The One People's Public Trust & Sovereign Citizens Movement Scams Broken Down.

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by WaterBottle

 

Here is the only reason you need to know this is not anything to honestly consider. The FBI classifies them as domestic terrorists. Let me put that into ATS-centric terms. Those hyperbolic fears some folks have, about Big Brother coming, arresting them without warrant, and taking them off to some Arab prison to be tortured and have zero legal recourse?

IMHO, I think that's a huge reason the subject is of interest to many folk, myself included (albeit from a purely philosophical/intellectual view)

Yes, there are nutjobs in this movement that gun cops gown on the side of the highway, perhaps even a higer statistical representation of nutjobs than in the general population.

BUT the FBI/SPLC also claim Tea Partiers, Ron Paul supporters, veterans, and constitutionalists/libertarians as 'potential domestic terrorists' as well. So the question in my mind is: why the sovereigns?

Doesn't make much sense to me either way I slice it...either they are on to something (which I don't believe), or they will inevitably land themselves in the crowbar hotel (which is where I want them if I'm fed.gov).

So, why the branding of domestic terrorism? It just doesn't grok...

reply to post by Kang69


We really are the same country tho.

George Washington, Hamilton and cronies set up the first version of the "Federal Reserve" and squashed tax protestors with force.

The Whiskey Rebellion, or Whiskey Insurrection, was a tax protest in the United States beginning in 1791, during the presidency of George Washington. Farmers who used their leftover grain and corn in the form of whiskey as a medium of exchange were forced to pay a new tax. The tax was a part of treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton's program to increase central government power, in particular to fund his policy of assuming the war debt of those states which had failed to pay. The farmers who resisted, many war veterans, contended that they were fighting for the principles of the American Revolution, in particular against taxation without local representation, while the Federal government maintained the taxes were the legal expression of the taxation powers of Congress.

en.wikipedia.org...

First Bank of the United States

The President, Directors and Company, of the Bank of the United States, commonly known as the First Bank of the United States, was a central bank, chartered for a term of twenty years, by the United States Congress on February 25, 1791. Establishment of the Bank was included in a three-part expansion of federal fiscal and monetary power (along with a federal mint and excise taxes) championed by Alexander Hamilton, first Secretary of the Treasury. Hamilton believed a central bank was necessary to stabilize and improve the nation's credit, and to improve handling of the financial business of the United States government under the newly enacted Constitution.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by DJW001

It's called "the social contract," and every society has one. If you do not like the one your society is founded on, you are free to seek out a society that is more to your liking.

I don't recall ever signing any "social contract" or actually ever even seeing one to be able to read it and see what it was all about. Who drafts this "social contract"? Do you still have a copy of the one you signed? Maybe you can scan and upload it so I can see exactly what it is.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by judus

 

May I quote "real court" may I also ask what is a real court ?

In the United States, any Municipal, County, State or Federal court is empowered by the United States Constitution. That makes them de jure courts. Since they have not only the right but the ability to throw your sorry behind in jail, that makes them de facto courts as well.

actually they aren't 'empowered by the US Constitution' ... care to prove your assertion ?

reply to post by WaterBottle
Then were do you go if you want to be free? Since basically all land possible to live of is "lawfully" claimed by some nation? Which they don't actually have a claim to anyway, I don't see the other animals go about respecting some lines drawn in sand. So were back to the same rhetoric as for the last 6000 years "I demand your obedience, be my slaves". If someone doesn't want to have the benefits, social security and what not but will by self-responsibility earn cash or other acceptable means of payment to pay for medicine or other necessities when needed.

I mean I don't want a whole country, what would I do with that? Enslave the population and reap the rewards? I just want to be left alone to enjoy life and nature in peace. And before someone goes to tell me I can go live in the woods, that is not the modern world, we can fuse nature, spirituality and modern science but we don't have to rape the earth and it's populace as we currently do.

Originally posted by VoidHawk
Well, I have to say this thread and its subject has been a real eye opener!

