The U.S. Congress Trades as Ron Paul!

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by Chevalerous

 

Official trustees is because they are elected officials. The people have officially "trusted" them to handle the issues and what not.

en.wikipedia.org...

Trustee is a legal term for a holder of property on behalf of a beneficiary. A trust can be set up either to benefit particular persons, or for any charitable purposes (but not generally for non-charitable purposes): typical examples are a will trust for the testator's children and family, a pension trust (to confer benefits on employees and their families), and a charitable trust. In all cases, the trustee may be a person or company, whether or not they are a prospective beneficiary.

The American people are he "Beneficiary", but of course that is really just a label cuz "it ain't true". The beneficiary is really the bankers, corporations and so forth. Yet, if you are to "play the game" then "officially" the American people are the "Beneficiary". If they actually did what they said and so forth, then it would be true.

So it's kind of a joke to call them that IMO, but it doesn't really have anything to do with the topic itself.

If you want to know the real scam of it all, click on the link in my signature about "I want the world plus 5%". It shows the scam of fractional banking and how the American people are robbed through interest in a system that is economically designed to rob the people.

Yeah I know, this probably means nothing! lol! but I'm looking for clues here, in legalese.

You posted the official definition of this from wiki, but I want to find out the real, full definition from a conspiracy contract law point of view - to why all these Government Official Trustees are incorporated all over the world since long time ago.

(but that should be bloody obvious as well, when a country defaults - it goes incorporated and we become slaves to the Banks serving our masters, apparently!)

I just wanted to see if there was some hidden, double meaning, traces of a conspiracy etc.

And I want to know how this fit and tie in with the US Bankruptcy and if these incorporated Official Trustees in Goverment works in exactly the same way as Trustees in a private Bankruptcy for ordinary people?

A Trustee in private ordinary Bankruptcies are appointed to your case in order to pay your creditors, sell your assets, mandate contributions from your income once you earn over a certain amount etc.

We all now know without a doubt that the International banksters own our Governments, and I would like to learn more about how all these Governmental Bankruptcies are constructed and how they work!

From THE OFFICIAL TRUSTEES ACT, 1913 in Bangladesh

Official Trustee to be corporation sole, to have perpetual succession and official seal, and to sue and be sued in his corporate name.

bdlaws.gov.bd...


I love this one! - of infant or lunatic!

Executor or administrator may pay to Official Trustee legacy, share, etc, of infant or lunatic.

bdlaws.gov.bd...

Yeah! the lunatics in Government! lol!

Nahh nothing yet - only the usual legal stuff. The most interesting thing about this act is that it's from 1913 - the year of the FED act.

Well! one thing is sure, all these things go together - FED 1913 - The Bankruptcy of 1933 - Banks ruling our Governments - Current situation!

And yeah! It's a bloody scam I tell ya!


[edit on 6-3-2010 by Chevalerous]

I'd like to clarify that I don't think that this means 'nothing bad is going on'. Simply, this is nothing new to the people who understand the level of corruption that takes place in our government.

Like I said though, the OP just searched for Ron Paul in the district of columbia and his office came up. Big deal.

Originally posted by thatguy1
I'd like to clarify that I don't think that this means 'nothing bad is going on'. Simply, this is nothing new to the people who understand the level of corruption that takes place in our government.

Like I said though, the OP just searched for Ron Paul in the district of columbia and his office came up. Big deal.

No the Original Poster did not search for Ron Paul. The Original Poster had it brought to his attention by a fellow member that a GENERIC search of THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES pulled up Ron Paul.

The Orignal Poster (mwa) was interested as to why this is. The Original Poster has yet to find a satisfactory answer through this thread as to why that is.

Most people would of course always love to hear there is nothing to something.

They run to Wikipedia and come back and say well Wikipedia says this therefore it must be ok.

Meanwhile all these seemingly innocent things that everyone insists are OK have conspired to create a planet full of scarcity, deprivation, war, and violence....

