Corporations: Not Persons, but Kings

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Oh, and when convenient, they can also squish themselves down into miniature form and masquerade as actual people.

But they are not people. They fake it, by using corporate defense lawyers.

In fact, since actual breathing and en-souled people like you and me, cannot inflate ourselves to the level of these great companies as Plymouth Company and so forth, then it is absurd to allow them, to occupy our humble station. They are Bishops, Barons and Kings, and they are above us.

We've been tricked into believing that they are above us...in fact, they're not. Watch the videos I posted earlier, it will totally open your eyes about who we really are. Did you know that you are the highest authority in a Court, but you're tricked into believing the Judge is? The information in the videos is VITAL for us all to learn and use, to protect ourselves and each other.

Originally posted by wcitizen
We've been tricked into believing that they are above us...in fact, they're not. Watch the videos I posted earlier, it will totally open your eyes about who we really are. Did you know that you are the highest authority in a Court, but you're tricked into believing the Judge is? The information in the videos is VITAL for us all to learn and use, to protect ourselves and each other.

Mm, yeah I did watch that video, and commented profusely on it.

But the thing is, tax protesting is tricky. I am describing the insanity inherent in the Kingly tool known as "company" or "corporation". But yes, taxes are where people get really upset.

Myself I do still pay the Federal tax because I have loved ones who will suffer if I don't. They play a trick with men, where a man might have enough time to do battle with the authority (as like the dude in the video) and outright resist filing taxes at all. BUT a man who has a family or obligations, would not be able to do battle with the King-courts. No, likely men like me are consigned to some job, and grateful to have it.

So in no way am I suggesting that families allow themselves to be destroyed by the open warfare of the IRS. But what needs tohappen is more of a show of resistance against them. I always cite UCC 1-207 because its plain meaning is that any consent under duress (like paying my taxes) does not prejudice other rights, meaning that presumption is nullified by understanding that code citation. But it really has no meaning since judges will still move to summary judgement. Like when I last used this in traffic court I knew the judge would railroad me anyway, no biggie, each time I get smarter. I was actually hustled out of court by the "defense attorney" and he basically begged me to just play along with "court" because otherwise I'd be jailed or have larger fines. I invested sufficient time and protest, so I did relent, having disrupted their cash collection machine, I still paid the fine.

So I guess my point about your videos is that in principle yes the guy is right (from the first two I watched) but there is a level where you still hand over your cash to the robber, while lecturing him about how theft is evil, and how his spirit will suffer. That's the level I am at because I personally cannot be some shatbag drifter who refuses to have family obligations just so he can "remain free". See when you settle down or have any loved ones who depend on you, then you are further disempowered to do all the court-combat and paper-filing and law-reading that is required.

Hence, law as a weapon.

So I would encourage people to ask any questions here in this thread, but not to get all fired up about stopping paying the tax or just giving cops a hard time when they do a traffic stop. Yes, I will gladly talk law with a cop, and I will gladly tell the judge he lacks jurisdiction, and I will gladly discuss the 14th amendment, and there are a lot of ways you can explain that you are not consenting and not relenting in that not consenting. However the nature of summary judgement (when the judge says 'Mm hmm, and can you pay today?") is that the judge knows he can cite you further, jail you briefly, and generally entangle you in his domain. Again: LAW AS WEAPON.

Now, what I hope for, is for finally someone to remove the barrister association from America. I feel the complete eradication of that group, and all who adhere to it, is the only way to restore an actual American judiciary process. Until that happens, these judges and their peers (titled, illegal in America) will always adjudicate toward the IRS, Rothschild, and the UK system which owns their titles. So until some hero kicks these assheads out of my country, I will be a dove, but a dove with fangs.

Anyway, just wanted to clarify. Feel free to ask any questions about these subjects. Or about our status, AS subjects, haha.

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Feel free to ask any questions about these subjects. Or about our status, AS subjects, haha.

And if you say you are not subjects?

Notice that the Income Tax itself was specifically by law to go until 1865 and NO LONGER. See this link for the actual issuance from Congress:

Statutes at Large, 37th Congress, 2nd Session, Page 474 of 1443

And so what caused all this was that Lincoln learned Rothschild (as is their way) was wanting to loan him money at extreme usury levels, and so Lincoln essentially invented the US Corporation and floated it with internal currency (greenbacks). It was unlike anything anyone had ever done, and it was the most egregious action to the Banksters, at that point according to the Congress of Vienna, the Pope, and now House Rothschild and its satellites: Lincoln must die. And sure enough they martyred him but not before he succeeded majestically. He is the great saint of this land.

And what he got done, was to create the 13th and 14th Amendments. The 13th says "indentured servitude shall not exist" which was huge, essentially making all slavery illegal, but it is a twin amendment with the 14th which says "All persons born or naturalized, and subject to the jurisdiction of the US" ...So in effect, what he did was to eliminate slavery, and then allow volitional subjection to the jurisdiction of the actual persons in the US (meaning not corporate persons but human beings). So notice how the 14th has two condition. First condition is that you get born (?) OR you can submit to testing and vows of oath i.e. "natural-ization". So first question is pretty simple, almost anyone can be part of that first group. But notice the second qualification is that you must be subject to the jurisdiction. This happens volitionally, though it is presumed under law, that no answer on your part, and acceptance of the product (Fed benefits, the roads, whatever else they call the 'product') is taken as silent subjection. When you present the certificate of live birth, which you mother created, they can then legally provide you a number for the SSN trust.

And so the corporation, is essentially a very slick form of assumed parentage/trustee station, by those economic powers who see themselves in this station already. The slavemaster felt quite comfortable having slaves you see, so to grease the slide and make it all presumed and trance-like, is just another indication that human beings are not able to care for themselves. Presumed dependency creates dependency, is a maxim that may apply here.

Now I agree with those who say, that Lincoln would have ended the US Corporation, but the amendments of the Constitution must remain. So he did intend to essentially create a citizen-servant type of arrangement, but only if that citizen-servant wants the product. Lincoln had to deal with the Indian problem, and unfortunately he was killed and much crueller men took over the US under the command of Albert Pike, Grand Scots Mason Supremeo. So since Pike was made US Boss of Scots Rite Masonry (a super-Kingly title ordained by the church and state) and he essentially created the Ku Klux Klan by uniting the "great white brotherhood" aka Jacobean Scots Protestant aka "bubbas" all under one roof, then it is truly a dark era in 1870 after Lincoln's death, and these enemies of his took his work forward, to do evil.

And what evil did they do? Well they practically eradicated the tribes of American Indians, they built up the Jim Crow blind racism law-crew of the South, and they got the 16th Amendment passed, which made income tax permanant. Now why would we need that income tax if it was only needed during war? I say it is because the civil war never ended. Lincoln's murder and the theft of the Federal power, and the ongoing treachery of Rothschild and Co. indicates to this American typing, that this war simply went to sleep, as they kept the world distracted for 140 years or so. If the civil war had ended, it is obvious that the Federal Income Tax would have ended as well, for there was no need for it prior to the war, and therefore after time of war, it (legally as linked above) was supposed to end. But since the war was actually won by the Corporations, and they killed the executive (Lincoln) who had dreamed it all up, there was nobody to prevent them.