First of all I've seen british judges arrested using these laws, GO LOOK ON YOUTUBE PEOPLE. Thats assuming they havent removed the vids. I even watched one judge arrest HIMSELF when it was explained to him how he was braking the law by enforcing illegal CORPORATE law.
I've watched Police (UK) back down when faced with REAL COMMON LAW.

OP, like others on here I think you have and agenda.

To the site owners.
I wont be back, other than to see how this thread is dealt with. And you can rest assured I will be spreading the word. ATS has revealed what it truly is and to all of you who decide to stay I suggest you look closely at who is saying what in this thread and remember them.

If keeping my fellow ATS'ers out of jail is an agenda, then I'm guilty, I've unfortunately seen firsthand what happens to people that file this UCC nonsense and It's not pretty. I'm sure that some actually believe that it will work, deep down hope that it will work, but in the end, it's just a bunch of slight of hand that they hope isn't picked up by the authorities.

To the other person who disregarded all of my other posts, I mentioned Drones, the NDAA and the like and the legal, Constitutionally sanctioned method of dealing with it, peacefully and legally, I will state it again.

Get 38 state legislatures to vote to have a Constitutional Convention, convene convention, change the laws, tighten the laws, change requirements for making laws regarding detentions, drones etc, then you will have a) effected positive change, and b) done it in the manner prescribed by law, win/win all around.

Originally posted by xquietonex

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by WaterBottle

 

Here is the only reason you need to know this is not anything to honestly consider. The FBI classifies them as domestic terrorists. Let me put that into ATS-centric terms. Those hyperbolic fears some folks have, about Big Brother coming, arresting them without warrant, and taking them off to some Arab prison to be tortured and have zero legal recourse?

IMHO, I think that's a huge reason the subject is of interest to many folk, myself included (albeit from a purely philosophical/intellectual view)

Yes, there are nutjobs in this movement that gun cops gown on the side of the highway, perhaps even a higer statistical representation of nutjobs than in the general population.

BUT the FBI/SPLC also claim Tea Partiers, Ron Paul supporters, veterans, and constitutionalists/libertarians as 'potential domestic terrorists' as well. So the question in my mind is: why the sovereigns?

Doesn't make much sense to me either way I slice it...either they are on to something (which I don't believe), or they will inevitably land themselves in the crowbar hotel (which is where I want them if I'm fed.gov).

So, why the branding of domestic terrorism? It just doesn't grok...

I think that they went a little tad bit too far with the Veterans, they served our nation and should be held to that standard, ie: we should care for them as the heroes they are, not how we do treat them in reality.

However, when you look (well you may not be able to it was an internal memo) at the definitions of the groups you mentioned, it actually states, Sovereign's within those movements, not just the movements themselves, as simply supporting a political candidate is legal, as are rallies and demonstrations for said. The problem a few years ago was that the Sovereign movement began to become very vocal within all of the above (sans veterans, I know many that really think this is disrespectful) and therefore tainted the other movements with their rhetoric and violent tendencies. It's a catch all, and it really needs to be looked at, granted, but it's really hard to go after every injustice at every second of every day. So in the end, people in charge just blanket things, something i've never agreed with.

Although I don't agree with the remedy options offered by these scammers, which most of them are.

Having a working knowledge of the fixed legal system is a must.

Information on how to stop debt lawyers from wrecking your life is a must.

Understanding contract law, and how to swim in the sea of commerce is a must.

If you don't know who the courts are, and how they operate you will be owned and deservedly so.

The lawyers and judges will use your ignorance against you.

Get a Law Dictionary and study case law that pertains to your case, follow court rules and deadlines. You will be way ahead of the average American Citizen if you do this.

reply to post by vkey08

curious question ...
you keep signaling the need for a Constitutional Convention and i'm wondering WHY ?

the only thing a CC can do is Ammend the existing document.
how would that change the claim of the sovereigns ?

and, if you would, please explain which part of the current Constitution changed our status as 'sovereign States'.

reply to post by Kang69


That's all fine and dandy to understand the Fed, hell audit it, great idea.. always has been. However..