So the reality is, no, it's not really OK and pretending it's OK won't in and of itself make it OK.

Though many people have put forth some great information no one as of yet has actually been able to definatively prove why our politicians are incorporating along with the institutions they are elected or appointed to serve in.

It's not about what, it's about why, the real why and all of them, not just the one, that is put out there to make people imagine its all OK.

Clearly everything is not OK, including why it becomes so hard to find a definitive answer on something that is incredibly suspicious.

Some people have an inherent need to tell them selves things are OK when in fact they are as far removed from OK as possible.

What isn't OK is pretending along with it, how the original post information was arrived at.

It wasn't a search for Ron Paul, it was a search of just the U.S. Congress that turned up Ron Paul.




[edit on 6/3/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Probably a non-profit, 501c-(?), to handle donations or fund-raising funds.
The money refunded to the treasury probably comes from this corp.

Originally posted by ADVISOR
reply to post by badmedia

 

Possesion is still 9/10s of the law correct, so technically, they are representing the posititon they hold, as would any one. But the possability that business is being conducted, and it is supposed to be transparent should be enough to pursue interest in these matters.

But in order for them to be a business, it means that you need business licenses and things which would leave other paper work. The government by it's very nature operates as a business because they buy things - too many things IMO.

It's not like there aren't legitimate reasons why they would need such a thing. Can't peg it for something it isn't, just isn't helpful.

Obviously we can not trust the government to have quality oversight, so I for one invite the OPs scrutiny and oversight in what no one else would. Leave no rock unturned, right.

And if you are filled up with false accusations and things that are false, then you are going to get no where.

There are plenty of legitmate complaints and arguments about what goes on in DC, so shouldn't that be focused on?

The issue has nothing to do with scrutiny and oversight, it has to do with making good decisions and the right connections. The issue is when people take something trival and then stretch it into something that just plain out doesn't exist.

In order to get to the truth, defining that which is false is required. And if we can't do that, then we by default won't get to the truth.

A D&B number simply doesn't at all imply that which is being talked about. And when there are extremely important and legitmate issues such as fractional reserve banking, a monetary system based on debt, bail outs and so on, it to me seems rather absurd. And to top it off, the thread at the same time is attacking the one person in DC who is actually speaking against and waking up the world to those real and legit complaints.

If you turn the rock over and there is nothing there, it's time to move on. But this thread is more like someone picked up the rock, and threw it at the one person doing the right things in DC.

I think everyone is missing the point that it's
NOT NEEDED TO HOLD OFFICE.

There is no constitutional need to fullfil your duties in office with it. It's additional legal bloat eroding transparency. I don't even recall where in the constitution these office holders were granted the authority to purchase property or hire staff even.

Oh but the argument. "In today's day in age politicians need staff."

That's because they created and continue to play in a system they designed that requires it. The original working system didn't. We elect them into office with a salary. We dont elect them into office to then pay for their staff to do the job they were elected to do.

While in a business sense it's an ordinary every day process. In government... I don't recall the constitution creating an evironment where anything remotely similar was required.

To pay wages, "do business" which really they aren't supposed to anyways.

They can only do business NOW thanks to incorporation in 1871.

So if you are even remotely constitutional this should be a problem with you. Not that it's explicitly corrupt, or a conspiracy. Just not part of the original framework. Unneeded fluff to blur transparency.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


POS thread trying to discredit him in any way he is 20 years unchanged for the Constitution and People until you have some real evidence then piss off with the nonsense thread about some addresses linked to his name hes in the government and all over the place im sure he has many contacts to be reached at.

Looks to me like a personal hit out on him trying to discredit him i mean 75% of this thread is you replying to your own stupid post.

I call a big FAIL

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Originally posted by thatguy1
I'd like to clarify that I don't think that this means 'nothing bad is going on'. Simply, this is nothing new to the people who understand the level of corruption that takes place in our government.

