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

Originally posted by fourthmeal
reply to post by flyswatter

 

Why do you expect success in court if court is proven part of the fraud? "successful" cases are dissolved! The real success is from people who never step foot in court, knowing the result will be their railroading. The real success is from people who assert themselves and state who they "BE", and demand of their accuser or DEBTOR who they are, and why they assert they have authority over someone else.

We're also talking about a movement who's in its infancy of just under 2 months. You can't expect me to produce anything more than what is available at the moment. Really the only proof you'll have at the moment is the proof you choose to discover for yourself, the only one that needs to decide. I've given you countless links to radio shows with discussions about all this, so you can learn of what resonates for you, and what doesn't. Listening to them was my way of understanding this. Also having a background of the basics and history from independent research, folks like Santos Bonacci, and Jordon Maxwell, and others helps. I don't care if you consider those sources invalid, you must find your own anyway.

Try 2 1/2 YEARS, Heather's been at this.... a far cry from just under 2 months.......... her first attempt failed because Miller ended up having to plead out to fraud charges, says volumes for her "movement"

reply to post by vkey08


You aren't. You have said, how many times, that you believe the government is NOT a corporation. Further, you said numerous times that the UCC does NOT have international equivalents that are valid. You've proven incompetency in this topic. I'm not competent at telling you what a solar flare will do, so I don't much preach about it or even post.

Now, let's just take a quick second through google search, and prove UCC international equivalents. Mind you, this is all just one quick pass, not even registering and paying for UCC full access.

www.dgslaw.com...
www.michbar.org...
www.docstoc.com...
www.metrocorpcounsel.com...
lrgny.com...


Hey and for fun, let's prove that the UK is a corporation www.sec.gov...





And on-topic but not on-post topic, for the last time I do not know Heather personally. I am one of the people, as are you, as is she. She is just one person, the trustees are others. All are equal. All have a job to do. I have no idea what my job is but I feel compelled to put truth in these threads so that's what I'll do.

Originally posted by fourthmeal
reply to post by flyswatter

 

Why do you expect success in court if court is proven part of the fraud? "successful" cases are dissolved! The real success is from people who never step foot in court, knowing the result will be their railroading. The real success is from people who assert themselves and state who they "BE", and demand of their accuser or DEBTOR who they are, and why they assert they have authority over someone else.

We're also talking about a movement who's in its infancy of just under 2 months. You can't expect me to produce anything more than what is available at the moment. Really the only proof you'll have at the moment is the proof you choose to discover for yourself, the only one that needs to decide. I've given you countless links to radio shows with discussions about all this, so you can learn of what resonates for you, and what doesn't. Listening to them was my way of understanding this. Also having a background of the basics and history from independent research, folks like Santos Bonacci, and Jordon Maxwell, and others helps. I don't care if you consider those sources invalid, you must find your own anyway.

Ultimately, the end result is people having their freedom, correct? With that being the case, how can you consider them to be successful in their pursuit of their goal? As shown in multiple cases, people have been thrown in jail for this and achieved exactly the opposite of their goal by following the advice of the OPPT. By losing their freedom, wouldnt that be considered a failure to achieve their goal?

I'm not looking for proof of the idea behind all of this, or the proof of the concept. That is not what I am arguing in this instance. I am looking for proof that these individuals are even capable of achieving their end goal of freedom.

And Fourthmeal:

here's what "resonates" with me.. IN as plain English as I can put it without being banned.

There is a woman who lost her home due to foreclosure and got upset. She then tried to have a Moroccan Trinkets Business, which did well for a while, but hm. She was a lawyer who gave up her license, and the firms she claims to have worked for have never heard of her, nor have the banks she claims to have worked for. NOw she sees an opportunity to maybe dupe a ton of people, mind you even the best scams, take some setup time, and they dont' ask for donations until:

Hey everyone, we need cash to move the gold, we have the trucks, through OUR trucking company, but we can't afford gas and the like, can you all chip in a few bucks to help the cause and get the world back?

This has been tried before, it will be tried again, and each time, they more and more add all of the Woo together into a sweet sounding nice thing until you look under the rock and see it for what it really is, a scam of absolutely mind boggling proportions.

Now you may not be ready to accept that, and heaven knows you wouldn't be the first person to partake of the scam and be too wrapped up in the fuzzies to see it, but when it hits, and I can guarantee it will, we will still be here, and we won't say "we told you so" because it's the worst thing in the world to be conned.

reply to post by vkey08


The information about OPPT has been public since Dec 25, 2012. Prior to that, it was not known publicly. Prior to that, there was a similar trust set up that Heather and Charles were trustees, and prior to that there was an investigation. Prior to that, Heather had a decade of commercial law experience. Prior to that, I have no idea, I don't care.

reply to post by fourthmeal


nope, I found the post and, yes, my recollection was off

Originally posted by fourthmeal
Each trustee created a trucking company to follow the paper trail through the UCC and to its Agents and Principals. They are not "truckers".

if they aren't truckers, why do they have DOT licenses? they could have, just as easily, formed a company that didn't require government licensing and, more important, why get a license if the licensing process isn't valid?


why have your fake business listed on sites to drum up business?

seriously, it makes no sense at all.


since queen heather is so intent on transparency, why doesn't she post the ucc filings used to obtain her DOT license for her trucking company? I'd love to see how she received a DOT license using a UCC filing.

