It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 83
237
<< 80  81  82    84  85  86 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Well well well.... it seems to me that this thread has proven something to me. Actually a couple of "somethings".

Anyone who has been a member of the Wonderful ATS for very long can recognize the suspicious activity going on with this thread. This has opened my eyes - the cards have been laid out as to "Who's Who" around here.

Thank you ATS! ATS staffers, Owner, and members such as FourthMeal, for proving to me that TOPPT is real and true.

God, I Love this site! You're the best ATS




posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   
How this for a paper trail....
Once you have executed your Pledge, for recognition of your contribution by the One People's Public Trust 1776

We, Donald Glen: Westover, Susan Daya: Hamwi, Charles C: Miller acting for the original organic
jurisdiction of the One American People in capacity of Trustees to and for the Original One Peoples Public Trust
1776 pledge that..


So Charles has the Original One Peoples Public Trust

And Heather has the Gifted One Peoples Public Trust

Or did she buy out Charles' trust and turn it into her own?



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Eyesa2diffcolors
 


So now because i've gotten fed up with the constant evasions you're trying to profile me? Because I am getting threatening U2U's that i have to deal with off to the side and my nerves are frazzled you're attempting to say I have some evil ulterior agenda? Please back of, i'm human and as such have emotions as well. Fourthmeal has repeatedly targeted some of the nastiest statements in this thread at me and I'm supposed to show no damn emotion? GROW UP

NO your original question does not constitute a contract, however the absence of any evidence that her method has had any effect, makes the statement that it does not work and you will get in trouble, a true statement.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by angellicview
 


Obvious is it? I to love this site. Once you see it for what it is you can learn from it so much. Who and what is attacked and by whom. This topic has brought out the full army of moderators, site owners. A most excellent example of motivation and intent. Fear porn is a wonderful addition.

I believe it is not whether OPPT is true, legal or otherwise. It's what that belief represents and must be contained is why the attack exists. Freedom is a belief and beliefs shape reality and actions. Freedom with hate is not freedom and I believe it will always fail. That is what you see here alot. Talk of freedom but there is always blame attached, that is the goal i believe. Alex Jones is a perfect example. Play to the lower level, fear,fear,fear.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Filing something in UCC with the correct references to established doctrine in links given earlier, impacts the "public policy" of the UCC's international equivalents and therefore it DOES affect the UK.

Not to mention, the quasi government of the UK is actually a corporation registered in New York, again by the link I gave.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   
AGAIN:

I cannot stress this enough.

Not one person has stated that the Status Quo is a good thing, that there isn't work to be done. Not one person in this thread, pro or con, has said that the United States Government is a wonderful loving thing that needs to be protected and kept as it is.

However, those of us who have been against Heather Tucci et al, have given a few LEGAL alternatives to her nonsense, that for the most part have fallen upon deaf ears. Why is this?

I can almost definitively state for the record that I think it's because noone wants to have to do any real work to be free and to make changes. Here comes Heather, all the work supposedly done, all you have to do is pass out "Courtesy Notices" and all is great.

Our methods may take more work, but they are the right way, not the wrong way... Think about it, are you gloming on to Heather because she did everything for you and it's a quick fix, or because you REALLY believe she's right.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by fourthmeal
Not to mention, the quasi government of the UK is actually a corporation registered in New York, again by the link I gave.


Check please?

I'm done. I hope it works out for all of you, and whatever happens doesn't do too much collateral damage to the innocent bystanders. Family, dependents and whatnot.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 


Nasty statements? Oh no, you don't. Shall I cite the numerous slander you've thrown about in this thread alone? We can also go back to previous threads about this topic, and go further.

If you're feeling pressure, it is from your own self, period.

Judgement of someone ALWAYS proves to me a mirror of your own imperfections. The Universe has a way of teaching one the lessons needed this way. Always through the self.

I do not judge and I don't slander. I didn't call any of your sources or guides of information names, judge their character, or mislabel people based on partial info or assumptions! Surely, surely you can tell the difference between being judgmental and being observational.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 



If I offended you, my apologies.

What constitutes a contact if not agreement by the parties? My point is you made the claim that it is a fraud. The claimant caries the burden of proof. You made the claim. Proof constitutes first hand knowledge and my point is the argument is mute absent first hand knowledge. Speculate all day long...great just want to point out what constitutes proof in so called "LAW", because it seems to have muddied the waters and caused so much confusion.