Like I said though, the OP just searched for Ron Paul in the district of columbia and his office came up. Big deal.

No the Original Poster did not search for Ron Paul. The Original Poster had it brought to his attention by a fellow member that a GENERIC search of THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES pulled up Ron Paul.

The Orignal Poster (mwa) was interested as to why this is. The Original Poster has yet to find a satisfactory answer through this thread as to why that is.

...

It wasn't a search for Ron Paul, it was a search of just the U.S. Congress that turned up Ron Paul.

[edit on 6/3/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Sorry friend, I'm not trying to be an ass (honestly I'm not) but if you go to the ORIGINAL link posted in OPs thread, at the top of your browser (where you type the url out) you will see this : i50.tinypic.com...

See the red area with the arrow? Where it says ["name=ron paul"&state=DC"] ? That is how searches work in databases. The inputted name WAS "Ron Paul." The inputted state WAS "DC".

The don't know if the OP conducted this search himself or found the link somewhere else, but whoever did provide the original link the search clearly is querying those two phrases.

Originally posted by OpTiMuS_PrImE
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

POS thread trying to discredit him in any way he is 20 years unchanged for the Constitution and People until you have some real evidence then piss off with the nonsense thread about some addresses linked to his name hes in the government and all over the place im sure he has many contacts to be reached at.

Looks to me like a personal hit out on him trying to discredit him i mean 75% of this thread is you replying to your own stupid post.

I call a big FAIL

Another person who sees "Ron Paul" and has a flipout. Still ignoring the question.

Why do politicians >>NEED>EXACTLY

reply to post by Chevalerous


Actually, the handling of money is a job that is specifically designated for congress to handle. This is in Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution.

www.usconstitution.net...

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

The bank stuff didn't start happening until 1913. And that was when Congress gave up that power to the Federal Reserve. To which all currency is then created from debt.

No need to find any "double meanings", the truth is right there plain as day. Most people just can't understand it.

Do you know how fractional banking works? I don't know what you know, but if you are unsure about that, then I can explain it. Banks are by law allowed to create money. The are allowed to loan out(create basically) more money than they actually have. And not just a little, 90%.

So if you go and you put $1000 in savings, the bank can turn around and loan out $9000(at interest). So, they basically just made $8000 on your $1000, not counting the interest. People think the bank is just going to get the interest they collect, but such is far from the truth.

And it's 100% legal for them to do. If you or I did that, it would be counterfeiting. But this element of society is allowed to do it legally.

In the past if people heard that a bank did such, that is what caused bank runs. But they just went ahead and legalized it completely and came up with a "reserve bank".

Lets say in the entire world there exists $100, and for a market there are only 10 apples. You have $10 of the wealth. Supply and demand says that each apple has a value of $10. So now in comes a bank, creates another $100. Now supply and demand says each apple has a value of $20. Well now you can't even afford 1 apple, and nobody touched your wallet. You just had half your purchasing power/wealth stolen from you.

And this is what banks do every day legally. It's a constant transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. Because guess who gets that newly created $100? The big corporations. They get the loans, and then they buy stuff up. Including the labor they pay(trickle down economics).

As such, through only economic means the banks are able to decide who and what succeeds. Who gets the new money and so on.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg, we haven't included interest. Because they have to pay back the bank not just $100, but $105. But guess what? The extra $5 they have to pay back is never created. Make 11 of those loans, and everything is now owed to the bank - even the original $100. There is more debt than money exists. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the debt to be paid off.

So they keep creating new money to cover the interest. And that is what has been going on really. If they do not create new money, then the economy tanks as people go bankrupt. Which is fine for the banks, because then they get the property and everything of value, and then they will just turn around and resell it and do it again. But if you keep creating money, then eventually the money becomes worthless. The prices keep going up(remember the apple doubled in price) to the point where it takes a wheel barrel of cash to buy a loaf of bread. So eventually it has to stop because the interest payments get to be impossible to pay and then bankruptcy sets in.