Here's a funny truth: The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments of the COTUS. But, there were hundreds of rights that some framers wanted included. They said "We must delineate our rights for if not stated, how can they defended?" and their opponents argued "No! Let us not burden our Constitution with all these pages, let the amending process work in the future!" and so that's what they decided to do: Let the people of the future, amend the COTUS.

And what amendments have we gotten? Hmm, except for the 13th (seems quite solid) it's a bunch of meh. And some like the 16th (income tax, a Marxist plank) and 18th (Prohibition, big money maker) are downright criminal. But how can we prosecute the people who came up with those criminal amendments?

The 18th for example, is said to have created the "Golden Era" of gangstering. Yes, when young Vito from the town of Corleone has his name misunderstood. It is said that the era of the 18th Amendment made billions of dollars for the most reprehensible sorts of gangsters (not all honorable like Vito and his son Michael, Knight of Malta). But step back and you'll see the heroic "good" which rose from the 18th amendment, aside from the most gigantic piles of cash for the black marketeers, we got... The FBI! Nice huh? Gangster-billionaires and the FBI all created with one swoop of the Amending pen.

Now if one amendment of the COTUS can accomplish all that evil, just imagine what one could do, if it were intended to control evil? And in that case, let us say the plebes (you and me) wanted to establish an amendment for the people. What form would it take? What would be its content? And most importantly, what time do the people in HR go to lunch? No point in walking all the way down to HR and not being able to drop off our Amendment, right? How does this company work anyway?? Haha

en.wikipedia.org...

The accession of the Protestant Elizabeth in England in 1558 stirred the hopes and fears of Scottish Protestants. Elizabeth came to secretly support the Lords of the Congregation. In January 1559, the anonymous Beggars' Summons threatened friars with eviction in favour of beggars.

Now see, Mary was a Catholic who was given ruler of Scotland by the French throne. At that time, France itself was basically thrown up for grabs. But what was building in Scotland, was the inquisition-style management tactics of the Catholic Company Inc. So naturally, the people of Scotland (the homeless) simply decided to hold court. and how do you serve someone the notice that court is being held?

Why, you serve them a summons! And don't you think homeless people today would be better than these priests and bishops and pastors of today? Of course they would. And don't you think the Corporate King of today, doth decree that the tithe (Federal Tax) is the only honorable way to honor him? Of course it is so. Just as in the past, Crown and Cross work hand in hand, just as The Great King James the Protestor holds both the sceptre (crown) and the holy hand grenade (cross) meaning these two forces are lyke unto the right and left arms of some great beaste with doth beat the common families about the head and face and person.

Anyway, here is the text of that summons. Now who will lead the homeless of the USA today, to reclaim the churches of the US? You'd have to do battle with Satan himselfe, if ye chose that brave path as did those courageous ones of olden tymes.

www.st-johns-kirk.co.uk...

The Beggar's Summonds, to be fixed upon the gates and ports of all Friar's places within this realm. January 1558.

[From] The Blind, Crooked, Bedridden, Widows, Orphans, and all other poor so visited by the hand of God, as may not work.

To the flocks of all Friars within this realm, we wish restitution of past wrongs and reformation in time coming, for salutation.

You yourselves are not ignorant.. .which you, being whole of body, strong, sturdy, and able to work, what, under pretence of poverty (and nevertheless possessing most easily all abundance) what, through cloaked and hooded simplicity and by feigned holiness, which is now declared superstition and idolatry, has these many years, expressly against God's word and the practice of his holy Apostles. . .most falsely stolen from us. And as you have, by your false doctrine and twisting of God's word, induced all the people, high and low, in sure hope and belief that to clothe, feed and nourish you is the only acceptable alms allowed before God; and to give one penny or one piece of bread once in the week is enough for us.

Even so have you persuaded them to build you great Hospitals and maintain you by their purse.. .(hospitals) which only pertain to us lawfully as having been built and endowed for the poor, of whose number you are not. We have thought it well therefore. . . to warn you, in the name of the great God, by this public statement affixed on your gates where you now dwell, that you should remove yourselves from our said Hospitals between now and the Feast of Whit Sunday, next.

Now that is a superior court if there has ever been one! Wouldn't you agree?

But even then, the best efforts of these dudes, resulted in witchburning BS homeless merchant dudes, washing up on the shores of the American continent, and acting like holy righteous hell. So really the whole point of this, is to discuss how corporations are completely and utterly tools of crown and cross, and how there is no future in becoming human resources. We need a better way forward.

So, when will we Amend the COTUS to assist the people for real, not just assisting the Feds and the Gangstrs like the 18th amendment did?

So, when will we empower the homeless, and allow them to demand the churches be taken out of Satan's hands and placed into those of the Jesus spirit?

Originally posted by smallpeeps
So, when will we Amend the COTUS to assist the people for real, not just assisting the Feds and the Gangstrs like the 18th amendment did?

And so anyway, as you may note, the 18th Amendment now only benefits corporate gangster who operate under globo-"law". And in fact, the Feds themselves, are no longer part of the picture, having no authority as they did, to pursue "moonshiners" and such. Hmm, sad that nobody can pursue these globo-moonshiners these days huh?

Notice that America seems to relish its "tea party" brewer history. But all the major alcohol brands on the store shelves are sold by foreign corporations. Damn, that amendment seems to have been grown and chopped like a perfectly evil tree. It built up the foreign gangs in the US (and the FBI) and then it got removed, leaving only the gangsters, and without prohibition they then moved into all other forms of racketeering (using corporate forms and Consigliere puppets of course) and the FBI wasn't even ever meant to compete with them anyway. So now, it's a world run by globo-crime-corp.

Anyway, you can see below just a peek into the workings of the corporate persons. Now how many licensing and taxing bodies exist in the US for Booze and Tobacco? And how many of these brands are actually benefiting the US people who have to pay those fees?

And if the people of US or Australia (for that matter) decided to have a modern day "Beer Party" instead of tea, and pour the Fosters (or Bud) in the river, either trying to blame it on the indians or not, well, my question would be, would they be allowed to do all of that within the 30 minute lunch break mandated by the modern work rules? It is very hard to organize a tax protest or an anti-international conglomerate protest, within a 30 minute lunch break. I do not think even if they allow lunches to go to an hour length, that it can be done. Perhaps a weekend would work best? Ah but that's the time to kick back and crack the tubes, and who wants to work right mate? Cheers!

news.yahoo.com...

The cash deal values Foster's at A$9.5 billion ($10 billion). Taking debt into account the enterprise value of the bid is A$11.2 billion ($11.7 billion).

The Foster's business SABMiller is bidding for holds about half of Australia's beer market and little else, having retreated home from the global beer empire it once held and having split off its wine business earlier this year.

The Foster's brand belongs to Heineken in Europe, is licensed to SABMiller in the United States, and is either owned separately or brewed under license in all main markets outside Australia.