If agreement does not constitute a contact? then what does ...force...does force constitute a contract?
Are we at survival of the fittest. Does might mean right?

That word proof is being thrown around like a hand grenade. I just felt the need to pull the pin. Since "Law" is the topic and bases of your claim.

edit on 22-2-2013 by Eyesa2diffcolors because: add text



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by fourthmeal
 



I haven't called anybody a name, period. I do not resort to ad-hominem, even when attacked personally. I DO however call people out on their actions, and let their own judgements come from that. Do not misconstrue my intentions.


Wow, you just don't get it, do you?


I hate to say this because I do not like to judge anyone, ever... but you are not proving to be competent.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

You're not calling VKey incompetent?


It is sickening in a literal way, to see people who think they are properly informed, listen to supposed intelligent and independent thinking upstanding members of this community, put up such crap.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your syntax is unclear, but it sure looks like you are calling someone improperly informed and/or unintelligent.


You have it right, mostly. Now, if you can do it without bleeding sarcasm and hate, that would be quite an accomplishment.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Okay, I'll be fair. Accusing someone of hatred isn't exactly calling them a name.


You have a lot of nerve (and folly) in immediately discounting someone with the credentials such as this Captain.


www.abovetopsecret.com...


But let's agree that calling someone arrogant and foolish is name calling.


Yep presumptions and damnation of others through preconceived notions of topics they know nothing about.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant. Sounds like name calling to me.


There have been some seriously aggressive DELPHI approaches made here, and most of us aware folk see right through it.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

You still haven't explained what DELPHI is, but I think we can all agree that this statement was not meant as a compliment.


Can you possibly contribute to this thread without immediately being derogatory and judgmental?


www.abovetopsecret.com...

On the rare occasions that you do answer a direct question, why do you couple it with accusations like this?


It is with this that I know you are incompetent to carry on this discussion.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

I could go on, but I think the point has been made. Again, in fairness, I think everyone here has gotten the false impression that you sling epithets and make negative innuendos more than you do because your literary style is so similar to that of others on this thread. Indeed, the similarities of spelling, capitalization, formatting and so forth are striking. In short:



Edit to add:


Judgement of someone ALWAYS proves to me a mirror of your own imperfections.


Wow. Just, wow.
edit on 22-2-2013 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-2-2013 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by fourthmeal
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Filing something in UCC with the correct references to established doctrine in links given earlier, impacts the "public policy" of the UCC's international equivalents and therefore it DOES affect the UK.

Not to mention, the quasi government of the UK is actually a corporation registered in New York, again by the link I gave.

quasi government of the UK is registered as a corporation in the city of New York....


Sorry, when did this happen, before or after the migrants from the UK and elsewhere, formed the city of New York



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by destination now
reply to post by forgetmenot
 


Sorry to go off topic here, but your avatar looks like one of the Wurzels...please enlighten me

I don't know if we can really go off topic anymore now that the OPPT idiots are scrambling and scraping for anything that meets their poor standard of "evidence".

But yes, it's Pete Budd



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by fourthmeal
reply to post by vkey08
 


Nasty statements? Oh no, you don't. Shall I cite the numerous slander you've thrown about in this thread alone? We can also go back to previous threads about this topic, and go further.

If you're feeling pressure, it is from your own self, period.

Judgement of someone ALWAYS proves to me a mirror of your own imperfections. The Universe has a way of teaching one the lessons needed this way. Always through the self.

I do not judge and I don't slander. I didn't call any of your sources or guides of information names, judge their character, or mislabel people based on partial info or assumptions! Surely, surely you can tell the difference between being judgmental and being observational.


Slander means telling an untruth,

Where have I done that? Seriously? You cannot be serious...

Heather CLAIMS to have done something that just cannot be done, she is a fraud. That is a true statement, it is only slander IF and ONLY IF her method was actually successful, and since you will not answer any questions posed, and you won't try her method yourself, then my statement stands, it is a fraud, we have however been able to show verifiable cases that used Heather's nonsense that have gotten the defendants in much more trouble than they were originally in.

