Provost Marshalls to Serve Notice To Governors of All 50 States? Restore America

reply to post by defcon5


Please note (15)(A) below, the PROBLEM is that the U.S. government BECAME a CORPORATION in 1868, the UNITED STATES CORPORATION.
In doing so, it ceased being able to be defined as a government anymore.
All Americans born in 1868 or after have been corporate assets.

Cornell University Law School
LII / Legal Information Institute
U.S. Code
TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER A > § 3002

§ 3002. Definitions
As used in this chapter:
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.
(16) “United States marshal” means a United States marshal, a deputy marshal, or an official of the United States Marshals Service designated under section 564.




[edit on 2-4-2010 by Toot Sweet]

reply to post by theyreadmymind


I'm not sure where this April 19th thing came into play, maybe I missed something on one of the Tim Turner broadcasts, it is not like I have seen every bit of info out there, but I have been listening to all of the talkshoe recordings.

My point is that I don't believe I have heard Tim Turner or any of the others that directly talk about the Restore America Plan, ever mention anything about getting millions by the 19th of April, or any protest whatsoever. From what I can tell they still want this under wraps until something happens with the Governors, and then the education campaign can begin.

I have a feeling that several of these groups are being mixed together in peoples minds, there are a lot of things happening concurrently and perhaps some of the wires got crossed.

I would appreciate if someone could point me to the information showing that this April 19th protest has direct involvement from Restore America Plan, as I am currently under the impression that is an entirely separate event/group. I will go back and try to find where people are making this connection now.

edit: it appears some of this confusion might be coming from the other thread about April 19th, in which several of these different groups are being discussed together. So I remain under the impression that the Restore America Plan is not related to whatever protest is set to happen on April 19th.

[edit on 2-4-2010 by Ionized]

reply to post by defcon5


You're confusing state courts with federal. Huge difference. State to state have different common laws (case laws)...some vastly different. The federal courts however, were to be strictly interpreters of the Constitution.

Whether you're a statist or a federalist in your beliefs is your conviction. Clearly these people behind the Restore America are federalists and don't care for any federal case laws doled out within the past 100 years or so.

Reread your Wikipedia quotes. You'll recognize that you quoted all the info relating to state courts and common law. Now read the next section titled United States federal system (1789 and 1938)...

Before 1938, the federal courts, like almost all other common law courts, decided the law on any issue where the relevant legislature (either the U.S. Congress or state legislature, depending on the issue), had not acted, by looking to courts in the same system, that is, other federal courts, even on issues of state law, and even where there was no express grant of authority from Congress or the Constitution.

It goes on to state that the Supreme Court found this method by which federal courts operated unconstitutional on the grounds that they're deviating from the original intent of the nation's supreme common law, the Constitution.

In case you haven't noticed...our federal courts have fallen in this same trap again. Case law and "legislating from the bench" are diluting original intent in federal courts.

Be that as it may, you are indeed correct that these folks have quite the uphill battle with exactly some of the points you make. However, my only point is...I think they're ignoring such cases and rulings on the grounds that they deem those rulings unconstitutional by proxy.

[edit on 2-4-2010 by JauntyFlannigan]

reply to post by Ionized


You're absolutely correct. RAP is a separate, non-violent, initiative. It has nothing to do with Huraee, Nesara, or any events comping up like April 19th. Of course the melding of all those together works against us, and for the Corporation. So people need to be CLEAR on this.

reply to post by Ionized


I was just coming here to tell you that I got my wires crossed. I went to verify and the April 19th event does not appear to be part of the Restore America Plan or the topic of this thread at all. I apologize for my error and I'm going back to update my previous post. Thanks for also catching that. There's a lot going on at the moment.

[edit on 2-4-2010 by theyreadmymind]

Originally posted by theyreadmymind

Originally posted by Subjective Truth
reply to post by defcon5

 

Is this what these guys are doing? I am just learning of this and want info is this a big movement or a small group?

There's at least 27 people from each state that signed on to this. There are some Guardian Elders. There were hints of 'behind the scenes' military people involved, but they are vague on that. They want millions of people to be involved. I don't know how they plan on getting them. Perhaps word of mouth? A lot of information has been coming in quickly and I haven't been able to keep up with it these last few days. There is talk of this April 19th demonstration and I thought I heard someone say they wanted millions by that time. I don't know how they would accomplish that!

[edit on 2-4-2010 by theyreadmymind]

If it is millions I could see this having some teeth but 27 from each state. I am sorry but that made me laugh if this is all they have they are toast and without butter.


One interesting thing is millions are going to lose unemployment on the 5th if this happens that really could be the straw that breaks this countries back.

