goods.

(b) "Conspicuous", with reference to a term, means so written, displayed, or presented that a reasonable person against which it is to operate ought to have noticed it. A term in an electronic record intended to evoke a response by an electronic agent is conspicuous if it is presented in a form that would enable a reasonably configured electronic agent to take it into account or react to it without review of the record by an individual. Whether a term is "conspicuous" or not is a decision for the court. Conspicuous terms include the following:

(i) for a person:

(A) a heading in capitals equal to or greater in size than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same or lesser size; and


Finally, something of substance. I would like some time to study these definitions/this document. I have to pay less attention to this thread and more attention to my lady T the moment. Please forgive my response if it doesn't come for a page or two...



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by forgetmenot
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.


And you would be wrong of course...


Here are the supreme court cases affirming this right:

"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." [emphasis added] Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163.

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways 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 law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

Mudook v. Penn. 319 US 105
1943)
“A state may NOT impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution
... No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.”

Its time to learn and understand your constitution and the land mark cases that affirm and uphold it folks!


privateaudio.homestead.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...






Sorry I had to leave to go perform at a show. Did not mean to leave anyone hanging.

When I posted all those case laws about driving to Heff and then I was told that it did not apply to automobiles, I take it they did not bother looking at the cases.

For example Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago

If something has a motor it is an automobile. Great logic there guys


Besides that many of them directly state automobile. WTH is happening in here?

Do you see only what you want to see?

You do know that Denial is more than a river in Africa



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
Legal definition of conspicuous
definitions.uslegal.com...


And Cornell explains the all caps in names on ucc docs here
www.law.cornell.edu...



§ 2-103. Definitions and Index of Definitions.

(1) In this Article unless the context otherwise requires

(a) "Buyer" means a person that buys or contracts to buy goods.

(b) "Conspicuous", with reference to a term, means so written, displayed, or presented that a reasonable person against which it is to operate ought to have noticed it. A term in an electronic record intended to evoke a response by an electronic agent is conspicuous if it is presented in a form that would enable a reasonably configured electronic agent to take it into account or react to it without review of the record by an individual. Whether a term is "conspicuous" or not is a decision for the court. Conspicuous terms include the following:

(i) for a person:

(A) a heading in capitals equal to or greater in size than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same or lesser size; and


Am I reading it wrong or does this indicate that a name is capitalized form actually deems it as conspicuous. Forgive my comprehension at times. I'm a busy fella, lol.

Furthermore, why would the UCC have bearing on a traffic ticket?



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 

wow, if you buy into that, it's no wonder you have the opinion you present.
you do realize it's from 2007, right ?

for starters, i never saw the movie they referenced, so i have no comment on its content.
your link

as for this line ... i disagree.

Money marks social relations in capitalist societies
in a truly capitalist society, SKILL is the primary trade value.
what and how it's traded determines the exploitation soon to follow.

from doctors to janitors, it matters not.
the more skill, the greater the reward.

unfortunately, in this corporatist society, the greatest skill of value seems to be the ability to exploit the skill of others.

imho, the 'fractional reserve system' is the failure not those who have been forced to depend on it. i mean really, aren't they the biggest teat of all ??

they present as both the maker/creator and distribution agent.
(sounds like a make-shift mommie to me)

then it goes on to say ...

Debt and credit are two sides of the same coin
and i'd have to firmly disagree.

debt is not necessary to establish credit.
and credit is not dependant on debt.

although, the greater number of ppl who believe the quoted statement, the easier it is to keep the 'con' afloat.

let's keep it simple, ok ?
buying and selling are forms of 'trade', nothing more.

money is not necessary to 'trade' but something of value is.
some ppl choose to use money, others don't.

yes, money is a 'standard', that doesn't mean it's a good one.
and at this point in time, it is 'backed' by even less than it was 20yrs ago.


The role of state-sanctioned banks in creating money involves some sleight of hand
no kidding.
thanks but i'll leave those tricks to the likes of Copperfield



the norm of economic growth is fed by our own desire to get ahead, not just by bank interest
again, i disagree.
there is no 'norm' of economic growth ... see the past 100yrs for verification.

bank interest should be ILLEGAL.
they don't own their product, they don't create it and they don't even manage it and for that, they have no reason to charge interest.
(just another middle-man scraping the cream off the top)

so, if you understand futures and derivatives, what's with supporting 'speculation' ??
isn't that a gambler's fantasy ?

i lived through the 70s, did you ?
i remember the gas rations, green stamps, food rations, heat and oil restrictions in mid-winter and the infamous pink slips ... it was nothing i'd care to repeat.

after that it goes into a tangent about totally unapplicable points.
some correct, some not but otherwise, off-topic.
considering what's stated above, i hope you'll forgive my neglect to read beyond the abstract



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
Legal definition of conspicuous
definitions.uslegal.com...