There's no disinformation in letting people know that if they file for their "bit of the pie" using the methods that these places espouse, that you will be charged, and you will go to jail. I can't stress this enough, 2 wrongs do not make a right. So by filing all of this nonsense with everyone you can think of, you are committing a wrong to try and fix the first wrong that is perceived (I say perceived because not everyone feels the Federal Reserve is a sham, although we tend to know it is)

reply to post by Konoyaro

Then were do you go if you want to be free? Since basically all land possible to live of is "lawfully" claimed by some nation?

Somolia.

I don't see the other animals go about respecting some lines drawn in sand

Bunch of animals respect scent lines drawn in the sand, either that or get their killed.

If someone doesn't want to have the benefits, social security and what not but will by self-responsibility earn cash or other acceptable means of payment to pay for medicine or other necessities when needed.

Renounce your citizenship and work under the table.

And before someone goes to tell me I can go live in the woods, that is not the modern world,

Oh, right. You don't want to give up your first world privilege. You want paved roads, electricity, light bulbs, grocery stores, running water and stuff.

You can go camp out on federal land, as long as you move every week, it's legal. Go do it. Go be a true sovereign.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by vkey08

 

curious question ...
you keep signaling the need for a Constitutional Convention and i'm wondering WHY ?

the only thing a CC can do is Ammend the existing document.
how would that change the claim of the sovereigns ?

and, if you would, please explain which part of the current Constitution changed our status as 'sovereign States'.

none changed our status as far as I have seen, and that's why the call for a convention, if we were to amend the document to once and for all, put in an amendment say to audit the Federal Reserve every 5 years, then it's law plain and simple and it would take a repeal to get rid of it.

As far as I am aware, it wouldn't change the opinions of the sovereigns, however it would give the public a chance to have a say in how we structure ourselves for the next century, and that would re-empower us as a society and take the bite out of what the Sovereigns are claiming, that they have no say, and are not part of this country because of that.

Personally, and i will add, this will never happen, we can't get along enough to make it so, I would LOVE to see a term limits amendment for congress, limiting reps to 6 years and senators to 12. I would love to see the Nobility amendment ratified, I'd love to see an amendment that limits the ability for the Federal Government to declare US Citizens as enemy combatants, things like that could be added, hell just amending the First Amendment to include electronic communications once and for all would go a long way to helping.

My idea, however, is just unfortunately as pie in the sky as theirs, it's not going to happen, doesn't mean I can't hope though..

reply to post by vkey08
That's a nice thought and definitely worth striving for but it's unlikely TPTB would allow such a thing and if it did that's when we will see the true face of the U.S. The country has been bought and payed long ago so those with the vested interest are unlikely to surrender their power so easily. But as most things worth fighting for will end up killing you or in jail, look a Gandhi for example he was just about the most peaceful bloke on earth and he still did about 5 years in prison and he took many a beating for just standing up for himself and others, not so much difference.

Originally posted by vkey08

Originally posted by xquietonex

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by WaterBottle

 

Here is the only reason you need to know this is not anything to honestly consider. The FBI classifies them as domestic terrorists. Let me put that into ATS-centric terms. Those hyperbolic fears some folks have, about Big Brother coming, arresting them without warrant, and taking them off to some Arab prison to be tortured and have zero legal recourse?

IMHO, I think that's a huge reason the subject is of interest to many folk, myself included (albeit from a purely philosophical/intellectual view)

Yes, there are nutjobs in this movement that gun cops gown on the side of the highway, perhaps even a higer statistical representation of nutjobs than in the general population.

BUT the FBI/SPLC also claim Tea Partiers, Ron Paul supporters, veterans, and constitutionalists/libertarians as 'potential domestic terrorists' as well. So the question in my mind is: why the sovereigns?

Doesn't make much sense to me either way I slice it...either they are on to something (which I don't believe), or they will inevitably land themselves in the crowbar hotel (which is where I want them if I'm fed.gov).

So, why the branding of domestic terrorism? It just doesn't grok...

I think that they went a little tad bit too far with the Veterans, they served our nation and should be held to that standard, ie: we should care for them as the heroes they are, not how we do treat them in reality.