Conspiracy theory lawsuits will not get the job done but million loosing everything will. This issue is bigger than health care by 10x. Just watch and see how pissed of people get when the have no money to eat anymore.

reply to post by theyreadmymind


Understandable. The other thread with April 19th in the title was also discussing the Restore America Plan, and I contributed heavily in there, so even I didn't really realize I was contributing to possible confusion by talking about RAP in that thread. I may have to go in and make a clarification statement. Now I see why some random people came in deploring the group for alleged militant behavior, as it appears the the whole April 19th thing is a bit more, militant, however entirely separate from Restore America Plan.

Originally posted by hawkiye
It's all true and verifiable.

No its not, you have not shown one piece of evidence that any of it is true.
I have shown actual Common Law Cases of people going to jail for pulling this exact same sort of stuff in court.

Originally posted by hawkiye
You might want to try and debunk the huge amount of research on it that has been compiled here: www.barefootsworld.net...

I do not have the time nor the inclination to read through that entire conspiracy site when they have ZERO examples of Case Law backing up their claims.

Originally posted by hawkiye
So some attorney wrote his BS opinion and you jump

I recommend you follow the links I posted to each quote above, there is a 500 word limit on whati can show from that site. That is not written by some attorney, its Case Law of many actual court cases on each of those topics. I only posted the first few examples of each type as it would go well beyond the 500 word limit imposed by ATS to add additional ones.

Originally posted by hawkiye
Ever heard of a fictitious business name?

Yes…
I owned a business.

Originally posted by hawkiye
All corporations are fictions using fictitious business names to hide behind to limit their liability.

There is no proof that the US is a Corporation….

Koar v. US (SDNY unpub 9/2/97) 80 AFTR2d 6797 rept adopted (SDNY unpub 8/14/98) 82 AFTR2d 6329, 98 USTC para 50748; ("Now Richey stretches the bounds of both lucidity and judicial tolerance past their breaking point by claiming that the landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in Erie RR Co. v. Tompkins, 1938, 304 US 64, stands for the proposition that the States of the Union are mere private corporations governed by provisions of the UCC. True enough, Erie makes difficult reading for first year law students, but even a cursory reading by a lay person reveals that the UCC is entirely unrelated to the case. And even given that the concepts in the decision might seem totally alien to Richey, surely a man who has done the legal research Richey has should know that the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Law Institute did not promulgate the first official text of the UCC until September 1951, thirteen years after the Erie decision. ... Moreover the court is not amused by the notion that Indiana is a mere private corporation governed by the UCC." Richey v. Indiana Dept of State Revenue (Ind. Tax Ct 1994) 634 NE2d 1375

Originally posted by hawkiye
So what do they do they create a fictitious business name for you at birth or with SS.

This is BS again, I have read all about the supposed ‘Strawman’, it does not hold up in court, it’s a conspiracy theory…

US v. Nichols (WD Okl 1995) 897 F.Supp 542 (Terry L. Nichols, an Oklahoma City bombing conspirator, "disclaimed US and Michigan citizenship and has declared himself in writing to be 'Foreign' and a 'Non-Resident Alien'." - He evidently had also done this in an attempt to evade his child support responsibilities

Perkins v. Elg (1939) 307 US 325; Ex parte Lopez (S.D. Tex 1934) 6 F.Supp 342. Renunciation or revocation of US citizenship is regulated by 8 USC sec. 1481 et seq and is applicable only in a limited range of situations, such as expatriation and allegiance to another country and almost always combined with a voluntary and formal renunciation of US citizenship made to a US diplomatic office abroad, in fact 8 USC sec. 1483 makes clear that this is virtually impossible for someone who is still inside the US (among the very few exceptions, instances of having obtained US naturalization by fraud or subsequently committing treason or sabotage). For example, it was not possible for someone born with US citizenship, namely a Puerto Rican, to renounce his US citizenship while remaining in Puerto Rico as a "Puerto Rican national", since that was not a bona fide foreign nation.

Barcroft v. CIR (1/2/97) TC Memo 1997-5 app.dismissed (5th Cir unpub 12/17/97) 134 F3d 369(t), 81 AFTR2d 453, 98 USTC para 50157; (claiming that as a "free sovereign individual citizen" he could unilaterally revoke his own Social Security Number, and thereafter refuse to comply with drivers license laws) Hershey v. Commonwealth Dept of Transportation (Penn.Commonw.Ct 1995) 669 A2d 517 app.den 544 Penn 664

Peth v. Breitzman (ED Wis 1985) 611 F.Supp 50 (this plaintiff later convicted for printing fake money orders); (claiming to be a Sovereign and therefore "no longer under the jurisdiction of Title 26 USC or any other negative law.... Anyone who attempts jurisdiction over a Sovereign is subject to criminal penalties of ten thousand dollars and/or ten years in prison")

Originally posted by hawkiye
You are deceived into believing this fiction is you because it spelled just like you name except in all caps.