And I'd like to see the UCC filing she used to set up her LLC.

Wait, no, I'll just order the forms from the state of washington. public records being what they are, we can see if she incorporated using normal channels or if she used origami UCC filings.

Originally posted by fourthmeal
reply to post by vkey08

 

You aren't. You have said, how many times, that you believe the government is NOT a corporation. Further, you said numerous times that the UCC does NOT have international equivalents that are valid. You've proven incompetency in this topic. I'm not competent at telling you what a solar flare will do, so I don't much preach about it or even post.

NO I said that the UCC is not International Law.. not that it didn't have an equivalent sort of law in another country.. The Revised UCC 9 applies only to the USA, that is a fact, whether other countries have an equivalent, I would assume they do, but it's NOT the UCC. This is a case where you twist what's been said to fit your goal.

Filing a document in the Unites States UCC system does not make it binding upon Iran, sorry don't work that way.. And filing UCC documents with BE and DO and State of Being, automatically invalidates them, according to the rules.

NOW.. If you wish to continue to do this, please answer my question:

When the police stop you in Vegas, what will you do? Will you hand them a courtesy notice or will you actually do the right thing...

As for the corporation thing, asked and answered, not going there again.

Originally posted by vkey08
reply to post by fourthmeal

 

Another tactic, making it seem like rational people don't have their own minds.. Seems to be the common theme when someone cannot back up a word they say with any proof.

The fact, fourthmeal, is that you talk tough, you wont' link us to this supposed forum your'e asking all of these questions on so we can ask some of our own, they won't come here to answer them, and we're left with the reality, that none of what was done was legal, and that as time passes, it will become relegated to the annals of nutcase reading.

I noted early on that the people, outside of staff that seem to be able to latch onto the fact that is is a big scam, are the ones that have gone the extra mile and not relied only upon AK or HeatherSpeak...

You refuse to even file a UCC courtesy notice, or respond to how you would handle a simple traffic stop, if you think they have no authority over you, then you would be willing to share that you are 100% behind this woman and her ways of doing it.. You aren't so that makes you a ..


HYPOCRITE.. Blasting us for not taking her seriously, while you stand there and yourself say you aren't' going to do what she asks of you.. At least I know where I stand, and honestly if you go to jail for following the Pied Piper of Perdition down her hole, no sweat off my back.. But I would hope as you put it so nicely, that intelligent people could see this for what it is, a big TRUCK:load of Nothing...

What is proof? The system of law which you are so adamantly defending I believe considers proof as first hand knowledge or testimony all else is considered here say. Is that true or false? Can I prove it?

Law/truth are found were two or more parties agree. Is that statement true? Does the afor mentioned statement constitute the foundation of a contract?

Please answer and yes it is a trap.

reply to post by vkey08


And of course this would be completely wrong. The history and paper trail proves otherwise.


That, and you have a nasty habit of assuming who people are, what they do, and taking assumptions based on partial information as fact.

Does everybody here understand that I know what the Delphi technique is? Is this clear? Can we stop using this technique in this thread, PLEASE?

Originally posted by Eyesa2diffcolors

Originally posted by vkey08
reply to post by fourthmeal

 

Another tactic, making it seem like rational people don't have their own minds.. Seems to be the common theme when someone cannot back up a word they say with any proof.

The fact, fourthmeal, is that you talk tough, you wont' link us to this supposed forum your'e asking all of these questions on so we can ask some of our own, they won't come here to answer them, and we're left with the reality, that none of what was done was legal, and that as time passes, it will become relegated to the annals of nutcase reading.

I noted early on that the people, outside of staff that seem to be able to latch onto the fact that is is a big scam, are the ones that have gone the extra mile and not relied only upon AK or HeatherSpeak...

You refuse to even file a UCC courtesy notice, or respond to how you would handle a simple traffic stop, if you think they have no authority over you, then you would be willing to share that you are 100% behind this woman and her ways of doing it.. You aren't so that makes you a ..


HYPOCRITE.. Blasting us for not taking her seriously, while you stand there and yourself say you aren't' going to do what she asks of you.. At least I know where I stand, and honestly if you go to jail for following the Pied Piper of Perdition down her hole, no sweat off my back.. But I would hope as you put it so nicely, that intelligent people could see this for what it is, a big TRUCK:load of Nothing...

