Why isn't ATS exploding with this info? One People's Trust and the return of Common Law

reply to post by hellobruce

Ah, yes, attempt to redirect our focus and attention. You have failed to rebutt the statement about US Inc being bankrupt. YOU led me to YOUR source and told me exactly which part of my source is correct. We are in agreement! The first couple lines are the truth. You admitted it. United States is bankrupt.

Originally posted by Bildo
You have failed to rebutt the statement about US Inc being bankrupt.

You have failed to prove that silly claim, all you have is a fake speech by a convicted felon... and that is all you have for your hoax!

reply to post by hellobruce
Here's what you said:

Everything after the first paragraph is just made up. Have a look at the real speech: www.scribd.com...

I compared the first paragraph from my source, which you stated was truth, to the first part of YOUR source. YOU agreed they were the TRUTH. Now, YOU are dodging the truth by throwing anything out there that will deflect the focus from the US bankruptcy. You have proved it to yourself that it happened. I didn't bother looking at your other source. Are you going to claim that your own sources are no good?

Originally posted by Bildo
which you stated was truth, to the first part of YOUR source. YOU agreed they were the TRUTH.

Oh dear, where did I state it was the TRUTH? Nowhere, that is just your false claim. You sure seem to make a lot of them!

I said, "Everything after the first paragraph is just made up." Which it was, the convicted criminal said the first paragraph, then people made the rest up - and you believed the hoax. Now you are upset that you have been caught out posting another hoax here!

If before you just cut and pasted a hoax from a silly website you had bothered to just do a little bit of checking you would have realised it was all just a hoax.

OK I need to retract something here. Heather LOST the case of her own house. Not won. Someone on a blog bought the case ruling and all for $200, and posted the ruling. Now at no point did Heather say she won. I interpreted that she did, incorrectly. I still will hold for more information on the whole thing and then decide here.

Bildo, Bruce....stick with facts, no need to attack ad hominem. Its not going to be that kind of thread. But I thank you both for posting info on each side.

reply to post by hellobruce

FACT

I said, "Everything after the first paragraph is just made up." Have a look at the real speech: www.scribd.com...

Then you deny it's real. That's "silly".
We agreed, "Everything AFTER the first paragraph is just made up."
So, the first paragraph was NOT made up. It was part of the speech. You mean to tell me that nobody, present at that address, would rebut the statement about the bankruptcy, if the bankruptcy wasn't true?
And I need you to stop being "silly". Sorry, OP.

Originally posted by Bildo
You mean to tell me that nobody, present at that address, would rebut the statement about the bankruptcy, if the bankruptcy wasn't true?

you really have no understanding how and why speeches are made, what makes you think they are rebutted?

reply to post by hellobruce


You are cherry picking your 'evidence'....I know quite a few people personally who don't pay taxes, drive with out licenses, and a few other things that you say they 'cant' do...You are only picking the ones who screw up, and don't do their proper paperwork and research.

Constitution

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Notice the difference between these two?

Once is Citizen, and the other is citizen. Yes there is a difference.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
Once is Citizen, and the other is citizen. Yes there is a difference.

Actually, you cannot even get that right, you left off the "S'

and there is no real difference. If there is care to show us a valid source, NOT a conspiracy site....
teamlawforum.net...

Rather, what is apparent is the authors of those instruments themselves followed a pattern of emphasis known as “Poetic License”, to accentuate their point. We see this in the Preamble of the Constitution for the United States of America) James Madison (et al.) wrote:We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general W[elfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

drive with out licenses,

A lot of people do that, but when they get caught they suffer the consequences.

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
Once is Citizen, and the other is citizen. Yes there is a difference.

Actually, you cannot even get that right, you left off the "S'

and there is no real difference. If there is care to show us a valid source, NOT a conspiracy site....
teamlawforum.net...

Rather, what is apparent is the authors of those instruments themselves followed a pattern of emphasis known as “Poetic License”, to accentuate their point. We see this in the Preamble of the Constitution for the United States of America) James Madison (et al.) wrote:We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general W[elfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

drive with out licenses,

A lot of people do that, but when they get caught they suffer the consequences.

edit on 10-1-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)

Unless the defendant can prove he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS has the right to inquire and determine a tax liability." [U.S. v. Slater, 545 Fed. Supp. 179,182 (1982).]

Invalidated....