Caps make no difference.
Again…

The use of all-caps to set off the names of principals or parties in legal documents is very old, predating the use of typewriters, perhaps to make the names all the more conspicuous in a document otherwise entirely written in copperplate script at a time when a large part of the general public could barely read block lettering. The UCC 1-201(10) deals with whether some detail is "conspicuous" and says "Language in the body of a form is conspicuous if it is in larger or other contrasting type or color." In one instance, a federal judge, confronted with a tax scofflaw whose argument consisted of the fact that all the tax and legal documents spelled his name out in capitals in a normal way while he insisted his name was spelled out with capitals and lower case letters and with punctuation in the middle (i.e. Edgar Francis., Bradley), ordered him to undergo psychiatric examination (which subsequently found him to be competent to stand trial). B.L. Kaufman, Judge Orders Defendant Tested, Cincinnati Enquirer, 6/17/98; this ploy ultimately failed. Assoc.Press, Man and two sons found guilty of tax fraud (2/3/99)

Originally posted by hawkiye
you subject yourself to all the BS the Federal Municipal Corporation and all it subsidiaries, State, police, courts, even schools, whom are private corporations/fictions exercise full control over you and you believe you are obligated to obey.

You are subject to obeying those things regardless of whether you attempt to declare yourself sovereign or not…

Refusing legal process because of some harebrain notion (usually using the sort of "refusal" formula set out in the UCC for banks rejecting doubtful checks):

(citations to UCC are meaningless; "the complaint filed by the [govt] is not a negotiable instrument and the UCC is inapplicable.") US v. Andra (D Ida 1996) 923 F.Supp 157

("plaintiff's reliance on the UCC as a basis for her "refusal for cause" [response to all court papers] is misplaced. A court order is simply not commercial paper subject to the [UCC] provision cited by plaintiff.") Ventura v. Krugielki (WD Mich unpub 4/14/94)

(plaintiff who commenced suit thereafter "refused" all court papers and denied being subject to jurisdiction of court; case dismissed and punished for contempt) Onkka v. Herman

(where a criminal defendant rejected court papers using the UCC refusal formula and was convicted, he sued the judge and others on the grounds, inter alia, of violating UCC sec. 3-501. "The Court finds that the UCC is inapplicable to the case at bar because none of the parties or factual allegations implicate issues of commercial law.") Gipson v. Callahan (WD Tex 1997)

and so on…

Originally posted by hawkiye
Attorneys are all officers of the corporate fiction courts they have a vested interest in protecting their meal ticket. and many people in the past who challenged them did not do it correctly. so of course you can find cases were people lost and the judge tries to scare others from trying. .

I bet you think that the flag they fly in the courtroom has something to do with admiralty law too… Don’t you?

Originally posted by hawkiye
It can be done and has been done by many including myself. Again you can pick any subject and I can dig up a case someone lost on it it doesn't mean its not possible.

If you did it, and you still live in the US, you have committed fraud according to the above quotes…

Funny how I only seem to run into people who have supposedly gotten away with this stuff on the internet.

Originally posted by hawkiye
Lots of people have been sued in court for slander some won and some lost so which is it can it be done or not?

Apples and oranges…
Slander is situation dependant, friggen around with the “Strawman” argument and the UCC is not situation dependant.

Originally posted by hawkiye
A better trick is to set up a lawful court on the republic and remand back to the Republic side and yes its been done. Lots of things have been done but the naysayers will never believe it and never research it. And that's the way the corporation likes it!

You mean make up a fake court like this:

enforce the "order" of a make-believe court. Young v. US (D Ida unpub 5/23/97); US v. Greenstreet (ND Tex 1996) 912 F.Supp 224; US v. Schiefen (D SD 1995) 926 F.Supp 877 aff’d 81 F3d 166 mand.denied 522 US 1074 ("the mythical judiciary described as ‘Our One Supreme Court for the Republic of Texas’ does not exist.");

(holding oneself out as the judge of a make-believe court prosecuted as impersonating a public officer notwithstanding there was no bona fide office with that title) State v. Wickstrom

Anyway, good luck with this stuff because the law is not on your side.

reply to post by JauntyFlannigan


Ok, I see where you are coming from then…
Makes sense.

Originally posted by Ionized
reply to post by theyreadmymind

 

Understandable. The other thread with April 19th in the title was also discussing the Restore America Plan, and I contributed heavily in there, so even I didn't really realize I was contributing to possible confusion by talking about RAP in that thread. I may have to go in and make a clarification statement. Now I see why some random people came in deploring the group for alleged militant behavior, as it appears the the whole April 19th thing is a bit more, militant, however entirely separate from Restore America Plan.