And Cornell explains the all caps in names on ucc docs here
www.law.cornell.edu...



§ 2-103. Definitions and Index of Definitions.

(1) In this Article unless the context otherwise requires

(a) "Buyer" means a person that buys or contracts to buy goods.

(b) "Conspicuous", with reference to a term, means so written, displayed, or presented that a reasonable person against which it is to operate ought to have noticed it. A term in an electronic record intended to evoke a response by an electronic agent is conspicuous if it is presented in a form that would enable a reasonably configured electronic agent to take it into account or react to it without review of the record by an individual. Whether a term is "conspicuous" or not is a decision for the court. Conspicuous terms include the following:

(i) for a person:

(A) a heading in capitals equal to or greater in size than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same or lesser size; and



VERY GOOD CRAKUER...

person = serf ... person is a legal term used instead of serf, serf meaning slave.

agent = one who acts in place of ... the agent [ultimately] acts in place of the king, or pope, as he is not able to be present.

by this document...

ALL CAPS is used to identify a slave [person] to it's owner [king/ pope]

and that's that.




posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   
For those who seem to be confused about mortgages and foreclosure, it's simple.

Whether you borrow gold, "fiat currency" (US Dollars), diamonds, or plutonium, from another person to finance your new home, the lender, unless he's he's simply giving you the property by buying it for you and states that in the contract, is going to require the property to be put up as collateral, in the event you fail to make the monthly payments.If you fail to repay the lender gets to foreclose to recollect his investment in the hope of selling it and being brought back to unity.

Why would anyone lend anyone else anything of value to buy a house or any property without knowing he can recoup most if not all his risk in the event of a default? This is silliness. The ownership question is answered in the deed of title on all transactions. There's no question about who owns the property in a sales transaction. If there is a question the title insurance won't be issued and the deal will not go through.

Springer...



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 


A lot of communities in my state have a system where if you lose your job, or end up geting old and can't pay the taxes on your home any longer they waive the tax and allow people to keep their homes.
that sounds like a good and worthy program.
it isn't one i'm familiar with in the least, so i hope you understand if i reserve further opinion.

here, the elderly, feeble and 'ignorant' are exploited at alarming rates.
i recently helped someone with a transfer that was originally written as a NON-transferrable VA loan. aside from the non-transferrable part being unlawful, it was an inter-family transfer at that.

even our veterans are 'targets' of this nonsense.
and that's not just sad, it's disgusting in my book



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Springer
 


I think the moral issue is clear. If you borrow money or accept debt in return for physical property (a house) I think most would agree that it is clearly right to pay the money back, as agreed upon. I don't think that concept is lost on the members who disagree largely.

I think the problem comes in because some of our members believe that the inflation, revaluation, property tax assessment and the reasons somebody would be in default for the most part because of a lost job or deflated economy are in large part due to government corruption, mismanagement and general deceptive practices.

You guys run one of the most successful conspiracy sights on the internet. There are bound to be some very smart conspiracy theorists there and maybe, just yet, we can't say without any doubt, they are ALL wrong. The banking system and resulting mortgages when considered with the recent bottom dropping out and mass evictions is a complicated set of circumstances that I really don't think anyone has figured out yet, at least where the bottom ends.

It's a evolving and dynamic situation and one that I feel is still undecided. The argument between what is fact and what is perceived and quite possibly rightfully so as banking corruption is a very blurry line. possibly not one at this time that can be outlined clearly.

Just sayin.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
as for this line ... i disagree.

Ah. So there it is. You disagree with an oft referenced academic study of money, its origins, and its application in modern society -- so by default you must be right.

You've proven time and again you're ideas are baseless and meaningless. Now you've done it again by rejecting a respected analysis.

