$14,000,000,000,000,000 Dollar UCC-1 lien filed against the Federal Reserve?

reply to post by hellobruce


You really do have trouble reading...

Dude; I never once mentioned an Executive Order....Bildo did.

Secondly, the Executive Order states the dimensions for a US flag, which is separate from a military flag, and does not include the gold fringe...

The Institute of Heraldry states the dimensions for a MILITARY flag, which includes the gold fringe, and it's usage in MILITARY courtrooms...Which is just so happens that every courtroom, I've ever been in, has this very same flag....Gold fringe and all...

I'm not the one with English comprehension problems...I speak English quite well thank you..

While we are at it though; why did you lie about Executive Order's not being law? Don't bother responding to anything else I've said until you answer that question...I will simply respond with the question again...

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
I just gave you quote from the Institute of Heraldry, that proves you wrong.

no it does not actually, you are very confused. You state a executive order does not mention a fringe on a flag, then you state the Army Institute of Heraldry mentions a fringe.... you have gotten yourself very tangled up as you seem to have trouble understanding english

That's right. Don't hurt yourself. The EO says it is not there for the nat'l flag. The Army says it's there for the military. AV is right. You're a very sad disinfo agent.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
Secondly, the Executive Order states the dimensions for a US flag, which is separate from a military flag,

No, you are wrong again....

The Institute of Heraldry states the dimensions for a MILITARY flag, which includes the gold fringe, and it's usage in MILITARY courtrooms...Which is just so happens that every courtroom, I've ever been in, has this very same flag....Gold fringe and all...

Again your lack of knowledge of English is catching you out. If a group says something, that applies to the group, not everyone else. So they are stating what a military flag is. If another group uses a fringe, that does not mean it is a military flag.

I'm not the one with English comprehension problems...I speak English quite well thank you..

No, you have shown a lack of understanding of English here.

why did you lie about Executive Order's not being law?

I didnt, again your lack of English comprehension caught you out.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by hellobruce


A military flag is a military flag; it doesn't matter what group uses it...

Oh dear gosh, I never though somebody could be in such denial.....You are ridiculous....

reply to post by hellobruce

As expected, it is not in the constitution, nor is it a law.

You were addressing Bildo's statement about the dimensions being in the Executive Order, and you replied with the above....

That is a lie; why are you perpetuating a false answer by saying that the Executive Orders weren't law?

hellobruce said:

As expected, it is not in the constitution, nor is it a law.

Veritas said:

why did you lie about Executive Order's not being law?

hellobruce said:

I didnt, again your lack of English comprehension caught you out.

hellobruce, you are totally contradicting yourself and lying.

All men are people, but not all people are men.

Same concept.

What is hard to understand about that?

Originally posted by Bildo

hellobruce, you are totally contradicting yourself and lying. p

No, your English comprehension is failing you again, :

Originally posted by Bildo
The gold fringe desecrates the federal military flag.

I asked you to state "care to state where that is stated in the constitution, or US law?"

you then claimed
"Executive Order states the dimensions for a US flag, which is separate from a military flag"

A US flag's dimensions are NOT seperate to a military flag....

You are not able to grasp the simple concept as flyswatter said "All men are people, but not all people are men"

The other funny thing about this "lien" is it was filed 18 months ago, and the only mention of it is on conspiracy theory sites....

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by Bildo

hellobruce, you are totally contradicting yourself and lying.

p

No, your English comprehension is failing you again, :

Originally posted by Bildo
The gold fringe desecrates the federal military flag.

I asked you to state "care to state where that is stated in the constitution, or US law?"

you then claimed
"Executive Order states the dimensions for a US flag, which is separate from a military flag"

A US flag's dimensions are NOT seperate to a military flag....

You are not able to grasp the simple concept as flyswatter said "All men are people, but not all people are men"

The other funny thing about this "lien" is it was filed 18 months ago, and the only mention of it is on conspiracy theory sites....

It's good to know you put all your faith in silly governments and the silly main stream media. You are getting your silly quotes mixed up, too, silly.

reply to post by thelongjourney

hahahahhahahaha, thanks for that it does help add some perspective.

especially after reading this part and putting aside that it's a blog ...

There is no way to pass an “Organic Act” when the Charter Act is already in place, because the two words (organic and charter) have the same meaning — The First Act.

now, don't let that sink in or anything because the double-speak is in the next paragraph ...