And I think that the some of confusion stems from some posters forums and blogs that unknowingly think the Articles of Freedom Rally, (supposed to occur on April 19), and Restore America Plan, and several others are all linked to each other.
Then, as always, the disinfo fools add their never ending replies of rhetoric on every site I've viewed. Wish I could just dragon-breath 'em.

Thing is, Tim Turner has said on the talkshoe site that this movement isn't looking for headlines or panic in the streets. And the process was intended to be low key ... sort of behind the scenes thing for that reason. And, I read that they are not going to get into the game of making announcements acknowledging which stories are true or not. (dam, can't find it ... I read it somewhere. I'll find it later, hopefully). He said it won't matter what is said because what they are doing is legal and they just have to be patient and let it it unfold.
But most of us, once we got wind of this thing, ... well we want more info ...
We want updates - What Governor signed, who didn't, is the FBI gonna arrest them. And, are they hiding? And where? (Kidding)

We want to know! We're not used to this information black-out stuff, .. I mean . Are we?
When a story breaks, a huge one .. like this .... We get it on every outlet available. I don't watch TV, haven't since 2006, but i have news outlets on my home page like Reuters, Independent News Service ... lots of independent sources (No msm allowed).
For this story I have to search blogs and forums - and listen in on these call-in sites, or podcast sites ...
just to find out what happened the day before!

Rather frustrating.

Originally posted by defcon5
Originally posted by hawkiye

No its not, you have not shown one piece of evidence that any of it is true.
I have shown actual Common Law Cases of people going to jail for pulling this exact same sort of stuff in court.

Sorry pal you haven't posted a single common law case. All the cases you posted are De facto in administrative corporate courts of equity and have nothing to do with common law. In cmmon law if there is no damaged party there is no claim or case.

Originally posted by hawkiye

You might want to try and debunk the huge amount of research on it that has been compiled here: www.barefootsworld.net...

I do not have the time nor the inclination to read through that entire conspiracy site when they have ZERO examples of Case Law backing up their claims.

Sigh...Of course they are not court cases they are the congressional record of the ratification of the original 13 amendment you say doesn't exist.

Originally posted by hawkiye

So some attorney wrote his BS opinion and you jump

its Case Law of many actual court cases on each of those topics. I only posted the first few examples of each type as it would go well beyond the 500 word limit imposed by ATS to add additional ones.

Case law is nothing but corporate statute policy it is not law and has nothing to do with law.

Originally posted by hawkiye

Ever heard of a fictitious business name?

Yes…
I owned a business.

Then it should not be hard for you to understand that the government is all about the strawman they create them you apply for them for business and they created one for you to assume its persona

Originally posted by hawkiye

All corporations are fictions using fictitious business names to hide behind to limit their liability.

There is no proof that the US is a Corporation….

LOL !

TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER A > § 3002

§ 3002. Definitions

(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;

www.law.cornell.edu...

You can also look them all up on Dunn & Brad street and they are listed as private corporations:

www.dailypaul.com...

Originally posted by hawkiye

So what do they do they create a fictitious business name for you at birth or with SS

This is BS again, I have read all about the supposed ‘Strawman’, it does not hold up in court, it’s a conspiracy theory….

sedm.org...

Again I can look up cases on anything and find some that were lost and these are all statute law anyway and have nothing to do with common law.

Originally posted by hawkiye

You are deceived into believing this fiction is you because it spelled just like you name except in all caps.

Caps make no difference..

There is no provision in Proper English for all capital names period. I spell my name one way, to spell it any other way is not my name. It is a construct by the corporation to delineate the fiction from the real man, their actions speak much louder then their words since they treat you as a legal entity and not a man or women.

Originally posted by hawkiye

you subject yourself to all the BS the Federal Municipal Corporation and all it subsidiaries, State, police, courts, even schools, whom are private corporations/fictions exercise full control over you and

You are subject to obeying those things regardless of whether you attempt to declare yourself sovereign or not…

LOL! have not only attempted I have done it buddy! So you go on bending over for the corporation while they steal you blind and regulate every aspect of your life. Have fun. since you got it all figured out,

I bet you think that the flag they fly in the courtroom has something to do with admiralty law too… Don’t you?

"Pursuant to U.S.C. Chapter 1, 2, and 3; Executive Order No. 10834, August 21, 1959, 24 F.R. 6865, a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE, bordered on three sides. The President of the United states designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of the Armed forces."

If you studied history there is such a thing as the law of the flag and it does have significance. Else why would the presidents military flag be flown in every court room in America? I thought the Executive was supposed to be separate from the Judiciary?