However, when you look (well you may not be able to it was an internal memo) at the definitions of the groups you mentioned, it actually states, Sovereign's within those movements, not just the movements themselves, as simply supporting a political candidate is legal, as are rallies and demonstrations for said. The problem a few years ago was that the Sovereign movement began to become very vocal within all of the above (sans veterans, I know many that really think this is disrespectful) and therefore tainted the other movements with their rhetoric and violent tendencies. It's a catch all, and it really needs to be looked at, granted, but it's really hard to go after every injustice at every second of every day. So in the end, people in charge just blanket things, something i've never agreed with.

They went WAY to far with all of it, IMO. I've never been a fan of painting with a broad brush, and I think this applies to the sovereigns all the same. Granted, the American flavor is different than it is here, but the SPLC speaks against the Canadian movement as well-much to my surprise (and chagrin).

I digress-the vast majority of these people, in my experience are caring, conscientious, good-hearted people railing against what they see as an unjust authority...I can't really fault them for that. Violence would be the last trait I ascribed to them...misguided perhaps the first.

I applaud your motive for posting this thread (FLAGS j/k) but I can only agree that these people are a threat only to the gullible and the machinery of the already rusty legal system.

reply to post by WaterBottle
This why I lose hope for this world, but I'll just keep going until that hope finally takes root. I just want to get along but most just want me in chains, I don't want you to be tied up, thanks for your consideration. I'll provide a reading list for you that is probably the most important books relating to this and the worlds current situation, you're welcome.

1984 - George Orwell
The Island - Aldous Huxley
Brave New World - Aldous Huxley

reply to post by Konoyaro


I've already read all those books. And the current situation? The world has been in this situation since humans started creating governments.

Facts are factsreply to post by LittleBlackEagle


The gold backing gone.

Contracts are still contracts.

Treaty of Versailles still happened.

Etcetera etcetera...this OP is in fact a paid for her time. Either that or she's sleep walking and believes without perceiving

reply to post by WaterBottle
Good then take the hint. Yes it as you say, since about 6000 years ago. Only then we didn't have drones, A-bombs and other things to enable long distance perpetual war for material emptiness, and no unified economy that runs these wars, like a said in some other thread recently if we don't change direction were bound to end up were we are heading (a chinese proverb, not of my own concoction sadly

reply to post by vkey08

are you hearing yourself ??

how do we Constitutionally mandate a periodic audit of a PRIVATE entity ??
Constitutionally that is.

all it takes to 'get rid of it' now, is Congressional approval. (Fed Reserve)
so, why a Convention when we already have 500+ pathways to achieve the same thing ?

i never asked about 'opinion'.
sovereign is a status not an opinion.

ummmm, that ISN'T what sovereigns are saying.
some scammers are but they are not the entirety of the blanket you cast.
are there 'scammers' in every group ??
absolutely, see Congress ... does that mean EVERY member of Congress is a scammer, not really.

funny thing is, all of that is ALREADY spelled out, see the 10th.

hoping to change what you refuse to accept is the problem.
perhaps we should focus our attentions on getting people to realize what is and what is not ?

1st question ... why are all members of the US 'court system' tied directly to the Crown ??
2nd question ... why are the majority of detractors also directly tied to the Crown ??
3rd ... what does the Crown have to gain by convincing Americans they are NOT sovereign ??

btw, i do not support OPT as it is being promoted.
then again, i've seen so much 'distraction' on the subject, i'm not even sure which parts are true atm.

Originally posted by SamuraiCentury
Facts are factsreply to post by LittleBlackEagle

 

The gold backing gone.

Contracts are still contracts.

Treaty of Versailles still happened.

Etcetera etcetera...this OP is in fact a paid for her time. Either that or she's sleep walking and believes without perceiving

1) Unless you have proof, accusing me of being paid for my time, is a major violation of the site rules.
2) How is keeping people from falling for a scam, concurrent with being asleep

Please explain, without the misconceptions, why the Treaty of V, has anything to do with any of this?

Depends on what kinds of contracts you are talking about, business to business, and person to business, yes and those are governed by a code.. However, TOPT cannot foreclose upon that which it never owned, in the name of "the people of the Earth" it just is patently ridiculous to assume they could.