Page 1 of 3 [ 37 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Raymond_Fawkes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,184

29 Dec 2012, 1:30 am

What are people's thoughts on the corporate you, as compared with the civil you and if you understand the differences?



PM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,466
Location: Southeastern United States

29 Dec 2012, 1:42 am

Freeman On The Land?


_________________
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?


Raymond_Fawkes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,184

29 Dec 2012, 1:47 am

PM wrote:
Freeman On The Land?


You're born with certain inalienable rights however under Admiralty laws, the government creates a corporate you. You then become a franchisee of the United States corporation. I myself act under civil law, and haven't used my corporate identity or likeness in years. I was wondering how aware people were to it, and the British system of courts..



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Dec 2012, 10:08 am

Raymond_Fawkes wrote:
What are people's thoughts on the corporate you, as compared with the civil you and if you understand the differences?


Is admiralty law still upheld in U.S. courts? It is so old fashioned.

ruveyn



Raymond_Fawkes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,184

29 Dec 2012, 11:58 am

ruveyn wrote:
Raymond_Fawkes wrote:
What are people's thoughts on the corporate you, as compared with the civil you and if you understand the differences?


Is admiralty law still upheld in U.S. courts? It is so old fashioned.

ruveyn


Yes. You were born sovereign and always were but you surrender that when you get into contracts. When you were born, the private corporation of the United States created a clone of you. It's why all legal documents in your name, are always in all capitals. This isn't you, but the franchisee that they created. The argument of the British, is that you were born out of your mother's water, under the admiralty law you then are a product which is bought and sold on the New York stock exchange to other banks around the world. Theirs your true name, and your trade name. Natural law, common law, and commercial law's are all different and alot of people don't understand the legalities and how it operates.

Natural Law - These are inalienable rights that the creator gives you of being born. Human rights, and is regarded as a positive law. The US was founded on Natural Laws.

Common Law - This is where we get our courts from - It's the British system that you agree to and do business with.

Commercial Code - The Uniformed Commercial codes are what all states work from and do business by. If a ship comes into harbor bearing product, they require a certificate of manifest. When you are born, you require a birth certificate. The manifest then states what is coming in, how much it's value is.

When the US went bankrupt in 1933 the private banks took the citizens as collateral. For example - If you have 100 people in the United States, and there is only 100$ given by the Federal Reserve you only have 100$ in circulation. The Federal Reserve would require an interest on there private money. So if they give you 100$ for 100 people, and those people are doing business with each other, at the end of the year 105$ must be paid back to the Federal Reserve. How are you going to be able to pay 105 if only 100 is in circulation? Someone, out of the 100 is going to be short 5$, this could be a car, house, anything. Multiply that by billions and trillions of dollars. It's an argument on why the government will never be able to pay back it's debts. When you borrow funds, you create more debt in the system. I was curious on what people's thoughts were within the topic.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Dec 2012, 1:46 pm

Raymond_Fawkes wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Raymond_Fawkes wrote:
What are people's thoughts on the corporate you, as compared with the civil you and if you understand the differences?


Is admiralty law still upheld in U.S. courts? It is so old fashioned.

ruveyn


Yes. You were born sovereign and always were but you surrender that when you get into contracts. When you were born, the private corporation of the United States created


The U.S. is NOT a private corporation. It is a republic. Read the Constitution.

ruveyn



vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

29 Dec 2012, 2:13 pm

I have no idea what people mean by corporate personhood.what does that mean


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined
WrongPlanet is rancid,goodbye forever


PM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,466
Location: Southeastern United States

29 Dec 2012, 3:08 pm

vermontsavant wrote:
I have no idea what people mean by corporate personhood.what does that mean


Google the aforementioned concept of Freeman On The Land. It is a movement that originated in Canada whose followers seem to believe that courts are governed by Maritime Law.


_________________
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?


Raymond_Fawkes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,184

29 Dec 2012, 4:00 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Raymond_Fawkes wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Raymond_Fawkes wrote:
What are people's thoughts on the corporate you, as compared with the civil you and if you understand the differences?


Is admiralty law still upheld in U.S. courts? It is so old fashioned.

ruveyn


Yes. You were born sovereign and always were but you surrender that when you get into contracts. When you were born, the private corporation of the United States created


The U.S. is NOT a private corporation. It is a republic. Read the Constitution.

ruveyn


After the US went into bankruptcy in 1933, the constitution officially became obsolete. That is why politicians are able to get away with what they do, and break the constitution and it is why you cannot recite the constitution within court. Alot of people aren't aware of this, but we've been under Martial law since then and the country has been allowed to operate and continue doing business in that form.



slave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2012
Age: 107
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,406
Location: Dystopia Planetia

29 Dec 2012, 5:18 pm

Raymond_Fawkes wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Raymond_Fawkes wrote:
What are people's thoughts on the corporate you, as compared with the civil you and if you understand the differences?