Since Congress renews the emergency war powers act every year and has done so since the 1860s we have been under commercial military rule. The constitution only mentions two forms of law, Common law, and Admiralty law. UCC is definitely taken from Admiralty law and Admiralty law is still the law of contracts. How do I know this I have used admiralty law to cancel and rewrite my contracts so I am not subject to the corporation anymore and it was accepted and is on the record.

You mean make up a fake court like this:

Well we have remanded several people out of the corporation courts and the Judge obeyed the orders. So again keep bending over and believing the word of corporate officers of the court is the word of god and enjoy your slavery and may your chains set lightly upon you.

"ALERT - Restore The Republic Message To All Armed Forces"
dated Feb. 23, 2010

www.youtube.com...

This videa is a heartfelt appeal to America's armed forces personnel, law enforcement personnel, and intelligence Services personnel to disobey orders in respect of their higher oath which is to uphold and defend the Constitution.

The forceful appeal is delivered by Gary Franchi, Managing Editor of Republic Magazine and National Director of Restore the Republic.

The high probability of economic collapse for the Republic is particularly stressed as is the failure of our rogue government to address its citizens' concerns.

Here's another video put out by Restore the Republic National Director, Gary Franchi.

"Restore the Republic's Sponsor a Patriot Program"
www.youtube.com...


[edit on 2-4-2010 by Toot Sweet]

Update:

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal intelligence note is warning police that an anti-government group's call to remove dozens of sitting governors may encourage others to act out violently.

A group that calls itself the Guardians of the free Republics has a plan to "restore America" by peacefully dismantling parts of the government, according to its website.

As of Wednesday, more than 30 governors had received letters demanding they leave office within three days or they will be removed, according to an internal intelligence note by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, which was obtained by The Associated Press.

Investigators do not see threats of violence in the group's message, but fear the broad call for removing top state officials could inspire others to act out violently.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's office confirmed the governor had received a letter and directed all further questions to the Louisiana State Police.

USA Today

So, they can't pin any violence intentions on RAP, so what do they do? Again, try to tie RAP in with other groups, and say that it could incite violence from the other groups.

But the bigger news here is that more than 30 letters have been received, so I'd say it's pretty clear that all 50 state Governors offices were indeed served. Yes, by mail, but Tim also said it wasn't by regular mail, and he wasn't sure what kind of mail it was. It could have been certified, we just don't know yet.

Also, note that USA Today is pretty MSM. That can only help spread the word.


[edit on Fri Apr 2nd 2010 by TrueAmerican]

Originally posted by hawkiye
Sorry pal you haven't posted a single common law case. All the cases you posted are De facto in administrative corporate courts of equity and have nothing to do with common law. In cmmon law if there is no damaged party there is no claim or case.

Those are both civil and criminal cases, the precedence’s set by the decisions adds to the existing case law (common law) on each decision.

Originally posted by hawkiye
Sigh...Of course they are not court cases they are the congressional record of the ratification of the original 13 amendment you say doesn't exist.

There were several 13th amendments proposed, besides the Titles of Nobility Amendment, none of them were ratified:

Misconceptions
It has been claimed that the TONA had become part of the U.S. Constitution—indeed many printings of the Constitution during the 19th century erroneously referred to it as being the Thirteenth Amendment.[4] Perhaps this misunderstanding could be traced to the mistaken belief that both chambers of South Carolina's legislature had acted favorably upon the TONA when, evidently, only one body had done so. Possibly, it can be attributed to the misapprehension that Virginia lawmakers had adopted the TONA, despite the long-standing belief that there was a lack of documentation that either chamber of Virginia's legislature ever even so much as considered the TONA. In general, 19th century procedures for communicating and recording the ratifications of constitutional amendments were haphazard, and some printings of the Constitution included the amendment out of uncertainty. Many other 19th century printings omit it.[4]
There is a further mistaken belief that the TONA was, at all stages, just one state's adoption shy of being incorporated into the federal Constitution.[4]
When the TONA was offered by the Congress to the state legislatures on May 1, 1810, the approval of 13 of them would indeed have been required. However, with the addition of Louisiana into the Union on April 30, 1812, that threshold increased to 14 state approvals. Louisiana's statehood commenced after the Massachusetts ratification of the TONA, but prior to the New Hampshire ratification of it. Then, when Indiana was admitted on December 11, 1816, the bar was raised up to 15 approvals needed to ratify the TONA. Although the admission of Mississippi on December 10, 1817, did not increase the numerical requirement, the entry of Illinois on December 3, 1818, did elevate that minimum to 16 state adoptions necessary for the TONA to be incorporated into the Constitution.[4]
The actual Thirteenth Amendment was ratified in December of 1865 and abolished slavery uniformly throughout the United States.