A potential SABMiller-Foster's deal would join together the brewer of Miller Lite, Peroni and Grolsch with Melbourne-based Foster's, whose main brands there are Victoria Bitter, Pure Blonde and Cascade, in line with SABMiller's strategy of creating an attractive global spread of businesses.

It would be the biggest brewing deal since InBev paid $52 billion to buy Anheuser-Busch to form AB InBev in the world's biggest cash takeover in 2008.

Originally posted by smallpeeps
[
Mm, yeah I did watch that video, and commented profusely on it.

But the thing is, tax protesting is tricky. I am describing the insanity inherent in the Kingly tool known as "company" or "corporation". But yes, taxes are where people get really upset.

Myself I do still pay the Federal tax because I have loved ones who will suffer if I don't. They play a trick with men, where a man might have enough time to do battle with the authority (as like the dude in the video) and outright resist filing taxes at all. BUT a man who has a family or obligations, would not be able to do battle with the King-courts. No, likely men like me are consigned to some job, and grateful to have it.

So in no way am I suggesting that families allow themselves to be destroyed by the open warfare of the IRS. But what needs tohappen is more of a show of resistance against them. I always cite UCC 1-207 because its plain meaning is that any consent under duress (like paying my taxes) does not prejudice other rights, meaning that presumption is nullified by understanding that code citation. But it really has no meaning since judges will still move to summary judgement. Like when I last used this in traffic court I knew the judge would railroad me anyway, no biggie, each time I get smarter. I was actually hustled out of court by the "defense attorney" and he basically begged me to just play along with "court" because otherwise I'd be jailed or have larger fines. I invested sufficient time and protest, so I did relent, having disrupted their cash collection machine, I still paid the fine

You've missed the point of the first two videos, I think - and you really need to watch the others if you want answers to the above. You didn't have the information to defend yourself properly in Court and if you were to watch the other videos you would see why, and how you could have protected yourself.

But basically, you have to be willing to put in the effort to learn the essential information - as he describes in detail in the series of videos. In they are approximately 2-3 hours, most of them are only 14 minuts long. If you aren't willing to invest some time and effort to learn how to protect yourself from exactly what you describe above ... well that's a choice you make. But like he says, don't then complain about what the government is doing to you.

So I guess my point about your videos is that in principle yes the guy is right (from the first two I watched) but there is a level where you still hand over your cash to the robber, while lecturing him about how theft is evil, and how his spirit will suffer. That's the level I am at because I personally cannot be some shatbag drifter who refuses to have family obligations just so he can "remain free". See when you settle down or have any loved ones who depend on you, then you are further disempowered to do all the court-combat and paper-filing and law-reading that is required.

Hence, law as a weapon.

What can I say - there's no point in discussing it further because you've only seen two of the videos. If you don't have the will to do anything about it, there's nothing anyone else can do. The info is all there.

So I would encourage people to ask any questions here in this thread, but not to get all fired up about stopping paying the tax or just giving cops a hard time when they do a traffic stop. Yes, I will gladly talk law with a cop, and I will gladly tell the judge he lacks jurisdiction, and I will gladly discuss the 14th amendment, and there are a lot of ways you can explain that you are not consenting and not relenting in that not consenting. However the nature of summary judgement (when the judge says 'Mm hmm, and can you pay today?") is that the judge knows he can cite you further, jail you briefly, and generally entangle you in his domain. Again: LAW AS WEAPON.

All the things you say above have nothing to do with what's in the videos. You don't talk law with a cop, you don't tell a judge he lacks jurisdiction.

Now, what I hope for, is for finally someone to remove the barrister association from America.

That's the crux of your problem, I think. You want someone to do it for you whereas the videos are about empowering each individual to learn how to do things lawfully themselves.

I feel the complete eradication of that group, and all who adhere to it, is the only way to restore an actual American judiciary process. Until that happens, these judges and their peers (titled, illegal in America) will always adjudicate toward the IRS, Rothschild, and the UK system which owns their titles. So until some hero kicks these assheads out of my country, I will be a dove, but a dove with fangs.

Anyway, just wanted to clarify. Feel free to ask any questions about these subjects. Or about our status, AS subjects, haha.

Basically you're coming to a series of incorrect conclusions based on not being willing to watch the rest of the videos, and seemingly having not really grasped the point of the first two.

Originally posted by wcitizen

Wow, pretty aggro there with nothing to back it up! I'm hurt.

Well your guy (is it you?) is not the one with the whole solution, because he is telling people not to pay their taxes, so hiding behind some youtube video you fail to break down, is a truly lame tactic.

Come back and discuss things. Sure I know what not to say to a judge and what to say, I like to mess with them, and yet also deny them the right to pursue for damages.

You are a complete fool if you think encouraging regular folks to not pay the tax will work. Son I am disappoint.

And you have no appreciation for all the history I have presented here and also no appreciation for me taking the time to breakdown your video. LAME.

Damn dude there's tons of videos to watch, and your own dude from the video says "There's 800 gurus but I'm the BEST." Farking lame. He's telling people not to pay their taxes which is a fools game unless prepared to go to jail, stupid.

And in fact, what I am doing (breaking them down) is helpful because your guy is full of crap about a couple key things. But since you won't discuss it yourself and give the patent lame answer "go watch the videos" then really what is there to say? "Go watch the videos" about some fool starting out bragging about how he's never paid taxes in 12 years is a stupid and arrogant attitude, inappropriate for families seeking the right path.

The truth is there are so many reckless "sovereign" fools out there encouraging families to jump into the destructive maw of the courts, that I fear these so called helpers will be the destruction of anything good. It is typical of these types to just make some videos and then FAIL to discuss the content.

If you had any sense or compassion, you'd put some effort into discussing the particulars, as it stands, your response to my work here, is crap. But anyway, I'll continue to watch the vids so I can critique them as I've done. And also, I'm right about the points I made. If you muster the time or intelligence to reply about the specific arguments I made, go right ahead. Thanks! But bragging about not paying taxes, is stupid.

Originally posted by wcitizen

Now, what I hope for, is for finally someone to remove the barrister association from America.

That's the crux of your problem, I think. You want someone to do it for you whereas the videos are about empowering each individual to learn how to do things lawfully themselves.

[...]

Basically you're coming to a series of incorrect conclusions based on not being willing to watch the rest of the videos, and seemingly having not really grasped the point of the first two.

Getting rid of the barristers and their Rothschild banking backers seems obvious to this American. We should have American justice not overseas clubs. What part of that do you fail to grasp? The fact that you defend the system and point to some legal youtoobe videos as the end all be all, and that you can't discuss the particulars, makes me question your value system. How could you defend this system?

NEWSFLASH: Families do not have the time to engage in court-war, nor should a family have to incorporate to survive. So I am right in asking the system to become simpler.

I am not saying that people shouldn't learn law, but you are cruel to keep these foreign law-as-weapon agents in power. Your comment above displays a great lack. As Jesus said to the law-as-weapon dudes of his time, "You bind up heavy loads and place them on the shoulders of the weak" and so you are disagreeing with that sentiment, saying instead "oh, they just need to get stronger." that about right?