The (s) was to notify you that they were talking about plural 'persons', proper grammar would dictate that they follow that with 'citizens'....There are "Citizens of the United States" and "citizens of the United States".

Guess which one the all caps is?

"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." [emphasis added] Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.

Why do they keep using 'citizen' and 'Citizen'?

AUTOMOBILE AND MOTOR VEHICLE There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been defined as: "The word `automobile' connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways." American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 While the distinction is made clear between the two as the courts have stated: "A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received." International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term `motor vehicle' is different and broader than the word `automobile.'" City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31: "Motor vehicle" means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property. "Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicle is a machine which may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or hire.

TRAVEL The term "travel" is a significant term and is defined as: "The term `travel' and `traveler' are usually construed in their broad and general sense ... so as to include all those who rightfully use the highways viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses) and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure." 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, Pg. 717 "Traveler -- One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure,instruction, business, or health." Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 3309 "Travel -- To journey or to pass through or over; as a country district, road, etc. To go from one place to another, whether on foot, or horseback, or in any conveyance as a train, an automobile, carriage, ship, or aircraft; Make a journey." Century Dictionary, Pg. 2034 Therefore, the term "travel" or "traveler" refers to one who uses a conveyance to go from one place to another, and included all those who use the highways as a matter of Right. Notice that in all these definitions, the phrase "for hire" never occurs. This term "travel" or "traveler" implies, by definition, one who uses the road as a means to move from one place to another. Therefore, one who uses the road in the ordinary course of life and business for the purpose of travel and transportation is a traveler.

DRIVER The term "driver" in contradistinction to "traveler," is defined as: "Driver -- One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle ..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 940 Notice that this definition includes one who is "employed" in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this individual could not be "traveling" on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business.

OPERATOR Today we assume that a "traveler" is a "driver," and a "driver" is an "operator." However, this is not the case. "It will be observed from the language of the ordinance that a distinction is to be drawn between the terms `operator' and `driver'; the `operator' of the service car being the person who is licensed to have the car on the streets in the business of carrying passengers for hire; while the `driver' is the one who actually drives the car. However, in the actual prosecution of business, it was possible for the same person to be both `operator' and `driver.'" Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d 658 To further clarify the definition of an "operator" the court observed that this was a vehicle "for hire" and that it was in the business of carrying passengers. This definition would seem to describe a person who is using the road as a place of business, or in other words, a person engaged in the "privilege" of using the road for gain. This definition, then, is a further clarification of the distinction mentioned earlier, and therefore: Traveling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads as a matter of Right meets the definition of a traveler. Using the road as a place of business as a matter of privilege meets the definition of a driver or an operator or both.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


TRAFFIC Having defined the terms "automobile," "motor vehicle," "traveler," "driver," and "operator," the next term to define is "traffic": "... Traffic thereon is to some extent destructive, therefore, the prevention of unnecessary duplication of auto transportation service will lengthen the life of the highways or reduce the cost of maintenance, the revenue derived by the state ... will also tend toward the public welfare by producing at the expense of those operating for private gain, some small part of the cost of repairing the wear ..." Northern Pacific R.R. Co. vs. Schoenfeldt, 213 P. 26 Note: In the above, Justice Tolman expounded upon the key of raising revenue by taxing the "privilege" to use the public roads "at the expense of those operating for gain." In this case, the word "traffic" is used in conjunction with the unnecessary Auto Transportation Service, or in other words, "vehicles for hire." The word "traffic" is another word which is to be strictly construed to the conducting of business. "Traffic -- Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, or the like. The passing of goods and commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money ..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 3307 Here again, notice that this definition refers to one "conducting business." No mention is made of one who is traveling in his automobile. This definition is of one who is engaged in the passing of a commodity or goods in exchange for money, i.e .., vehicles for hire. Furthermore, the word "traffic" and "travel" must have different meanings which the courts recognize. The difference is recognized in Ex Parte Dickey, supra: "...in addition to this, cabs, hackney coaches, omnibuses, taxicabs, and hacks, when unnecessarily numerous, interfere with the ordinary traffic and travel and obstruct them." The court, by using both terms, signified its recognition of a distinction between the two. But, what was the distinction? We have already defined both terms, but to clear up any doubt: "The word `traffic' is manifestly used here in secondary sense, and has reference to the business of transportation rather than to its primary meaning of interchange of commodities." Allen vs. City of Bellingham, 163 P. 18 Here the Supreme Court of the State of Washington has defined the word "traffic" (in either it's primary or secondary sense) in reference to business, and not to mere travel! So it is clear that the term "traffic" is business related and therefore, it is a "privilege." The net result being that "traffic" is brought under the (police) power of the legislature. The term has no application to one who is not using the roads as a place of business.