The assertion that TONA was validly ratified has never been upheld by any court in the United States. In the few instances in which courts have been confronted with the assertion that TONA was indeed ratified, judges have brushed those claims aside. In Campion v. Towns, No.CV-04-1516PHX-ROS, *2 n.1 (D. Ariz. 2005), a tax protester raised TONA as one of his defenses to a charge of tax evasion.[8] The court replied that it would "correct any misunderstanding Plaintiff has concerning the text of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution":
In his Complaint, Plaintiff includes a certified copy of the Thirteenth Amendment from the Colorado State Archives which was published in 1861. As included in that compilation, the Thirteenth Amendment would strip an individual of United States citizenship if they accept any title of nobility or honor. However, this is not the Thirteenth Amendment. The correct Thirteenth Amendment prohibits slavery. Although some people claim that state publication of the erroneous Thirteenth Amendment makes it valid, Article V of the Constitution does not so provide.

This is nothing more then tax protester nonsense, and it holds no water in court…

Originally posted by hawkiye
Case law is nothing but corporate statute policy it is not law and has nothing to do with law.

You just making this stuff up?
Case Law (common law) is the oldest type of law in existence. It goes back to the Roman Empire, and Corpus Juris Civilis, which is the basis of most legal systems from then onward. Corporations certainly did not exist back in the Roman Empire, corporations are a modern day legal construct.

Originally posted by hawkiye
Then it should not be hard for you to understand that the government is all about the strawman they create them you apply for them for business and they created one for you to assume its persona

You are trying to take the UCC which is Contract Law that applies to commercial transactions and apply it to other types of law, which is why it doesn’t work. That is what these judges are telling you here:

but even a cursory reading by a lay person reveals that the UCC is entirely unrelated to the case.

Moreover the court is not amused by the notion that Indiana is a mere private corporation governed by the UCC.

Refusing legal process because of some harebrain notion (usually using the sort of "refusal" formula set out in the UCC for banks rejecting doubtful checks):

(citations to UCC are meaningless; "the complaint filed by the [govt] is not a negotiable instrument and the UCC is inapplicable.") US v. Andra (D Ida 1996) 923 F.Supp 157

("plaintiff's reliance on the UCC as a basis for her "refusal for cause" [response to all court papers] is misplaced. A court order is simply not commercial paper subject to the [UCC] provision cited by plaintiff.") Ventura v. Krugielki (WD Mich unpub 4/14/94)

In other words, since you don’t seem to be grasping this, you cannot apply laws that exist to deal with things such as negotiable instruments to people as a person, straw or otherwise, is not a negotiable instrument. Pulling stuff like this is what they mean when they refer to these arguments as being pseudo-law. Anyway you try and twist it a human being is not a financial transaction, nor a contract.

Originally posted by hawkiye
LOL !
TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER A > § 3002
§ 3002. Definitions
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
www.law.cornell.edu...

Again you are trying to apply the UCC to things which it does not apply to. Go read the rest of the section besides that one, for example:

(c) Effect on Other Laws.— This chapter shall not be construed to supersede or modify the operation of—
(1) title 11;
(2) admiralty law;
(3) section 3713 of title 31;
(4) section 303 of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1673);
(5) a statute of limitation applicable to a criminal proceeding;
(6) the common law or statutory rights to set-off or recoupment;
(7) any Federal law authorizing, or any inherent authority of a court to provide, injunctive relief;
(8) the authority of a court—
(A) to impose a sanction under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
(B) to appoint a receiver to effectuate its order; or
(C) to exercise the power of contempt under any Federal law;
(9) any law authorizing the United States to obtain partition, or to recover possession, of property in which the United States holds title; or
(10) any provision of any other chapter of this title, except to the extent such provision is inconsistent with this chapter.

Here is what the UCC covers:

Article 1. - General Provisions
Article 2. Sales
Article 2A. Leases
Article 3. Negotiable Instruments
Article 4. Bank Deposit
Article 4A. Funds Transfers
Article 5. Letters of Credit
Article 6. Bulk Transfers and [Revised] - Bulk Sales
Article 7. Warehouse Receipts, Bills of Lading and Other Documents of Title
Article 8. Investment Securities
Article 9. Secured Transactions

None of this applies to people, their citizenship, their sovereignty, etc…
It has to do with financial transactions, including financial transactions between the US government and other entities.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Thanks, TA.
There is very little on other news services except the Nevada thing rehashed.
Just to note, USA today got that news item from the Associated Press news wire. That little (AP) in the dateline after Washington.

Since every news organization in the world has a wire service I wonder why only USAT was the only msm to run it?