So it's a constant transfer of wealth and it turns people into slaves. There is no double meanings in it, it's straight forward, 100% transparent and 100% legal. Because the people simply do not understand the scam of it all.

It's stuff like this that really matters.

reply to post by mryanbrown


Thats all it is, is a question, no proof of anything. Yet it must be attached that the outcome is to make him look like he is bad in the thread when there is no evidence of anything whatsoever.

Just another dumb, waste of space on this forum. I'll back the man until i have proof i should not and holding a straight unchanged record of 20+ years of leading the same fight for the same reason does not look like i will be changing anything anytime soon.

Originally posted by OpTiMuS_PrImE
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

POS thread trying to discredit him in any way he is 20 years unchanged for the Constitution and People until you have some real evidence then piss off with the nonsense thread about some addresses linked to his name hes in the government and all over the place im sure he has many contacts to be reached at.

Looks to me like a personal hit out on him trying to discredit him i mean 75% of this thread is you replying to your own stupid post.

I call a big FAIL

Well, thankfully we aren't counting on you to investigate or solve any of the world's conspiracies!

Since it looks to me like you haven't read the OP well or the thread that you just posted too!

The great news is that it's a conspiracy site and while you have chose it as a place to play the left/right political divide game (apparently) some of us enjoy investigating conspiracies with the mindset to ask tough questions and look for real answers.

No one has been able to answer the need for any politician to incorporate as the institution they are a member of.

Neither have you!

Thanks for posting.

Originally posted by mryanbrown
Another person who sees "Ron Paul" and has a flipout. Still ignoring the question.

The thread says DIRECTLY Ron Paul in the title. It then says directly things such as the evidence suggests Ron Paul is "president of the corporate congress" and a puppet master.

If it had nothing to do with Ron Paul, then why is Ron Paul mentioned in it? Why is it Ron Paul who is accused of those things?

If the thread wasn't about Ron Paul, then Ron Pauls name wouldn't have been in the title, or the target of the accusations. There was 0 research put into the OP, and from that 0 research all the rest came from it.

Gee, can't imagine why people might be a little upset that false accusations were being made towards someone who is actually not part of the problem.

Thread should be labeled a Hoax.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Well, thankfully we aren't counting on you to investigate or solve any of the world's conspiracies!

Apparently you aren't counting on anyone to investigate anything, since you didn't do any research before posting accusations.

Since it looks to me like you haven't read the OP well or the thread that you just posted too!

According to Dunn and Bradstreet the corporate entity known as the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES and the CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES is also traded as RON PAUL!

False, the House of Representatives and Congress is not traded as Ron Paul. In fact, it's been proven that the D&B number has nothing at all to do with such a thing.

In the OP, every paragraph in it was directed towards Ron Paul.

But then you try to claim that anyone who focuses on that fact, is missing the entire point? That it wasn't about Ron Paul.

BULLCRAP. And all you do is prove you don't have the balls to admit you made a mistake.

The great news is that it's a conspiracy site and while you have chose it as a place to play the left/right political divide game (apparently) some of us enjoy investigating conspiracies with the mindset to ask tough questions and look for real answers.

Oh, so I guess being a conspiracy site means you can just spew whatever crap you want and it's ok. And when someone comes along and questions that, you can just fall back on "conspiracy site" as an excuse and justification for it?

No one has been able to answer the need for any politician to incorporate as the institution they are a member of.

They aren't incorporated as has already been pointed out. All you do is show you don't know the first thing about what a D&B number is, even though it takes only 5 minutes of effort on your part to do it.

Nothing of the original post was based on fact outside a listing was there. Not a single thing outside that was actually true. It is filled with misinformation and false accusations towards a person. The only thing that keeps it from being slander is your complete ignorance towards what any of it actually means.