I see nothing mysterious or impossible about a city’s old charter getting replaced by a new charter. Many other cities have re-written their municipal charters now and then.

so, without dissecting it's obvious flaws, let's just ponder this one for a moment.

given the first statement is true (not) either the Charter or Organic Act (2 separate acts btw) represent the same First Act ... and if that's correct (not) any subsequent change could not legally be referenced as a "First Act", but you go right ahead and believe it all you want.
thanks anyway but there is more believable information out there

oh, and on that note, since both acts were decades apart, why wasn't the Charter merely "updated" and still referenced as an effective "Charter" ??
what's with the necessary name change ?

now, this is the first i've ever seen or been linked to "Team Law", so, as in all cases, caveat emptor.

and, i'm hoping with your infinite wisdom that you could shed some light on why this 'author' insists the US has TWO governments ??

The federal government and the DC government are both governments. As governments, they both are also “corporations” in the general sense of that word. They are distinct governments, though these two governments overlap because Congress has authority in both.

isn't that exactly what he was supposedly debunking ??

i'm finally beginning to understand why all the focus on vocabulary in my youth ... yes, words do have specific meanings regardless how much they've changed since then

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by Bildo
]I just told you where it was. Bye-Bye.

As expected, it is not in the constitution, nor is it a law. So you just post crap and run away. Again.

oooooh, sweet ... does this mean we can disregard all of the Obama Executive Orders to date, as according to you, they cannot possibly be law ???
please ??

reply to post by Honor93


Team Law doesn't know their stuff as well as they would like to give the color of such...Just a bunch of wannabe's with their own interpretation of the law...

Originally posted by Honor93
as according to you, they cannot possibly be law ???

There you go again, telling lies! Exactly where did I state that....

reply to post by hellobruce

in this post right here ... posted on 28-1-2013 @ 08:32 PM

As expected, it is not in the constitution, nor is it a law

but feel free to continue name-calling, AFTER a mod has issued a warning

don't you have anything of value to contribute to this thread??

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
Just a bunch of wannabe's with their own interpretation of the law...

You are describing freemen there, as shown here they have no clue at all about the law - which is why they have lost every court case, and even been jailed.

reply to post by hellobruce


No, I am describing people that apply English definitions to legalese....You hate Freemen, yet you don't know that every Citizen in every State was a Freeman, until the Government usurped control...Hence the Land of the FREE....You never even did address or rebut my syllogism.....And why do you continue to lie about saying Executive Orders were not law?

It is fairly obvious, that a created thing is never greater than, and can neither rule over it's creator. Follow this syllogism please.. 1) God created Man, and rules over Man; therefore, Man can never be greater than, or rule over it's creator, God. 2) Man, created government, an artificial entity, as a service facility/slave;therefore, government can never be greater than, and can never rule over, Man. 3) Government then, created corporations and corporately colored entities (artificial persons/slaves; 14th Amendment), for the purpose of ruling over them (collecting revenue); therefore a corporation/corporately colored entity, can never be greater than, and can never rule over, the government that brought it into existence. 4) Therefore : A corporation/corporately colored entity, can never be greater than/rule over government; can never be greater than/rule over Man; can never be greater than/rule over God. A useful analogy would be, a child can no more order their parents about, than pink elephants can fly...That is why the Government has indulged and implicated us all in this massive conspiracy/illusion; and why they must fight to preserve it at all costs, even ignoring properly addressed arguments..

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
You hate Freemen,

Wrong again...

And why do you continue to lie about saying Executive Orders were not law?

Wrong again, I never said that....

reply to post by hellobruce


Bruce....Yes, you did. Bildo told you about the EO of Eisenhower detailing the proper dimensions for the US National Flag. You said show him in the constitution or the law; and he replied he already did....You responded again, saying it was not in the constitution and nor law...

This follows as saying that Executive Orders are not law by that standing...

Originally posted by hellobruce
care to state where that is stated in the constitution, or US law? No, of course you cannot as that claim is just garbage.

Originally posted by Bildo
I just told you where it was. I'm done with you. You can't read. Eisenhower EO. It's in the federal registrar. Bye-Bye.

Originally posted by Bildo
Eisenhower in one of his EO's stated EXACTLY how a US flag was supposed to look. It's in the federal registrar as such. A gold fring is not mentioned in the order so adding it desecrates the flag.

Originally posted by hellobruce
As expected, it is not in the constitution, nor is it a law. So you just post crap and run away. Again.

Now do you care to keep saying you didn't say Executive Orders weren't law?

Executive Order - Eisenhower

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
Yes, you did. Bildo told you about the EO of Eisenhower detailing the proper dimensions for the US National Flag. You said show him in the constitution or the law;

You are having your reading comprehension problems again, Bilbo actually said:

Originally posted by Bildo
The gold fringe desecrates the federal military flag.

I then said "care to state where that is stated in the constitution, or US law?"

Which Bilbo has been unable to... as it is not in the constitution, nor a law.

This follows as saying that Executive Orders are not law by that standing...

Wrong again, it was about the gold fringe....

Now do you care to keep saying you didn't say Executive Orders weren't law?

Yes, you are very confused again. Please work on your reading comprehension.