Edit to say ..
Duh! Just realized who the rest of the msm serves and why they wouldn't run it.

More coffee, more coffee ....

[edit on 4/2/2010 by LatentElement]

This has hit Fox News as well.

Fox News

Investigators do not see threats of violence in the group's message, but fear the broad call for removing top state officials could inspire others to act out violently.

Reading between the line I see

Forget this whole idea because if it moves forward ... We WILL derail it.

Edit to add the fox link

[edit on 2-4-2010 by Cytokine_Strom]

Originally posted by hawkiye
sedm.org...
Again I can look up cases on anything and find some that were lost and these are all statute law anyway and have nothing to do with common law.

No what they are is fraud, and you will eventually go to prison for it…
Real jail, not fantasy debt dodger prison:

North Carolina couple faces 300 years in prison in bank fraud scheme from the handbook of the debt elimination movement
In an article for the Liberty Post written in May, 2008 by Highland Park, IL freelance writer Dick Greb warned of the consequences of patriots listening to other self-described patriots who believe they have captured the goose that lays golden eggs. That goose is named "BoE." According to Greb, "This is especially true when there are severe consequences to acting on mistaken beliefs, such as is the case with a Patriot myth now remaking the rounds: the issuance of Bills of Exchange [BoE]. This myth is another incarnation of the strawman (if I only had a brain) theory. Constitutional lawyer Larry Becraft posts the indictments of some of those who have swallowed this poison; criminal charges are often filed years after BoE's are used, while the promoters of this dangerous nonsense want you to believe that a lack of response is proof that the government accepts them as valid." Greb rightfully points out that since an International BoE is a certificate of indebtedness of the nation, then logic suggests anyone who fabricates one is guilty of counterfeiting obligations or securities of the United States in violation of 18 USC § 471. Under 12 USC § 26, 27 defined at 32 USC § 5103, in order to issue circulating specie, the Comptroller of the Currency must issue a BoE. Without it, any notes issued by the Federal Reserve are not legal tender. Greb subtitled his article "How to Make Really Sure You End Up in Jail."

I truly hope you have not tried this and think you got away with it because you have not heard from the government yet:

Greb was right. It took the federal government five years to come down on the Wahlers and their associates. Greb was also correct as to why they call the fake documents "strawmen." Greb's parallel was in comparing the document strawman with the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz. If you recall the tale, the Scarecrow was on a quest for a brain. Those who buy into the rhetoric spouted by the debt elimination crowd are just like the Scarecrow—a strawman in search of a brain.

However, the US Treasury has published countless consumer alerts warning those who fall into the clutches of the debt elimination scam artists that instruments labeled Bills of Exchange, Due Bills, Redemption Certificates, and Bonds of Discharge are fraudulent since most of these instruments are used only in the international arena by government agencies, banks, or transnational corporations engaged in commerce with other nations, banks or transnational corporations. They are never used by consumers without money to escape lawful debt (particularly when, until lawful money actually changes hands, nothing happens—except those who try to perpetuate the fraud are charged with a felony for their efforts.) US Treasury alerts are intended to inform those who are told otherwise that even if such forms appear to look like legitimate documents, all of them are premised on fraudulent claims. They are worthless and have no legal validity. In addition, those who get caught up in the scam are guilty of violating 18 USC § 1345.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Compliance & Enforcement Division has issued several alerts for consumers in dire financial straits to beware of several debt elimination websites. The FBI also issued a warning on Dec. 8, 2003 on its website at www.fbi.gov... advising those approached by debt elimination advocates that there are no loopholes and the scam artists prey on your desire to get something for nothing—or rather, for the upfront money the consumer is required to pay to lose everything they own plus risk going to prison.

Originally posted by hawkiye
There is no provision in Proper English for all capital names period. I spell my name one way, to spell it any other way is not my name. It is a construct by the corporation to delineate the fiction from the real man, their actions speak much louder then their words since they treat you as a legal entity and not a man or women.

Already covered this:

The use of all-caps to set off the names of principals or parties in legal documents is very old, predating the use of typewriters, perhaps to make the names all the more conspicuous in a document otherwise entirely written in copperplate script at a time when a large part of the general public could barely read block lettering. The UCC 1-201(10) deals with whether some detail is "conspicuous" and says "Language in the body of a form is conspicuous if it is in larger or other contrasting type or color." In one instance, a federal judge, confronted with a tax scofflaw whose argument consisted of the fact that all the tax and legal documents spelled his name out in capitals in a normal way while he insisted his name was spelled out with capitals and lower case letters and with punctuation in the middle (i.e. Edgar Francis., Bradley), ordered him to undergo psychiatric examination (which subsequently found him to be competent to stand trial). B.L. Kaufman, Judge Orders Defendant Tested, Cincinnati Enquirer, 6/17/98; this ploy ultimately failed. Assoc.Press, Man and two sons found guilty of tax fraud (2/3/99)

Originally posted by hawkiye
LOL! have not only attempted I have done it buddy!