Good luck.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 

basically, yes.
ppl who do not own, do not pay property taxes directly.
the property owners do.

how can they be counted if they don't pay property tax or own property subject to the tax ?

i stated "please, link any property belonging to the public in general that is tax exempt."
{even our sports stadium that we paid addl tax to build isn't tax-exempt}

so, how does that apply to renters?
the property is still being taxed and paid whether it's rented or not.

the rest is nonsense.
i asked for examples of property owners who AVOID paying property taxes and get to keep the property.

churches do not belong to the public at large.
(they are either private or corporate)

the property occupied by tax exempt organizations (corporations) don't belong to the public at large either.

care to answer the question as posed ?

the prior assertion was ... "Lots of people get along without owning property and paying taxes on the property." -- no, they don't.
without a property owner (paying taxes), there are no renters.

an individual cannot even park overnight in a State Park without paying 'tax'.
{even though we already pay a tax to maintain it}


Paying such taxes are not a prerequisite to living.
sure they are ... as requested, link ANY residential (since you specified 'living') arrangement that doesn't involve a property tax.
{and this question is exlusive to the US in case that matters}



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 

i never said it was or should be unlawful to execute the 'agreement'.
where did you get that idea ?

no, property taxes aren't a fact that we have to live with and if more ppl agreed, we'd already be free of them.

it's truly a relief to read this


Would I agree with the city taking a home due to non-payment of the taxes? In most cases, probably not

no, the block sale was a min $33,000 opening bid.
the tax delinquency was less than $3500.


What I could see them doing is placing a lien on the property the home sits on, making the owner unable to sell the property unless the lien is satisfied or an agreement is worked out to pay the lien off with proceeds from the sale.
in 08, under the advisement of counsel, that was the 'plan' (to sell the property) ... hence, the advice to withhold 09's payment.

following in the ignorance of most (and not being the original deed/title holder) she 'thought' it would be paid in 10 should the decision to sell change. (housing bubble and all)

her mother (title co-holder) passed away unexpectedly and breast cancer struck ... post mastectomy/reconstruction, 10 came and went without payment and when she called the TC office in '11, she was told "it's been paid" ... not, it was sold as a Tax Certificate (lien).

so, as '12 begins, and the housing market improves, they (her and sis) decide their still gonna sell. (remember, she thinks 'it's been paid' ... per the TC office)

anyway, end of '12, sis dies unexpectedly and a few weeks ago, she appears at the door on a Saturday evening full of tears and a tale of a strange man that knocked on her door, seeking to 'buy-out' her interest in the property before the scheduled sale, Monday morning.

after confirming online that the sale was indeed scheduled (without official notification to the property owner mind you) we proceeded to prepare her for the inevitable and help as best we could.

i am not saying this is anyone's 'fault' but her own, however, that doesn't absolve the process of its inherent flaws either.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
For those who seem to be confused about mortgages and foreclosure, it's simple.

Whether you borrow gold, "fiat currency" (US Dollars), diamonds, or plutonium, from another person to finance your new home, the lender, unless he's he's simply giving you the property by buying it for you and states that in the contract, is going to require the property to be put up as collateral, in the event you fail to make the monthly payments.If you fail to repay the lender gets to foreclose to recollect his investment in the hope of selling it and being brought back to unity.

Why would anyone lend anyone else anything of value to buy a house or any property without knowing he can recoup most if not all his risk in the event of a default? This is silliness. The ownership question is answered in the deed of title on all transactions. There's no question about who owns the property in a sales transaction. If there is a question the title insurance won't be issued and the deal will not go through.

Springer...


That is how it is supposed to work however Mortgages in reality do not work that way they are in fact fraudulent and no money was ever loaned to the borrower. The loan was funded by the promissory note not by any money the bank had on hand. The borrower funded his own loan and the Bank pretended like it loaned him money it is quite the scam and largely responsible for the housing bubble that crashed in 2008. As the bank creates computer entry money based on promissory notes times 9 of the value using fractional reserve this inflated the bubble till it popped. And they're are doing it again now. If enough people understood how mortgages really work there would probably be a revolution by morning.

Here is a more detailed description:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 01:25 AM
link   
You know...I am actually kind of astonished. This is the first thread I've seen in YEARS on ATS that actually follows the "Deny Ignorance" motto. I expected to see an OP supporting this OPPT non-sense and its legal gibberish foundations. Instead I see a OP who presents logically and calmly why OPPT and the concepts behind it are complete BS, and posters actually agreeing with him and providing evidence! Well done, ATS.





new topics
top topics
 
237
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join