Sure, I know there's lots out there, but it seemed you were drawing conclusions about what he was saying without having an understanding of what he was saying. That was my point.
So really, I didn't think there was much point in discussing the videos if you haven't seen them.

It is my personal belief that we have been indoctrinated into this mindset where someone else has to sort out the problems, so that people have no idea of, let alone use the power we have.... and it has reached the oint where it's easier to say we are powerless, I guess.

I have no wish to offend, but at the same time, what is it going to take for people to wake up and do something?

Originally posted by smallpeeps

Getting rid of the barristers and their Rothschild banking backers seems obvious to this American. We should have American justice not overseas clubs. What part of that do you fail to grasp?

What have I failed to grasp? Where have I said that's not the case? And other than giving an uninformed critique of something you haven't seen, what exactly is the solution you propose?

The fact that you defend the system

I defend the system? PLEEEZ show me one post of mine where I defend the system.

and point to some legal youtoobe videos as the end all be all, and that you can't discuss the particulars, makes me question your value system. How could you defend this system?

Where do I say it's the be all and end all?
You've missed the point again. And yes, I can discuss the particulars - but you have already written them off without watching them, so what is the point of discussing the particulars?

NEWSFLASH: Families do not have the time to engage in court-war, nor should a family have to incorporate to survive. So I am right in asking the system to become simpler.

And you saying that on ATS is going to make one jot of difference?

And AGAIN you've missed the point. No-one needs to incorporate. Your legal entity is already incorporated.
You're right, we shouldn't have to fight to protect our freedoms, but sadly the truth is that we are in a situation where we have to.

I am not saying that people shouldn't learn law, but you are cruel to keep these foreign law-as-weapon agents in power.

I honestly don't know what on earth you are talking about. How am I keeping them in power? Why would I? I am totally against the system. We are beginning to get more accurate information about how their abusive and deceitful system works. If I have to learn that in order to better protect mine and others' freedoms and erode their abuse of power, I will do it.

Your comment above displays a great lack. As Jesus said to the law-as-weapon dudes of his time, "You bind up heavy loads and place them on the shoulders of the weak" and so you are disagreeing with that sentiment, saying instead "oh, they just need to get stronger." that about right?

I don't know what this 'law-as-weapon' thing of yours means. THEY distort the law and use it as a weapon against us. So, if we can unravel the tricks and use that knowledge as a weapon to obstruct their abuses, I'm all for it.

THEY are the ones who put their heavy loads on us - the latest being trillions of debt on the ordinary people, and the moral weight of killing thousands of people abroad. Me, I want to find effective ways of fighting back and saying NO. Sorry you have a problem with that.

Okay wcitizen I will take this thread toward you and your replies, since you are saying you've got the system

You don't understand Law-as-weapon, that's a concept that escapes you? Okay we'll start there: Law as a weapon means they can attach their processes to you, if you screw up. They can summon the regular folks, and cause them problems, if they act like the dude in your video.

Now, I have watched 90 minutes worth of your guy there, the canuk in the video. And just like I knew it would, his process like all the other processes, requires a person to be a smartass in front of the judge. Only finally 5 videos in does he get to that point, because he's one dude, yakking about he has found the remedy. And his remedy is to play the straw man game in court, and make the judge look silly by answering smartly "Man." when judge asks who he is. That's not going to work.

I would respect you if you could discuss the videos here, but you seem to be the sort of person who can only post videos not discuss them. So right there, you're pretty useless. Let's talk about the particulars okay? I have a lot of data from sovereign dudes who recommend that other people place themselves at risk from the violence of the courts.

Whats truly weak about your posts here, is that you are focusing on the dance-of-court and you are saying this dude's method is the best. But as I explained, being some tough guy who goes in and plays cutesy games with the judge won't get it done for the regular people who don't have those answers. Even in the video, your guy here sounds like a total jerk. Did you notice that? I guess the remedy is to be more of a dick? This guy in the video is one of those people who can't even really smile, it looks fake. I've seen many people in this context, and they can't relate to regular people (sheeplike) all they know how to do is explain the dance and then "coach" people in it. But going in to the judge and answering "Man." when they ask you your name, is utterly stupid, for the regular person reading this. Sure you and I could go in and seek to act as a director of a corporate legal person, but for you to say this set of videos is the remedy for the common people, is pure stupidity.

I have difficulty respecting you, because I can only respect people who appreciate the history of humans, and specifically why that history in this most recent century has been so bloody. But you see some of these "sovereign" people become such total assholes focused on obtaining their "freedom" from methods like this, that they lost all compassion for other humans, and for the abuse of law itself.

I understand, you do not value my historical truths mentioned here in this thread. So since you don't respect human history (or you say it is 'irrelevant') then what more is there to discuss? You videos, thanks for them, yes the guy mentions good fundamental points for seeking the corporate law straw man remedy. But for the guy in the video to say that there is no UCC remedy as well, only displays his foolishness. There are several paths one can take to remedy the situation, not just one. UCC is another valid path, and for him not to know that, makes him just another Internet wildcatter, willing to send people into court and see if they sink or swim with his remedy.

As for the videos themselves, yes I sat down and watched them. He is saying to go into court and act like your smarter than the judge. I am not saying it won't work, but that's not a Christian remedy.

Also, since this is Canada, and I'm speaking as a US person, it's astoundingly stupid of you to disrespect the historical truths I've mentioned here. You're acting as if the colonization which was both Canada and the US, was something not related to why people are victimized by lawyers. You seem to be saying that the law as it is, run from a foreign UK company association, is just fine. In this, and with your complete inability to discuss ideas in this thread, I have to wonder where you are coming from. But sure I'll devote time and attention to your little videos here. But are you able to discuss them point by point and debate sovereign remedies here?

And anyway, someone who dismisses history, or the oppressive weight of this thing called the courts, is highly suspect to me.

Steering people to this method of playing smart ass games in front of the judge and stepping into the position of CEO/Director of the corporate straw man person, is encouraging people toward folly. Sorry wcitizen I can't really take you seriously considering your great lack of ideas here. Saying "watch the video" and then failing to acknowledge the evil of law-as-weapon and failing to discuss history and its relevance to this situation, is lame.

Also, if you are going to reply, try to have some substance to your replies. Like for example, explain to me how history does not result, in the present. Explain to me how fitting oneself into a more complex modern form of law (corporate law) is a better remedy than standing on God's spirit? The man in your video says it is known that you have rights, and I think he is wrong when he says this, there are atheist Marxist judges who hate people who testify to the spirit of God in court, and who would be much happier with corporate forms, but even then, this man's videos finally do lead to his main point which is that he requires his students to go act like a smartass in front of a judge, which I admit is fun, but dangerous if you misstep. Sure, you are saying we should learn how to masquerade as directors of our own corporation. And also you are saying that lawyers are just like regular people (they aren't, they have titles) and the the corporate form should become the form we all use, in every day life. I could attack these videos more but I am realizing your responses are so full of lack that I may have to just ignore you until you actually present an idea, or show some knowledge of history.

Anyway, corporations act as persons, but your method is that we as persons should act as corporations. Yeah, that's stupid, even if it works sometimes.