What you mean is that you have not been prosecuted yet…
Give them some time, they will catch up with you.

As a matter of fact I just talked with the person I work with who is retired from the states attorneys office about this topic to double check a few facts. I was basically told that its complete BS and not to waste either of our time with discussing it. Its even warned about as being a scam from both the FBI and the Secret Service.

Originally posted by hawkiye
So you go on bending over for the corporation while they steal you blind and regulate every aspect of your life. Have fun. since you got it all figured out,

I would rather bend over for the government then some cellmate named buba…

Originally posted by hawkiye
"Pursuant to U.S.C. Chapter 1, 2, and 3; Executive Order No. 10834, August 21, 1959, 24 F.R. 6865, a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE, bordered on three sides. The President of the United states designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of the Armed forces."
If you studied history there is such a thing as the law of the flag and it does have significance. Else why would the presidents military flag be flown in every court room in America? I thought the Executive was supposed to be separate from the Judiciary?

No the flags with fringe are dress flags that are used indoors, the ones without it are used outdoors. You cannot fly a fringed flag outside as the fringe cannot handle the elements. The Flag code is not a law, it’s a set of unenforced parameters of how a flag is supposed to be displayed, there is no legal ramifications for not following the flag code…

The nitwits have amongst themselves this strange superstition that the presence of a gold trim on a courtroom's flag somehow imposes some different sort of law than what's expected -- although they cannot get their stories straight on whether it's martial law or maritime law, the two being very different. They have absolutely no legal authority for any of this and seem to be making it up as they go along. They don't seem to have noticed that the gold trim appears only on INDOOR flags, which are made of fairly flimsy material and would hang limp and drab without either breeze or sunlight indoors, so the gold trim provides some esthetic compensation for the lack of sunlight and breeze, and that all OUTDOOR flags, even the ones at military bases and on ships, don't have this fringe, because outdoor flags are made of heavier fabric and the wind and damp would soon ruin a fringe. Back in 1925 the US Attorney-General relied on the opinion of the predecessor to the US Army's Institute of Heraldry that the fringe was not an addition or alteration of the flag, and therefore not illegal, and moreover had no symbolic meaning. Currently the Institute of Heraldry and the non-government Flag Research Center both issue fact sheets debunking this militia myth about the fringe on the flag. There apparently has NEVER been a successful challenge to a court's decision or jurisdiction based on the absence of a correct flag or the presence of an "incorrect" flag in the courtroom.

Originally posted by hawkiye
UCC is definitely taken from Admiralty law and Admiralty law is still the law of contracts.

No, the UCC is Contract Law and is lesser then Admiralty law. Each state adopts its own versions of the UCC.

reply to post by defcon5


So, wait a minute... I just want to make sure I am understanding your post. It appears that you have provided evidence that the courts have attempted to abrogate their authority by illegally enforcing said authority through fallacious case law based on Uniform Commercial Code. So, in other words, a fradulent body whose authority is based on fraudulent pretense has found ways to assert it's "Authority" by applying illegal case law. Hmmmmmm, a reasonable person would expect EXACTLY as much!

I have studied the Freeman on the Land movement for years. Sure, there are literally THOUSANDS of court cases where someone attempted to erroneously assert sovereign status and have failed. DUH! Did you think the whole system which feeds of it's own illegal authority would make such a process easy??? Simply by accepting that court's "Authority" you have entered into a contract with it and are now bound by THEIR rules, not Common Law rules. This is an extremely complicated issue and your immediate dismissal of such and display of irrelivant court cases tells me that either a.) you are disinfo agent intent of providing further confusion regarding the matter to discredit it or b.) you are the victim of a disinfo campaign designed to shield people from seeing the truth.

This is evidenced through your simple claim that the United States is NOT a corporation. It most certainly is... and so are YOU!

reply to post by TrueAmerican


OMFG there is truth in this I was just listening to CBS news on the radio and they said governors of 30 plus states have received letters from an unkown source requesting them to step down or they will be removed on 3 days! I totally thought was BS BUT IT IS TOTALLY LEGIT!!!!!! SWEET!!!!

reply to post by TrueAmerican


What I want to know is why some of these Governors are not even reading it. For instance the Michigan Governor apparently never saw it, as the article claims it was opened by a staffer then immediately delivered to Michigan State Police for investigation.

I am assuming that 'Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal' was somewhere included in the verbiage...