[edit on 3/6/2010 by badmedia]

The reason I ended up in Dun & Bradstreet and found this is because i was doing some research about the birth certificate thread and that I have an upcoming traffic court case coming.

I was looking for proof that the US as well as the state of Florida are corporations so I can show the court that I broke no "law" but a corporate statue.

I want to go to court and say that "I do not plead to courts of contract" but want to make sure that all my ducks are in a row.

If anyone feels like helping with links, information etc I'll be more than grateful.

I might even end up buying those reports from D&B and see what they say.

If I decide to buy them, I'll post them here for all.

Jesus everyone who is a Ron Paul diciple is tearing the ops full hearted intentions to dust. Who cares of the OP was mistaken that Ron Paul isn't the President of the incorporated House.

I for one don't. Get past the point. In his search for TRUTH (which is what you should all be doing). He stumbled across something that seems unreasonable and out of norm from how we were educated to believe government works.

Where is the dishonesty in that? The thread has brought up many valid points which are being dismissed by people ignorantly because they support Ron Paul.

Well let me clear something up for you. I am a constitutionalist. I support Ron Paul. Does that mean Ron Paul isn't ignorant to being a party to unconstitutional practices? No, no it doesn't.

You can try to continue to psuedo-rationalize the necessity or ease of life a DUN number provides you.

But the cold hard truth is that it is NOT NEEDED to do business. It only adds an extra layer of non-publicly acessible/available information about the government process where once there was none.

Were we intended to have to go to law school, to learn corporation by laws, to learn how DUN and HUBZone works just to comprehend if our government is doing things on par?

No because none of these things were intended in the framework. None of them, because they remove transparency. They isolate what should be common knowledge under the protection of corporate interests which are having an impact on government policy.


No one here has yet to provide a simple answer as to why it is NEEDED. Or how exactly it works. Because no one knows. But instead of admitting their own ignorance, they bash the op who had good intentions because they feel it's an attack on Ron Paul.

Ron Paul, Ru Paul, or Pelossi I don't care what name he used. Sure he may be incorrect about the President of a company business.

But once again I'm left wondering why they get special corporate entitlements which they shouldn't all in the name of effectively doing business in their office. Which we know isn't required. Managed to do fine before it existed.

[edit on 6-3-2010 by mryanbrown]

Please explain where you're seeing special corporate entitlements. Simply because their names are listed on a independent 3rd parties credit account? If you see something we don't, please share.

Originally posted by greenovni
The reason I ended up in Dun & Bradstreet and found this is because i was doing some research about the birth certificate thread and that I have an upcoming traffic court case coming.

I was looking for proof that the US as well as the state of Florida are corporations so I can show the court that I broke no "law" but a corporate statue.

I want to go to court and say that "I do not plead to courts of contract" but want to make sure that all my ducks are in a row.

If anyone feels like helping with links, information etc I'll be more than grateful.

I might even end up buying those reports from D&B and see what they say.

If I decide to buy them, I'll post them here for all.

You should start a thread about it, because that is an entirely different topic than what the OP posted. Or just search for "Blacks law" and you will find some topics on it that will be good for researching that stuff.

But I doubt you will get very far, especially in traffic court. I consider that stuff to be distractions honestly, so I don't know much about it. Would be nice if it was that easy, but it assumes the law really matters(as in is actually followed), and if it was true then it would have to mean that each and every judge would know about it.

Now, backroom "wink wink" kind of stuff surely goes on.

Originally posted by mryanbrown
Jesus everyone who is a Ron Paul diciple is tearing the ops full hearted intentions to dust. Who cares of the OP was mistaken that Ron Paul isn't the President of the incorporated House.

I for one don't. Get past the point. In his search for TRUTH (which is what you should all be doing). He stumbled across something that seems unreasonable and out of norm from how we were educated to believe government works.

Where is the dishonesty in that? The thread has brought up many valid points which are being dismissed by people ignorantly because they support Ron Paul.