Also you dude in the video, like some kind of tough hockey player, makes threats to the judge like "And if you summon me to another hearing again without my written consent, I'll sue you for a million dollars attached to your law license!" and sure, this guy looks like he's checked a few people into the boards, looks like a tough fellow. But for him to say this method is appropriate for the average family who isn't a tough single man like him, is stupid and senseless. When you are ready to discuss the particulars, or history, let me know.

Alrighty then. I had hoped that this thread would be a discussion along the lines of connecting the dots, because that is the beauty of conspiracy research, being able to focus the telescope of history in the right way, so as to explain why things are so jacked up, today.

So now I have been asked to get right into the nitty gritty of sovereign issues. And so, we will do that, and as it appears, I have to carry the load to explain the core issues, because SOME people, just want to throw complex issues out, and redirect the conversation toward some granular aspect which suits them.

For whatever reason, these Internet discussion threads, do get re routed, and that's fine. BUT this is a conspiracy forum, and one essential maxium of conspiracy is that it is something done against the individual human. That is to say, conspiracy is only possible from high titled powers like governments and corporations. The people, cannot be guilty of conspiracy, for it only applies where there is power.

I want to begin this sovereign discussion here, because this is a conspiracy forum. And it seems like recent contributors to this thread are 1: Trying to draw the focus away from history, calling it "irrelevant". And 2: Trying to steer focus away from the titled class of people who use the courtrooms to accomplish general Pharisaic evils against the people. And so that steering, must be addressed. 1: History is essential to understand the authority which the court presumes, and 2: These titled classes, Knight, Esquire, Bishop, Lord, etc, etc are all anathema to Americans. We do not have titles.

This is a conspiracy forum. So this thread has begun on the right path toward the explanation of the title, namely that the notion "corporate person", is absurd. Corporate boards and directors, see themselves as super-persons. They know this thing called the corporate person, is a super-person.

You and I are human beings. I prefer that term, human being, or "Earthling". I do not like 'person' nor do I like to append or amend explanatory words to this word "person". This word, "person" has been destroyed by corporate lawyers. Until it is restored by smacking down those who would wreck the language, then we must attach other words to it like "legal person". But I want to pause here and state a plain fact: If you have to append a word, then that word is less functional.

But to explain the word person, it means essentially, a party that can act or be acted upon, at law. So in a way, according to that definition, a corporation can act and be acted upon, and so they might fit that definition. But here is where the language is being destroyed via law-as-weapon.

An example of this destruction of the language by titled sages, can be explained by considering first, Black's Law Dictionary, as the bible of law-as-weapon:

btw, what's the term for words that have one definition, but also have the complete opposite definition as well? I know there is a name for such words that are defined against themselves in this way. Can someone remind me what the name?

BLACK's LAW 8th

PERSONA

persona (pr-soh-n), n.[Latin] Roman law. A person; an individual human being.

persona designata (pr-soh-n dez-ig-nay-t). [Latin] A person considered as an individual (esp. in a legal action) rather than as a member of a class.

persona dignior (pr-soh-n dig-nee-or). [Latin] Hist. The more worthy
or respectable person; the more fitting person.

persona ficta (pr-soh-n fik-t). [Latin "false mask"] Hist. A fictional person, such as a corporation. "But units other than individual men can be thought of as capable of acts, or of rights and liabilities: such are Corporations and even Hereditates Iacentes. Accordingly the way is clear to apply the name of person to these also. The mediaeval lawyers did so, but as they regarded Corporations as endowed with personality by a sort of creative act of the State, and received from the Roman lawyers the conception of the hereditas iacens as representing the persona of the deceased rather than as itself being a person, they called these things Personae Fictae, an expression not used by the Romans." W.W. Buckland, Elementary Principles of the Roman Private Law 16 (1912).

Now, when these corporate-canuk-sovereign videos got posted here, I tried to break them down, and that didn't work for the dude who posted them. But I will continue to break them down, since dude is saying that these videos are the holy grail. Well, in the first video, the corporate-canuk-sovereign rattles off some verbage along the lines of "Well you see trust law is the basis of what became corporate law" ..And I tried to break that down, thinking it would help, the people who like these videos. See, that's how a person maintains a thread from shillery. You have to go right at them.

Now, I will pick up that thread again, and we'll break down what corpo-canuk-sov in his video #1, says. He says "trust law derives from corporate law". True perhaps, but that is why history is so important. See, as I mentioned, the basis of trust law was DEATH. You had to die first, for "trust" (which you know, we all know what trust means, it takes some real jackassery to destroy these words) you had to be dead, and then trust that people would see to your estate. I explained this point, did I not?

So anyway I wanted to get this discussion going on the right foot, so by using the law-as-weapon tool of Black's Dictionary (which is just a fetish of the law-as-weapon titled class --All laws should be written in plain english not fancy pants verbal weaponry) as above, I am explaining the difference. Notice that Prof. W.W> Buckland in his "ELEMENTARY (hilarious use of the word btw) Principles of Roman Private Law", that only the MEDIEVAL ASSES decided that a trust could be an actual fake person without any death of any real person. The Romans (as the Prof points out) never used the term "Personae Fictae" yet video dude here just makes a connection for you, not explaining the history, that "Well trusts are where we get corporate law". WRONG. You get corporate law of today, from total and complete fakery, not connected to Roman trust law AT ALL.

As the quote says above --and I am quoting a frikking dictionary here that then uses this quote from a legal professor to define a term --WHICH TERM represents the complete system under which we live, further identifying the truly absurd hilarity of modern life and also the company claims which created these modern corporate fictions, aheh, the quote says plainly that the Romans only ever used the term "Hereditates Iacentes" and not "Persona Fictae". Heredit is the root of the word heredity, meaning of course progeny, issuance, children who then receive an estate or wealth or birthright.

So as this quote explains, the corpo-canuk-sov dude in these videos, is not completely explaining the origins of law-as-weapon. As I have explained, there is no question as to the fact that medieval lawyers did violence to the word "person", as I have explained prior to this, I am simple making it an established fact by quoting the fetish-text of the law-as-weapon crowd, and using it to explain clearly, that the views of the medieval law-sages, were not what the Romans had in mind. The Roman law was pertaining to the trust required when someone dies. They did not (so far as I can find in this fetich-text called Blacks) use fake personas to accomplish control of the people.

But I suppose if this new Medieval method of creating fake persons at law based on fraud and used against the people, it'd be General Fabius Maximus whose spirit would be present.

Yes Fabius who knew he could not defeat Hannibal outright, just as the personas in power today know they are vastly outnumbered by the common people, Fabians of today have this same tactic of their namesake. They accomplish scorch-and-burn tactics on the cultural and linguistic level, and they wage this war generationally, for hundreds of years. There is no way you can ever win, without understanding history, and the Fabian tactic of slow, monotonous, removal of hope. I am glad to have explained that the Romans at least only created fake personas to act in the place of the deceased. I am glad to have explained that middle-ages jerkwads took that concept and removed Death from it. I must say, Death himself must be very upset at his removal from this concept of fake persons. See because you can't fake birth or death. And so the original word "trust" was a true and unsullied word, untainted by centuries of Fabian tactics on a verbal level. It meant, "When I die, I trust that you all will see to my estate." and the Republic then swore "Yes Fomentius," or whomever "you may trust us, we will see to your estate." ...And when Fomentius dies, and there is a question as to his estate, ONLY THEN do they create a fictious persona, and only as the deceased! They in effect honestly used it with integrity (one can assume) by asking themselves, "Well, Fomentius entrusted us with this responsibility, so let us consider what he himself would have said."

So you can see how much explanation it takes to clarify some thrown-out phrase in a youtoobe video. I also have videos on youtoobe, yet I do not ask people to go view hours of toobes and then report back to me. That's weak sauce. Me I will write wall of text because I know there are a few little folks who will read every word and will get smarter and need never reply to me. So this post is for all of you. I say don't go to youtoobe, don't listen to some dude who's giving you short shrift explanations, and don't disobey Jesus' suggestion to be as doves. The meek will inherit the Earth, not the clever.

Okay, so now that we understand the way lawyers see the word person (and fake-person)...

www.youtube.com...

Here's how far I have gotten with the fellow's videos, thanks for making them brah, I don't meant to disrespect the dude in the video, he's telling truth and trying to help people.

Now, in this video, he explains two key elements of acting as some titled corporate party, to the straw man trust/corporation.

I like how he says "are you going to harm me?" and they say "yes you will be arrested" good stuff there. I apologize if I came across as being disrespectful but i'll not edit my words, I feel I was provoked. But the best way to clarify, is to point out that this guy is correct in his method, but again, if history and law-as-weapon and the nature of corporate forms, in understood, then I feel my comments are valid.

If you watch this video, and you can be as forward and direct with the judge as this, then go for it. He mentions also that you should file your testimony in the form of questions as to how the trust works. So you'd presumably file an affidavit with whatever court you expect might roll you up on codes and statues.

He does also in this video, use the term "administrative remedy". Which is appreciated, it does clearly describe what this remedy he espouses, is called. However, I would again mention that Karl Marx's favorite sort of functionary destructive tool, is the administrator. Now you may say, "Why?" Well, for that I will post a futurama video for you.

On the other hand, he is wrong about Uniform Commerce(ial) Code not being a remedy which people use. In fact, I believe if this man were able to reply here, he'd agree with me that some people do use admiralty arguments and do create their status at law and do activate their remedy on these terms. I do know people who use common law remedy, administrative remedy and also UCC remedy, these three all actually orbit the ideas I have raised in my thread.

Common law would be "simplest law", I would say. Does not require titles, is based on fuedalism unfortunately.
Adminstrative Remedy would be use of corporate titles, forms and fee schedules, is based on fictional persons.
Maritime Admiralty Remedy is based on the sea, the uniformity of water which boundaries all lands.

So anyway, hell yeah this dude is explaining how to do administrative combat and fee schedule and show of force in a persona totaly-fake world, yes, this is the way to do it. Also his idea of filing the affidavit of testimony in the form of questions (sheeplike, dovelike) is always better than confronting the judge, yes, perhaps I have mis-framed the matter, he is trying to prevent courtroom drama. I also would prefer the affidavit to courtroom drama, and I have no real need to make judges feel in any way less-than-comfortable. But if they get upset, and they get angry, well, that is their prerogative as employees. Anyway, I would say this man's terms here are fine, to say "I am a man", is acceptable, but I would phrase it more like "Your honor, a name is that designation applied to a thing by the owners of that thing. I am not owned, I do not have a name, I can tell you who I am." Though I've never had to use this, I do have it in my toolbelt. And it is effectively the same as the dude above advises, it's just more dovelike and less obtrusive to the judge. It makes the point though, because my verbage explains the word but offers to tell him who I am, and that would be my first name. In this way, the judge has more time to consider his answer. I do not like to put real pressure on the judge. I appreciate the maxim "Never blame a man for his accidental employment." So what the means is that a lot of these judges are on the bench because of their mom or dad who smacked them around, so I feel for them. Power is a miserably heavy sword to wield, or so I would imagine.

BUT this dude's part about "names do not matter", I would like to point out that he is suggesting using titles instead of names, and that this is one of the evils of the corporate procedure, to use titles instead of names. So, Dave the Vice President, is more important than "just Dave."

That is to say, if I may use his analogy of the director's chair as the head of the corporate straw man, life is not supposed to be like a movie set with each of us being the directors of someone else's corporate straw-man all-caps corporate person. I mean really now, wouldn't it be better to save ourselves the stress of having to collide with every paid constaple or magistrate? To me, as an american, titles are silly. I enjoy the term I see on many forms where they ask you your "occupation". Haha, what's the difference between my occupation and title, at the job I have? I am seeing that scene in The Big Lebowski, "Are you employed, Mr. Lebowski?" and he replies in a puzzled way, "Employed?" Ha! The Dude of course, abides.

I would prefer to preserve the judge's ego, but force him to relent due to superior Godly spirit. Yes I know I am a fool to wish that, nevertheless, I feel that the wing of the dove, is as persuasive as the talon of the hawk. But what is the difference? We both have the same objective, which is to be free, to fly. I am reminded of that Pirates movie where Johnny Depp says that he has to "fight... To run away!"

I would melt the heart of scrooge like the ghosts of Christmases, rather than make him look stupid. So I guess my words above, were a bit harsh, in fact if you choose the administrative remedy and want to "walk like a corporation", then yes, this is a fine set of videos. I actually enjoy them and will comment on more of them as I watch them.

However, I do not agree that corporate forms and titles, as such, are the solution. That is not American. We do not have titles. Now in Canada, whose people I love, perhaps they have titles? I don't know. But they do refer to the court as "the crown", and so I think this is very topical discussion. Americans would not have a crown, they would not have a King who dominates them. Yet as a nation they grieve wholly for the loss of JFK, their ultimate admin-King. So you see, there is deep and subtle title and role-play going on.

I will continue making my points along the following lines and I open these matters up to discussion in this thread:

1: Is UCC a real remedy?
2: Do we need to use corporate titles in court?
3: What is the nature of trust of persons?

Sorry if I was a bit harsh in my reply, this is a fine set of videos and yes, I do understand what is being explained.

Haha this is the video I meant. Awesome.

And this one..



Haha, well you get the point I am sure.

I couldn't find the Johnny Depp "fight to run away" clip, the mouse has that shaznatt locked down on youtube, tighter than the Monopoly Guy's coinpurse. Can't post pirates videos on the web coz its piracy. DERP.

And while we are in the vein of "hey dude go to youtoobe and watch this video, to solve world problems! I'd like to make my point in the same fashion.

Now is it true that a blind person, who is also deaf, can comprehend rhythm? Yet we might call them, dis-abled persons? Hmm, so many different types of actual person, who has time for a world full of fake ones?

Hmm, some would have us take on the corporate personages and titles and leave our real selves at the door. I am reminded of Jesus, who said that the law-lovers had made mercantile trade, their main obsession. So what Jesus is saying essentially, according to the truth of history, this: "GTFO." Because you see, some systems are built with a finite timeline, and when this one collapses, it's best if it does so in an orderly fashion, and that the next version of human justice can understand where the people of the past went wrong.