Is admiralty law still upheld in U.S. courts? It is so old fashioned.

ruveyn


Yes. You were born sovereign and always were but you surrender that when you get into contracts. When you were born, the private corporation of the United States created a clone of you. It's why all legal documents in your name, are always in all capitals. This isn't you, but the franchisee that they created. The argument of the British, is that you were born out of your mother's water, under the admiralty law you then are a product which is bought and sold on the New York stock exchange to other banks around the world. Theirs your true name, and your trade name. Natural law, common law, and commercial law's are all different and alot of people don't understand the legalities and how it operates.

Natural Law - These are inalienable rights that the creator gives you of being born. Human rights, and is regarded as a positive law. The US was founded on Natural Laws.

Common Law - This is where we get our courts from - It's the British system that you agree to and do business with.

Commercial Code - The Uniformed Commercial codes are what all states work from and do business by. If a ship comes into harbor bearing product, they require a certificate of manifest. When you are born, you require a birth certificate. The manifest then states what is coming in, how much it's value is.

When the US went bankrupt in 1933 the private banks took the citizens as collateral. For example - If you have 100 people in the United States, and there is only 100$ given by the Federal Reserve you only have 100$ in circulation. The Federal Reserve would require an interest on there private money. So if they give you 100$ for 100 people, and those people are doing business with each other, at the end of the year 105$ must be paid back to the Federal Reserve. How are you going to be able to pay 105 if only 100 is in circulation? Someone, out of the 100 is going to be short 5$, this could be a car, house, anything. Multiply that by billions and trillions of dollars. It's an argument on why the government will never be able to pay back it's debts. When you borrow funds, you create more debt in the system. I was curious on what people's thoughts were within the topic.




I have heard these tired ideas before, however no citations are ever given.
Without a clear fully referenced explanation, I am not willing to take your assertions seriously.
In other words, prove it.



Raymond_Fawkes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,184

30 Dec 2012, 1:30 am

slave wrote:
Raymond_Fawkes wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Raymond_Fawkes wrote:
What are people's thoughts on the corporate you, as compared with the civil you and if you understand the differences?


Is admiralty law still upheld in U.S. courts? It is so old fashioned.

ruveyn


Yes. You were born sovereign and always were but you surrender that when you get into contracts. When you were born, the private corporation of the United States created a clone of you. It's why all legal documents in your name, are always in all capitals. This isn't you, but the franchisee that they created. The argument of the British, is that you were born out of your mother's water, under the admiralty law you then are a product which is bought and sold on the New York stock exchange to other banks around the world. Theirs your true name, and your trade name. Natural law, common law, and commercial law's are all different and alot of people don't understand the legalities and how it operates.

Natural Law - These are inalienable rights that the creator gives you of being born. Human rights, and is regarded as a positive law. The US was founded on Natural Laws.

Common Law - This is where we get our courts from - It's the British system that you agree to and do business with.

Commercial Code - The Uniformed Commercial codes are what all states work from and do business by. If a ship comes into harbor bearing product, they require a certificate of manifest. When you are born, you require a birth certificate. The manifest then states what is coming in, how much it's value is.

When the US went bankrupt in 1933 the private banks took the citizens as collateral. For example - If you have 100 people in the United States, and there is only 100$ given by the Federal Reserve you only have 100$ in circulation. The Federal Reserve would require an interest on there private money. So if they give you 100$ for 100 people, and those people are doing business with each other, at the end of the year 105$ must be paid back to the Federal Reserve. How are you going to be able to pay 105 if only 100 is in circulation? Someone, out of the 100 is going to be short 5$, this could be a car, house, anything. Multiply that by billions and trillions of dollars. It's an argument on why the government will never be able to pay back it's debts. When you borrow funds, you create more debt in the system. I was curious on what people's thoughts were within the topic.