Anyone who cares about the truth should care. The dishonesty is that all the claims and conclusions are false.

If that's not good enough - I care.

Well let me clear something up for you. I am a constitutionalist. I support Ron Paul. Does that mean Ron Paul isn't ignorant to being a party to unconstitutional practices? No, no it doesn't.

Doesn't matter. #1 Anyone can say that. #2 it's still misinformation in regards to him.

Most people do not read the entire thread. They read the first post and then skip to the end. Thus, many people will see the information, the number of flags and stars etc, and assume there is truth to the OP. This is made evidence by the number of people who post in regards to the OP being true even after all of it has been proven false.

You can try to continue to psuedo-rationalize the necessity or ease of life a DUN number provides you.

But the cold hard truth is that it is NOT NEEDED to do business. It only adds an extra layer of non-publicly acessible/available information about the government process where once there was none.

So what it's not needed to do business. What reason do they have not to use or have one? Plus, it's a freaking public database that anyone can get the information too, so what the hell are you even talking about? Where is this layer that is non-public?

Were we intended to have to go to law school, to learn corporation by laws, to learn how DUN and HUBZone works just to comprehend if our government is doing things on par?

Well, I guess if you wanted to do all those things you could. But I on the other hand found that 5 minutes of reading pretty much covered all that.

No because none of these things were intended in the framework. None of them, because they remove transparency. They isolate what should be common knowledge under the protection of corporate interests which are having an impact on government policy.

The D&B is public and can be used by anyone who wants etc. You are just making false claims once again. Nothing even comes close to suggesting anything like this.

No one here has yet to provide a simple answer as to why it is NEEDED. Or how exactly it works. Because no one knows. But instead of admitting their own ignorance, they bash the op who had good intentions because they feel it's an attack on Ron Paul.

Ron Paul, Ru Paul, or Pelossi I don't care what name he used. Sure he may be incorrect about the President of a company business.

How it works? It's like a credit report basically. You enter in the number, and you get information about them. It's right on their website, and 5 minutes of research showed that.

And btw, despite all the proof that has been shown the OP says they wouldn't change anything about the OP.

The original post says that Ron Paul is the only one. That others were in the database was not known by the OP until a few posts into the thread. The premise of the OP is that the US congress trades as Ron Paul.

He did no further research beyond that point, and that lead to all the false accusations.

But sure, I guess everyone who's proven it all wrong are the ones who are "ignorant" and darn it, since we have uncovered the truth about it, we are also the ones with "bad intentions".

But once again I'm left wondering why they get special corporate entitlements which they shouldn't all in the name of effectively doing business in their office. Which we know isn't required. Managed to do fine before it existed.

Where are these special corporate entitlements? Do you realize that you are doing "business" when you go down to the local grocery store and buy food? You are making "Business transactions"? Are you trying to say that congressmen should not be able to spend any money at all for their offices and have no expenses?



[edit on 3/6/2010 by badmedia]

reply to post by badmedia


I'm more inclined to agree with you on most aspects. After reading back, and now seeing on Google this thread has been pimped to several websites with the same slander against Ron Paul in a sensationalized question.

That aside. This exact issue was brought up by The Daily Paul previoulsy as seen at: www.dailypaul.com...

If you want to know about entitlements? The company takes liability from the individual. So the entitlement and priviledge would be an invisible wall of the government sheilding individuals from liability. As they are doing business as an entity and not a human being.

And publicly you can only see particular information for free.

I was never claiming you had bad intentions. I admit the op was incorrect in the assumption. But there is still something incorrect about the way they handle 'business'.

So the OPs opinion aside, names aside. The fact these individuals do business under a corporate entity entitles them corporate protection as they were doing business as the entity and not themselves. Furthermore the government shouldn't require a credit rating. Nor should these individuals even be conducting business.

That is the true constitutional mentality. We do not elect these people do do business in the economy. Their business is amongst each eother ensuring our rights are kept so that WE may do business.