Am I perfect person, far from it, I have a very nasty temper, I have a tendency to "shoot first" and ask questions later, a lot of that has to do with my upbringing, having kids that need a lot of attention, and watching my husband get his head blown off right next to me because he was doing his job. Does that mean that I am somehow unable to grasp a scam when I see one? If you could only see my juvie rap sheet you would know, I know both sides of this coin.

But simply going from a historical perspective, these things don't work, it's a fact, it's not slander if it's a true statement.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by angellicview
 


I hope I'm helping more than hurting.

Funny thing was, when all this started a few threads ago (now closed), I was on the fence if not a bit against it. I came here hoping that the timing of the mass exodus of CEO's, CFO's, etc etc.. that took place last year and a little of the year before, could be corroborated with the timings of the OPPT filings. And that quickly became a question that was answered in a one of the radio shows I listened to. In fact, yes they were related directly.

But after that, I kept with the threads sharing what I could from the other shows and discussions I've been part of. And then that morphed into whatever this is now, which almost feels like a free-for-all against any little thing that can be brought up, against the trustees or the oppt movement.


Its been a ride, still ongoing and we're just 2 months into this thing from official release. Crazy.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by destination now

Originally posted by fourthmeal
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Filing something in UCC with the correct references to established doctrine in links given earlier, impacts the "public policy" of the UCC's international equivalents and therefore it DOES affect the UK.

Not to mention, the quasi government of the UK is actually a corporation registered in New York, again by the link I gave.

quasi government of the UK is registered as a corporation in the city of New York....


Sorry, when did this happen, before or after the migrants from the UK and elsewhere, formed the city of New York
Lol, brilliant! This is one of the most entertaining threads I've ever seen on ATS.
The UK is now just a corporation registered in New York? Is the queen the CEO then?! Hopefully a shareholder vote will bring some democracy to our little islands



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by OneisOne
 


Great question. Yes, it appears the original trust was gifted to her, Caleb, and Randal. No money has changed hands as I understand it, and there is no money that is allocated to running this. In a statement made last night on air, Heather answered someone's question about this very thing. She said that no money is accepted for this, no donation allowed, and they do all their filings, investigations, and operations completely out of their own pocket.

There are many, many trusts out there, some on record and some not. I'm still learning and waiting for more data on the original 1776 Trust, which is important for me to understand all of this.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by fourthmeal
reply to post by OneisOne
 


Great question. Yes, it appears the original trust was gifted to her, Caleb, and Randal. No money has changed hands as I understand it, and there is no money that is allocated to running this. In a statement made last night on air, Heather answered someone's question about this very thing. She said that no money is accepted for this, no donation allowed, and they do all their filings, investigations, and operations completely out of their own pocket.

There are many, many trusts out there, some on record and some not. I'm still learning and waiting for more data on the original 1776 Trust, which is important for me to understand all of this.


You may wish to ask what relation all of this has to the FOR PROFIT: Global Affairs Development Corporation..



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by fourthmeal
 



There are many, many trusts out there, some on record and some not. I'm still learning and waiting for more data on the original 1776 Trust, which is important for me to understand all of this.


What will you do if no reliable "data" turns up on this alleged trust?



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by fourthmeal
reply to post by OneisOne
 


Great question. Yes, it appears the original trust was gifted to her, Caleb, and Randal. No money has changed hands as I understand it, and there is no money that is allocated to running this. In a statement made last night on air, Heather answered someone's question about this very thing. She said that no money is accepted for this, no donation allowed, and they do all their filings, investigations, and operations completely out of their own pocket.

There are many, many trusts out there, some on record and some not. I'm still learning and waiting for more data on the original 1776 Trust, which is important for me to understand all of this.


So, any rebuttal?

If you want people to take any of this seriously, one of the first things that you are going to have to do is show us that this theory is successful in court. You need to show us a court case or judicial decision that supports your claims that the OPPT (or similar movements) have been successful in achieving their goal. It would be foolish for anyone just to take it at face value and say "Ok, cool, it works!" without seeing evidence of that.

Nevermind all the "scam" stuff, nevermind the accusations going back and forth. If you are unable to show us that any evidence that this has succeeded in court, how can you expect us to be accepting of this whole idea?



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 


the one she owns with Charles Miller, convicted, and admitted, fraudster?



new topics

top topics



 
237
<< 80  81  82    84  85  86 >>

log in

join