Anyway, music is perhaps the best sort of social commentary, according to the Celtic spirit, so in the spirit of King James, I offer this commentary:

Nuclear Assault - Stranded In Hell

Come on a journey, come on take a chance
We'll take you where you've never been
Where fire is ruler - and pain brings on lust
A world full of unholy sin
Where sickness and madness, are taken in stride
and virgins are burned at the stakes
Try to get out, if you can you'll escape
You'll break free before it's too late

Stranded in Hell, ring Satan's bell
There's nothing else you can do
Stranded in Hell, hear your death knell
'Cause the Master is coming for you

Chained up and shackled, you can't see a thing
A blindfold lies over your eyes
You are bleeding from scars where the crosses were cut
And no one will answer your cries
You feel an invasion, but what can you do
No one will help you down here
And as he lifeblood is leaving your veins
Insanity takes over fear

Stranded in Hell
Ring Satan's bell
There's nothing else you can do

Stranded in Hell
Hear your death knell
'Cause the Master is coming for you

You are a demon of unholy flesh
The red fire burns in your eyes
Now as you travel up towards earthly planes, bearing a human disguise
Finding the mortals to trick and deceive
Promise them power and fame
Take them to hell where you'll capture their souls
Teach them to torture and maim

Stranded in Hell, ring Satan's bell
There's nothing else you can do.
Stranded in Hell, hear your death knell
'Cause the Master is coming for you

[a.r.r. by the artists, used without permission for social commentary as allowed by law]

You may have noticed that a certain group ran its own members against each other, in an "election" of the Executive Officer.



Notice at 1:40 they are called "knights". Well that is a title.

And titles, are anathema, to Americans. We do not have Kings, therefore there can be no such thing as an American Knighthood. Oh sure there are a lot of racist groups that love to "knight" people, but it's typically just copying the template of King James and his peers.

The Plymouth Company. It is permitted to create "knights"? I know Ezra Stiles was a great student of Talmud. His address to Yale explains how he sees the future of the US folding outward and he had the power to make it happen, via the corporate forms and scholastic gifts.

You see, me and you, as actual persons, cannot empower each other so that we become knights. Can we? And so therefore since we cannot empower each other to have titles such as knight or director, since these are fictional Satanic dances, all based on fraud, then there can be no such thing as a "social contract". And therefore, how can any gathering of persons-corporate, allow themselves to create secret tombs the grant knighthoods on our soil?

Essence of contract is to bond, to have both persons (actual persons) agree to the terms. And since this can only be done face to face, and not with some court-proxy-admin-class-executive, nor via entombed-fraternity-knighthoods, then it is up to us, using the Internet Protocol, to communicate peer-to-peer and thereby establish a government of the people, for the people, by the people.

No knights, just peer-to-peer rights.

Hey all!

How's it going with the idea of proving your sovereignty through court?

As mentioned here, there is some debate as to if the UCC is a viable method, or if the corporate forms (as per the poster in this thread) are better.

But my point is, they're both like death by a thousand cuts.

Now, as Senator Bernie Sanders (VT) is saying "Nobody thinks Exxon is a person." And yet, he shows how totally incapable one good man is, to change the system. As I have explained, the Corporations, with board/shareholders/beneficiaries (workers) etc, are simply too powerful.

So, as i have suggested in a couple threads here, and at some other "trooth domain", the solution, is to vote in stadiums, by doing "The Wave".

Consider that "voting" as such, is ostensibly how corporations exist. You get a bunch of shareholders who vote at meetings (closed proceedings usually) and this (it is said) os how corporations are controlled. Well, this is of course, hogwash.

Any honest shareholder knows they do not control shat, in the company. Shareholders are typically, other corporations called "investment corporations". And in the case of single-family or single-person investors, they are merely speculators, who may as well be at a roulette wheel. Do you know of any single-person non-corporate investors who hold their stocks regardless of price, just to get a dividend? Do you know of any stocks that even pay a significant dividend? Let us wake up to the complete lack of power, which the common man and woman and family, has.

Now instead, consider that you and all the families on your block, load up cars and go down to the local stadium to vote on a new COTUS amendment. Just imagine the feeling of everyone going into the stadium, actually knowing that they are going to be able to vote on the top ten critical issues of the day. Can you imagine the excitement in the air, inside that stadium? Now let's say it takes an hour or so to explain the first issue (say tax reform) well, there can be a break where the emcee at the microphone steps up and say "Well let's have a preliminary vote. All those in favor of cutting the department of the interior and all tax funding for it, wave clockwise!" ...And those people who are in favor will do so. And those who are opposed will do the wave in the opposite direction. Now, if both waves are equal roughly, then there will have to be some more microphone discussion as to why this Federal agency is good or bad. ...And so forth all the way down the line, real actual people voting in real time with real, actual feedback and neighbor-to-neighbor discussion and public open-mic where the best minds in the crowd can step up to explain why they waved yea or nay, on that particular issue.

Do you see? This is the only way, the ONLY WAY to truly effect a Constitutionally True Grand Jury. The courts, are done, they are banker-courts, populated with power-drunk pwned people, who deserve sympathy and pity, rather than respect or attention.

Since the whole concept of "voting" is wrecked and stupid, and since the judge and the lawyers are actually the employees of the JURIES, and since the juries and jurors (we the people) of America have been neutered by the judges and lawyers, it is as if the employees of the court system, are dictating to the employers! The juries are the employers of the court system, and the only way to prove the truth of this fact, is to side-step the current modality, and adopt a new paradigm.

I'm frankly saddened by what these "trooth domains" have degraded to in the last few years. I post this here, 1: to bounce my humble thread, and 2: to propose my idea of voting en masse in staidums by doing the wave. I forsee the complete collapse of the systems these people in power are promoting and I think we need ways to survive and protect the COTUS and its usefulness to the people, and I think this is one way to do it.

Oh and this method of voting could easily be used for corporate voting as well, if the King doth agree to it. But we don't need one single corporation to give permission for us to convene a grand jury at the colloseums, I'm simply saying if the corporations want to join in on a great idea, they would benefit from it, and become better corporate persons.

Howdy!

Well, as I have suggested here and elsewhere on ye internets, the true solution, is Superjury(tm)

Superjury(tm) is my idea, for how to enable a true grand jury as the COTUS allows, and which trumps all control mechanisms. The idea basically is that people would convene Superjury(tm) in their local stadiums, and would vote each issue, by doing "The Wave" either clockwise for yea, and counterclockwise for nay, for each issue. If both waves seem equal, then there would be microphones around the stadium for people to wait in line, and address the crowd, in this way working through whatever issue divides them.

Such Superjury(tm) stadiums would be connected via simple POTS lines, nothing needed more than two copper wires (very very simple). In this way, all the stadiums would be linked, and all the people of a nation or of a mindset, can vote themselves power over the jerks who run this world and have created the bloodiest century ever, the 20th.