What is proof? The system of law which you are so adamantly defending I believe considers proof as first hand knowledge or testimony all else is considered here say. Is that true or false? Can I prove it?

Law/truth are found were two or more parties agree. Is that statement true? Does the afor mentioned statement constitute the foundation of a contract?

Please answer and yes it is a trap.

I'm sure it is a trap and for that reason, I will defer answering your question directly with one of my own, if you believe it true, will you give one of her courtesy notices to the police if you are pulled over?

We can prove her stuff doesn't work, there are cases mentioned, with case numbers that are easily accessible, she has provided none of that on any of her shows.. and noone here has either that show her system works.

Originally posted by fourthmeal
Does everybody here understand that I know what the Delphi technique is? Is this clear? Can we stop using this technique in this thread, PLEASE?

What is the Delphi Technique, I've never heard of that, is it one of Heather's brainwashing tools?

i am being serious here for a moment I have actually never heard of this..

reply to post by fourthmeal


I love your earlier posts. Why are you allowing your self to be pulled off center?

Originally posted by fourthmeal
Further, you said numerous times that the UCC does NOT have international equivalents that are valid.

That's a complete misstatement of fact. I'll assume it's merely an error on your part.

What has been repeatedly stated is that the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is only valid in the United States. No one has suggested other countries don't have their own equivalents. What has been relayed repeatedly ad nauseam, is that the US UCC has no jurisdiction anywhere but the USA. Or usa. Whatever.

[Edit to add]

Sorry, from the time I started this post then had a distraction prior to completing, this has been addressed. Which I should have anticipated. Anyway...

reply to post by Eyesa2diffcolors


Because I'm getting negativity from this thread and others that is pulling me off center. But I was about to head off and meditate a bit, and come back fresh.

Thank you for noticing and bringing it to my awareness, friend.

Originally posted by vkey08

Originally posted by Eyesa2diffcolors

Originally posted by vkey08
reply to post by fourthmeal

 

Another tactic, making it seem like rational people don't have their own minds.. Seems to be the common theme when someone cannot back up a word they say with any proof.

The fact, fourthmeal, is that you talk tough, you wont' link us to this supposed forum your'e asking all of these questions on so we can ask some of our own, they won't come here to answer them, and we're left with the reality, that none of what was done was legal, and that as time passes, it will become relegated to the annals of nutcase reading.

I noted early on that the people, outside of staff that seem to be able to latch onto the fact that is is a big scam, are the ones that have gone the extra mile and not relied only upon AK or HeatherSpeak...

You refuse to even file a UCC courtesy notice, or respond to how you would handle a simple traffic stop, if you think they have no authority over you, then you would be willing to share that you are 100% behind this woman and her ways of doing it.. You aren't so that makes you a ..


HYPOCRITE.. Blasting us for not taking her seriously, while you stand there and yourself say you aren't' going to do what she asks of you.. At least I know where I stand, and honestly if you go to jail for following the Pied Piper of Perdition down her hole, no sweat off my back.. But I would hope as you put it so nicely, that intelligent people could see this for what it is, a big TRUCK:load of Nothing...

What is proof? The system of law which you are so adamantly defending I believe considers proof as first hand knowledge or testimony all else is considered here say. Is that true or false? Can I prove it?

Law/truth are found were two or more parties agree. Is that statement true? Does the afor mentioned statement constitute the foundation of a contract?

Please answer and yes it is a trap.

I'm sure it is a trap and for that reason, I will defer answering your question directly with one of my own, if you believe it true, will you give one of her courtesy notices to the police if you are pulled over?

We can prove her stuff doesn't work, there are cases mentioned, with case numbers that are easily accessible, she has provided none of that on any of her shows.. and noone here has either that show her system works.

Do you fear logic, please answer my questions and after I assure you It will be unnecessary to answer your question.

You may be exposing your motives if you keep on posting the way you are. The tone of your posts have slowly turned from a caring individual who does not want to see her fellow brothers and sisters suffer to that of one who may have some misguided intent. This forum helps a great deal in seeing were the power that were are showing anxiety and are focusing sociological resources. This thread has been most integrating and insightful.

Thank you, and I look forward to your response.

reply to post by fourthmeal


Anytime my friend. I like when others bring me back as well. We all need each other.

Originally posted by vkey08
What is the Delphi Technique, I've never heard of that

Me either. I'm sure I could Google it, but that doesn't mean what I found is what he's referring to.

I've got another one people might consider Googling: True Believer Syndrome. It's really a thing.

Wow, been away from this thread for a day or so, can't believe anyone is actually still defending it while being unable to cite any examples where OPPT has actually worked, anywhere.
Loving the small minded and superior mindset where some folk think UCC documents have any importance greater than being a bit of paper outside of the US. Come and foreclose on the UK government, see how it works, while your at it, foreclose on the queen, I'm tired of living in a constitutional monarchy