LICENSE It seems only proper to define the word "license," as the definition of this word will be extremely important in understanding the statutes as they are properly applied: "The permission, by competent authority to do an act which without permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort." People vs. Henderson, 218 NW.2d 2, 4 "Leave to do a thing which licensor could prevent." Western Electric Co. vs. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42 F.2d 116, 118 In order for these two definitions to apply in this case, the state would have to take up the position that the exercise of a Constitutional Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life and business is illegal, a trespass, or a tort, which the state could then regulate or prevent. This position, however, would raise magnitudinous Constitutional questions as this position would be diametrically opposed to fundamental Constitutional Law. (See "Conversion of a Right to a Crime," infra.) In the instant case, the proper definition of a "license" is: "a permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for consideration, to a person, firm, or corporation, to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business which is subject to regulation under the police power." Rosenblatt vs. California State Board of Pharmacy, 158 P.2d 199, 203 This definition would fall more in line with the "privilege" of carrying on business on the streets. Most people tend to think that "licensing" is imposed by the state for the purpose of raising revenue, yet there may well be more subtle reasons contemplated; for when one seeks permission from someone to do something he invokes the jurisdiction of the "licensor" which, in this case, is the state. In essence, the licensee may well be seeking to be regulated by the "licensor." "A license fee is a charge made primarily for regulation, with the fee to cover costs and expenses of supervision or regulation." State vs. Jackson, 60 Wisc.2d 700; 211 NW.2d 480, 487

reply to post by hellobruce

"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." [emphasis added] Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579

There goes that 'Citizen' again....

Originally posted by fourthmeal
OK I need to retract something here. Heather LOST the case of her own house. Not won. Someone on a blog bought the case ruling and all for $200, and posted the ruling. Now at no point did Heather say she won. I interpreted that she did, incorrectly. I still will hold for more information on the whole thing and then decide here.

And why do you think she never told you whether she won or lost the case?

If she lost it, her credibility goes down a lot, doesn't it...

Originally posted by fourthmeal
In the case of Heather's own property, she applied this common law and the foreclosure was cancelled, and property became hers with no debt. Her evidence and how she did it is clearly explained in the interview.

Oh, so you are now saying she lied in the video during the interview! Is anything she claimed truthful, as it looks like the whole thread is just stuff someone made up.

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by fourthmeal
In the case of Heather's own property, she applied this common law and the foreclosure was cancelled, and property became hers with no debt. Her evidence and how she did it is clearly explained in the interview.

Oh, so you are now saying she lied in the video during the interview! Is anything she claimed truthful, as it looks like the whole thread is just stuff someone made up.

edit on 10-1-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)

No, I am saying that I was wrong and implied it. She at no point said she won, or lost during the interview. She said she used her house to "test" the system and learn how deep the corruption goes, and then was able to act. It is quite important to understand that I made the mistake, and thought that meant something else.

Bruce, this is your last warning. Please quit being "that guy" in this thread. Your AD HOMINEM attacks are unwelcome, and a violation of ATS. PLEASE STOP. I welcome your input and guidance, especially your links and research you've provided. But the personal attacks STOP RIGHT HERE. Do we understand each other as equals? Can you treat me, and thread participants as equals without attacking? If so, please stay and contribute as I do appreciate it. If not, well there are other threads to ruin.

Originally posted by salainen

Originally posted by fourthmeal
OK I need to retract something here. Heather LOST the case of her own house. Not won. Someone on a blog bought the case ruling and all for $200, and posted the ruling. Now at no point did Heather say she won. I interpreted that she did, incorrectly. I still will hold for more information on the whole thing and then decide here.

And why do you think she never told you whether she won or lost the case?

If she lost it, her credibility goes down a lot, doesn't it...