I have heard these tired ideas before, however no citations are ever given.
Without a clear fully referenced explanation, I am not willing to take your assertions seriously.
In other words, prove it.



admiralty



In 1868 with the country still under a declared national emergency, the 41st congress allowed the federal government to incorporate and to inhabit a corporate location to be known as “The District of Columbia”. In 1871 congress unlawfully, without informing the public much less procuring the consent of the people, made it official by unconstitutionally passing the ACT of 1871, formally declaring the corporation of the United States to be the lawful government of the country with no jurisdiction outside the District of Columbia except by our consent, and having jurisdiction over the various territories ie; the Virgin Islands, the Maldives, Puerto Rico etc. http://www.teamlaw.org/DCOA-1871.pdf

The corporate federal government then discarded our original constitution and began to draft their own, so similar as to escape our notice. (You cannot use the Constitution to defend yourself because you are not a party to it. (Padelford Fay & Co. v. The mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah 14 Georgia 438, 520.) The original 13th amendment was removed in order to avoid violation of their version of the constitution from the start. http://www.uhuh.com/constitution/am13-fgd.htm A politician will refer to the constitution as “The Constitution of the United States?” for our true original, is “The Constitution for the united States of America. Words mean everything and the changing of one seemingly unimportant word can and did make the difference between a free republic and a corporate takeover.

"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency....Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 (now 63) years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency....from, at least, the Civil War in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency." - Senate Report, 93rd Congress, November 19, 1973.

A United States citizen is a subject (property) of the federal government. His name is spelled in all caps. These citizens have only civil rights, (privileges and immunities) secured by the good faith and credit of the United States government. Neither state nor federal constitutions protect them.

An American Citizen is really not a citizen but is an individual sovereign. His name is spelled in upper and lower case letters. Some older documents may actually have it right, with upper and lower case. Most government computers are now programmed to only accept all caps. Also, if you use a middle initial, instead of spelling out your middle name, that also creates a fictional person. Your whole name must be spelled out to be a sovereign. It is basic English grammar.

A United States citizen has the status of an 'artificial person'. His name is spelled in all capital letters. When you contract to be a U.S. citizen (property of the U.S. government), via social security, you are basically co-signing for the debts of the federal government. You are pledging all your income and assets to helping discharge the bankruptcy. artificial person

When states are created by Constitutions, they are delegated a portion of the people's sovereign powers. But, when states incorporate, they become artificial persons. The federal government has the power to regulate subjects (artificial persons) engaged in commerce. So the federal government WOULD have jurisdiction over the 50 states, because they all have incorporated into the federal government and are now artificial persons engaged in commerce. The states could solve this problem by un-incorporating and reclaiming their sovereign status. But then they would also have to give up federal handouts.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

30 Dec 2012, 3:53 am

Raymond_Fawkes wrote:

When states are created by Constitutions, they are delegated a portion of the people's sovereign powers. But, when states incorporate, they become artificial persons. The federal government has the power to regulate subjects (artificial persons) engaged in commerce. So the federal government WOULD have jurisdiction over the 50 states, because they all have incorporated into the federal government and are now artificial persons engaged in commerce. ......


Almost straight out of -Leviathan- by Thomas Hobbes.

Hobbesean Sovereignty trumps Locke's views on limitation on government.

ruveyn



Declension
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,807

30 Dec 2012, 4:48 am

This stuff is crazy.

What you need to realise is that even if you somehow did have a watertight case using various historical technicalities and loopholes and quirks (and you don't), it wouldn't get you anywhere. That's just not how the law actually works. Judges often use common sense to overrule people who attempt to use loopholes.

In the end, all you will have is your unshakeable conviction that you are right as you are jailed for tax avoidance. And you're not even right! All this stuff about capital letters and watery births is just babble.



PM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,466
Location: Southeastern United States

30 Dec 2012, 4:52 am

Declension wrote:
This stuff is crazy.

What you need to realise is that even if you somehow did have a watertight case using various historical technicalities and loopholes and quirks (and you don't), it wouldn't get you anywhere. That's just not how the law actually works. Judges often common sense to overrule people who attempt to use loopholes.


The loopholes are not even there. Courts are in no way governed by Maritime Law.


_________________
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?


Raymond_Fawkes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,184

30 Dec 2012, 5:41 am

PM wrote:
Declension wrote:
This stuff is crazy.

What you need to realise is that even if you somehow did have a watertight case using various historical technicalities and loopholes and quirks (and you don't), it wouldn't get you anywhere. That's just not how the law actually works. Judges often common sense to overrule people who attempt to use loopholes.


The loopholes are not even there. Courts are in no way governed by Maritime Law.


The United States operates under "American Common Law" which is based off British Maritime law.

American Common Law
Common Law definition



Utnapishtim
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 124
Location: Liverpool, UK

30 Dec 2012, 6:23 am

Declension wrote:
This stuff is crazy.


+1 I been looking into the Freeman on the land movement, its a load of bollocks! FOTLer's use pseudolegal BS for there arguments.
In court cases in which this crap is used as a defense, its had a zero success rate.
Therefore FOTL is an epic fail! :lol: