It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Unity_99
Oh, and most laws, the kind that try to enslave people, anything that doesnt deal wtih me going over to your place, raping, killing, stealing, basically, the other stuff, are unlawful.
Originally posted by ajay59
reply to post by forgetmenot
To add; I do hope you have the intestinal fortitude to leave this thread available somewhere for the base to peruse. I do realize that it could be extremely difficult for you to keep down if you did so though, as people discover it.
 Similarly, Mr. Meads in his documents and arguments references the Uniform Commercial Code [the “UCC”], which is American legislation to harmonize commercial transactions within the United States. That too is not relevant to this proceeding, and will not be applied by this court. That said, as the caselaw survey that follows illustrates, the UCC is also a common motif in material from Canadian OPCA gurus, and forms a significant element in much OPCA mythology. However, why anyone would believe that American commercial legislation would apply in Canada is baffling. Still, OPCA litigants indicate that this legislation has a broad, even extraordinary scope. My office has recently received a document where an OPCA litigant said the UCC applies to governments, “... whether interstellar, intergalactic, international, national, state, provincial, or local ...”.
Judge Leighton wrote:
Defendant has filed yet another document entitled “Mandatory Judicial Notice.” (See Dkts. #99, 86, 66, 59, 58.) The “Mandatory Judicial Notice” notifies the Court that Defendant “relies in good faith on the public/commercial REGISTRY entries as published at www.peoplestrust1776.org..., inclusive of Universal Law Ordinance, UCC #2012096074 . . . .” For lack of a better term, this is gobbledygook. The Court is unsure of the document’s purpose, and given its undecipherable nature, no response is expected from the Government.
The Court therefore feels some measure of responsibility to inform Defendant that all the fancy legal-sounding things he has read on the internet are make-believe. Defendant can call himself a “public minister” and “private attorney general,” he may file “mandatory judicial notices” citing all his favorite websites, he can even address mail to the “Washington Republic.” But at the end of the day, while sovereign citizens and Defendant cite things like “Universal Law Ordinances,” they are subject to both state and federal laws, just like everyone else. For the reasons stated above, no response is required by the Government.
Originally posted by Crakeur
reply to post by vkey08
ironic that toppt's suggestions, which are meant to "make you free," might result in your incarceration.