Anyway, this thread languishes on the seabed of ATS where many great threads similarly languish, while at the surface, the froth and churn of newness continues. You must know this: There are a lot of fake posts and posts designed strategically to draw your attention away, from the seabed.

Well, you may ask, "Why Superjury(tm)?" ...And the reason is contained in this little cartoon here:



Notice the fact in the graphic? 88% of juries are overruled against corporate defendants. This means: The juries of the US and all nations, are neutered, and thereby, the power of the people to control the courts, and therefore, their lives, is consequently also neutered.

Said another way, the jury, is the employer of the judge. The Jury, is the employer of every check-collecting bailiff, every soulless court clerk, and every foreign-approved Bar Lawyer. The jury, is the employer and director of the whole concept of "court", though the judges, magistrates, bishops, prelates, knights-malta, etc, etc, etc all abrogate that power to themselves and their various clubs. The truth, eternal, is that the jury, creates and funds, this thing called "court".

Therefore, since what I say above, is true, and there will be no replies to this thread, or any other thread where I recommended Superjury(tm), then the only path forward, is to finally and truthfully restore the power of the jury, by creating the greatest, grandest, and most holy and good jury assemblage ever created.

Stadums, heretofore, have been used for -warlike sports games of ball-kicking and ball-throwing. There is nothing wrong with that. However, the taxpayers who funded these stadiums, have every right, in God and on Earth, and in the spirit of UNIVERSAL TRUTH, to occupy those stadiums, which they themselves paid for, and use Superjury(tm) to regain their juristic powers.

The only way to humble the King, the Corporation, is to simply grab the sword higher then he does. That sword, is the power of juries. The King feels he has bought enough judges. But there can never be more judges, than jurists. Therefore, the King hopes and prays, that this idea would not happen, because by assembling Superjury(tm), the jurists would be taking the single greatest strategic step ever taken in the history of humankind, toward their own empowerment.

The King, is terrified of this idea, I imagine. Please do discuss the potential of Superjury(tm) this evening and every week, with your friends, familiy, co-workers and religious leaders. Group discussion of this concept, will prove that it is the fastest and most efficient way to put the jury in its proper position of power, over "King Corporation". A jury, properly and goodly motivated, could snatch this world from Satan's hands in a matter of weeks.

Just to bump my thread and point out that the one troll on my thread (whom I did try to engage) has been banned. But I liked the guy, he made good points. Do you think the ATS member in question was also the dude in the video? I guess banning means we will never know. Oh well, I beat him hands down. Who's next?

This article below seems to imply that the America which the colonists faced was "empty".

It was not empty, it was full of great people, stupidly named "indian" when they were nowhere near "India". And yet, such a great people, they took the name indian, and made it far more than it was.

What have Muslims done for peace?

The Native American who was set upon by Euro-powers is far more peaceful, and his ways far more advanced, than those of Mohammed. Let's just get that fact out there on the table right now, and get 2012 off on the right foot. Mohammed's peaceful voice, is nonexistent, yet the Native American, he peacefully occupies a jail like alcatraz, to make his point?

Considering the above, it is clear the the Native American is way way way more peaceful than the Muslims. Fact. Also, Muslims were the same sort of seagoing adventurers, and therefore, this article, is simple propaganda for the Abrahamic caste the tri-fecta of Abe's religoons, Christianity, Isaacanity, and Mohammedanity all reflect the same God who ordered Abraham to kill his son.

The Native American ways frown upon killing one's son for God. Though the aztecs may have done that, the Sioux rituals of sundance and chununpa the peace pipe, are not compatible with such child-killing.

Therefore it is simple to see who is more peaceful, and who has the blood thirst of King, priests and conquerors alike.

watchingamerica.com...

[...]

The last time I watched, Letterman was interviewing a man who had written a book on the crisis of the Middle East and he started to question him on why (this was before the recent insurrections from Tunis to Egypt) the Arab people were satisfied with living under dictators or sheiks who grew fat on the local petroleum holding their subjects in political and economic subjection.

Why, asked Letterman, do the people accept this as their fate? And yet the fondly-remembered Pilgrims, in 1620, when they were in England and they felt that their rights as puritans were trampled upon, prepared the Mayflower and immigrated to America, founding in New England the first center of a democratic country.

The guest was so startled that he could barely articulate one of the most obvious answers: the Pilgrims were just a handful of people (I think about 120) and they had at their feet a country still empty, while the poor Muslims are millions upon millions and they can only migrate to crowded countries and cities which struggle to accommodate mere tens of thousands. The Pilgrims were a fairly advanced group of people that lived in an England where there had been the notion of what the political rights of a citizen were, and where the right of Habeas Corpus would be proclaimed within 50 years. How can one think that the same thing can happen for countless millions who not only would not know where to go, but instead of having a Mayflower, could rely at best on some scoundrel smuggler; and furthermore who are not in conflict with their religious faith and do not have any notion of what a Western democracy is?

Hearing that conversation left me stunned. Does a man who needs help with his interviews to understand the world we live in really have ideas so infantile about what exists beyond the borders of the United States?

And yet Letterman was displaying the normal condition not of the intellectual American, but of the immense mass that lives in the center of the continent and reads local newspapers where they talk about the birth of a two-headed calf in the country, and vaguely give news about the rest of the planet

[...]

Haha, yeah, his comments about the "mass which lives at the center of America" must refer to the red states. Funny, because that was the land of chununpa, not long ago. The peace pipe lands, it may have been called, the midwest.

Funny how some Muslim thinks they have a better system when the Native Americans had negotiated peace or low intensity warfare between many many tribes and tongues. Whereas the muslims cannot even moderate their ONE tribe.

Not too much interest in history or justice?

Hmm, I can understand your hopelessness.

Especially when the "justice" system is a gun pointed silently at the public's head, but which gun is never pointed at any of the empowered "higher ranking" citizens.

As I have explained, law-as-weapon.

www.smirkingchimp.com...

[...]

Consider that there is, in effect, no speedy trial rule in Kentucky and defendants who insist on a jury trial in McCracken County have to wait approximately 18 months before they go to trial. Bail bondsmen are prohibited in Kentucky. If defendants are unable to post bail, they have no choice but to rot in jail until trial. Pretrial detainees are not segregated from inmates serving sentences for misdemeanors and felonies. All are mixed together in general population in the McCracken County Jail. Frog Gravy gives you an honest unvarnished look at what that is like.

Given how prosecutors and police probably routinely ignore people's constitutional rights, how can there be any surprise that innocent people plead guilty in McCracken County? Crane Station was fortunate to make bail, but I fear she is the exception rather than the rule.

Wow, Kentucky sounds like a shathole. Seriously, is this thing a US state?

See my view is strangely hopeful because my parents told me from day one that "America is Satan's tool". But I left that idea and have tried to find the good in America, because there is a lot of good.

But none of the good in America comes from those in power in America. The good exists at street level only, and I am not counting cops in that equation. Anyone who has power in America, has gone bad. Thos that haven't actually gone bad, are still silent like cowards. The quietest and the most cowardly, typically, are those with titles or badges or authority. Nothing like a paycheck and pension to seal a person's lips, brain and heart. But at what cost to the soul? That can only be answered after death.