It is a great question, during the course of this particular interview, it was mentioned only briefly and it was mentioned as a way to "test" the system, as Heather put it. She used her house to test the level of corruption and influence the bankers have on the justice system. And I believe she said, "the level of corruption was quite deep"...or something to this effect. At no point did the interviewers steer her toward more details about that case, so I don't think she thought it important. Losing a case doesn't mean knowledge was lost, as you probably know. She probably learned a few valuable points by losing, maybe more than winning...not sure here just more guessing on my part. It is MY fault that I assumed she won, so I apologize for that and taking the thread in a few tangents along the way based on that assumption. The crux of the thread remains intact though, and I'm still in this to learn the truth of the Trust.... and Sovereignty in general which also appears to be a crucial part of it.

reply to post by hellobruce
Teamlaw doesn't know their stuff as well as you think they do. I used to debate with Eric like, I do with you, but Eric disappears instead of posting nonsense and "silly" jibberish. As to teamlaw, I wanted to ask them why their Land Patent was not recordable. They said I had to pay, like, $800.00 to talk to them. And, hellobruce, you might not want to use teamlaw as a source. Information there goes against your claims. We could give you Supreme Court rulings all day and you'd deny it all. Every bit of this entire picture deals with "who you are and who you are NOT".

Thank you VeritasAequitas for more information and backing up what is being discussed. Some people can't understand language, grammar, spelling, etc. I'm glad to see you are one who is awake.

Small update...I've been scouring the comments in the ongoing threads of blogs all about this Trust stuff. Especially the whole issue of Heather's own case she lost. Here's something of interest. I'm just going to copy/paste the whole thing and post the source -

---

Anonymous10 January 2013 03:18

Peacefrog and others,

Paula here. I just received this email from Heather concerning her Pierce County foreclosure suit (the 'True Bill' to which she refers below is explained in the transcript posted to the RTS thread titled 'This is taking action'):

On 13-01-10 4:35 AM, Heather Tucci-Jarraf wrote:
>
> Listen, many, many people have done and taken "bullets" for the people, whether by design, choice, duress, etc...to find out what the heart of the problem is, how it was wound/bound, in order to know how to unwind/unbind it.
>
> I was only one of MANY. See the many, they were a part of everything to get we the people here...they are the heart of the solution....
>
> The test case you mention below served its purpose..to ferret out aspects of the solution on a microscope, especially the mechanics of judicial corruption in collusion with the banks/or hostage situation depending on the side of the coin you are dealing with. All judges in the court house recused one right after the other when they realized what was happening, except one....the banker's judge..."CHIEF JUDGE" CHUSCHOFF or however you spell his name ...he was already in trouble with the bank for issuing a TRO on the case (but he had no choice but to issue it) ...the transcipt/audio of the last hearing on that one tells it all...the bank's attorney was very nervous, the "judge" was really arrogant....you can't stop them them from making their choice to be corrupt, but you can accept the fact they made a choice to BE corrupt and then REGISTER it for the True Bill (Commercial word = indictment, for treason, fraud, etc.)...the heart of judicial corruption? Banking...
>
> So we all went to the heart to deal with the problem...if there's ego then you stand there arguing with a scared child. You end up focusing on the broker who has no power to make a decision, or rather doesn't take responsibility of the power within that he refuses to use to make a decision that doesn't harm another
>
> we don't deal with "bought and paid for"...why would we? GO RIGHT TO THE HEART. Perhaps one moment you and others will choose to not focus on how to deal IN a foreclosed fraudulent slavery system but rather ask the right questions for that dead system to ID who they are, what law they operate, and under what authority (they won't because they can't)...perhaps you will find that's how you protect yourself, and simultaneously stop them...they don't like light on their game..because it would show the allusion [illusion?] you used to just consent to happen.
>

> Thank you for BE'ing and thank you for DO'ing...
> Heather Ann Tucci-Jarraf
> Trustee
> 253.509.4597
> [email protected]
> www.peoplestrust1776.org


---

removingtheshackles.blogspot.ca...-form


so what's happening is...uh... well I'm still trying to figure that out, but here's the raw data at least. and AT LEAST people in the Trust are responding appropriately. That is a welcome change of transparency from what I'm used to.

edit: Well, this is starting to make sense. When I did my digging into the case, I DID see judge after judge remove themselves from it. That was quite odd, but this info now makes sense of that. And now I am much more confident that this Trust is not only real, but also serving a purpose for the good of humanity. The whole interview (which now I must re-listen to, to fully re-understand) can take a different tone when you realize that she was after the corruption and solution, not just "winning". Aha!

Much more to learn now.