I was going to start of with "IF", then i realised, that its not, its just FACT that BANKRUPTCY exists all over the world, full stop.
Then i got onto thinking about, what on earth do people rob banks for, or do idiot things, for money, that doesn't even exist, it is just currency, doesn't exist, its paper, the mind boggles. Whats the point, they are only strealing, loads of NOTHINGNESS.
money, or currency is created by, NOT YOU, if you create money, then you go to prison, daft, i know, but its a FACT, thats foolish, to think you do not have the ability to create anything.
You can create money, that would be unimaginable, to think you are even born then, i guess. You have the right to create whatever you like, who give anyone, any right to take that right from you, only the creator can. If i create something, its mine, yes, i guess it is, but i can give that out, but in reality that is still mine, i created it, but the real truth, is, it all belongs to the creator, not me, nomatter what. He who created everyone, is the only one who has power over us all, and we, one by one have been given that from our creator. The Creator of the creation, is higher than that which was created. Created ALL FICTIONS. If for example, i created something for someone, then that would be my creation, but given to only use, i always have the right for that back, at anytime i want, but there is a higher creator here, who created, the Creator of every man, woman and child. If i don't create any money, then how can i pay for anything, ever, i can't and never did, cos all money created was a "promise to pay", all promise's to pay are proof of BANKRUPTCY. You have never ever had money, except the money you created for yourself. This earth has so many left behind, in life, they need help, and with all our hearts. We need to know how to help, learn how to help, know knowledge, that we can help, be positive in searching for all answers in life, that we can help, we will do it, life is but a journey, The Creator of all what is true, and from the truth, is all knowledge.
Tuesday, 29 January 2013
An Abstract Noun, and used as fictional entity
An Abstract Noun
Cannot see, it cannot hear, it cannot smell, it cannot taste, it cannot touch, it
An abstract noun is a noun which refers to ideas, qualities, and conditions - things that cannot be seen or touched,
smelled and tasted and things which have "no physical reality", e.g. truth, danger, happiness, time, friendship, humour.
An Abstract Noun used as fiction
BANKRUPTCY
debta letter=cannot see it
a letter=cannot hear it
a letter=cannot smell it
a letter=cannot taste it
a letter=cannot touch it
BANKRUPTCY
debt a bill=cannot see it
a bill=cannot hear it
a bill=cannot smell it
a bill=cannot taste it
a bill=cannot touch it
BANKRUPTCY
debta licence=cannot see it
a licence=cannot hear it
a licence=cannot smell it
a licence=cannot taste it
a licence=cannot touch it
BANKRUPTCY
debt a registration=cannot see it
a registration=cannot hear it
a registration=cannot smell it
a registration=cannot taste it
a registration=cannot touch it
BANKRUPTCY
debt
money=cannot see it
money=cannot hear it
money=cannot smell it
money=cannot taste it
money=cannot touch it
Cannot see, it cannot hear, it cannot smell, it cannot taste, it cannot touch, it
An abstract noun is a noun which refers to ideas, qualities, and conditions - things that cannot be seen or touched,
smelled and tasted and things which have "no physical reality", e.g. truth, danger, happiness, time, friendship, humour.
An Abstract Noun used as fiction
BANKRUPTCY
debta letter=cannot see it
a letter=cannot hear it
a letter=cannot smell it
a letter=cannot taste it
a letter=cannot touch it
BANKRUPTCY
debt a bill=cannot see it
a bill=cannot hear it
a bill=cannot smell it
a bill=cannot taste it
a bill=cannot touch it
BANKRUPTCY
debta licence=cannot see it
a licence=cannot hear it
a licence=cannot smell it
a licence=cannot taste it
a licence=cannot touch it
BANKRUPTCY
debt a registration=cannot see it
a registration=cannot hear it
a registration=cannot smell it
a registration=cannot taste it
a registration=cannot touch it
BANKRUPTCY
debt
money=cannot see it
money=cannot hear it
money=cannot smell it
money=cannot taste it
money=cannot touch it
Reading the word "YOU" and "I"
Reading the word "YOU" meaning, everyone as reading. "I" meaning just "I", one.
then when someone read's a book, saying "YOU", would be read as reading "YOU", and not ME, but reading the word "I", would be read as meaning ME is claiming the person reading the book, means them. - "I" may be wrong about this, but "I" guess its how someone reads something.
My Example:
as reading YOU can be YOU, everyone who reads, as YOU as everyone, YOU (Just like a Bouncing word), from talking to people.
"I", can be only ME, one, seperate from reading YOU as everyone who is reading the word, "I", is a seperation, and only one, "I".
then when someone read's a book, saying "YOU", would be read as reading "YOU", and not ME, but reading the word "I", would be read as meaning ME is claiming the person reading the book, means them. - "I" may be wrong about this, but "I" guess its how someone reads something.
My Example:
as reading YOU can be YOU, everyone who reads, as YOU as everyone, YOU (Just like a Bouncing word), from talking to people.
"I", can be only ME, one, seperate from reading YOU as everyone who is reading the word, "I", is a seperation, and only one, "I".
Monday, 28 January 2013
The Federal Reserve Act (1913) - section 16
The Federal Reserve Act (ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251, enacted December 23, 1913, 12 U.S.C. ch.3) is an Act of Congress that created and set up the Federal Reserve System, the central banking system of the United States of America, and granted it the legal authority to issue Federal Reserve Notes (now commonly known as the U.S. Dollar) and Federal Reserve Bank Notes as legal tender. The Act was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson.
Section 16 carefully, the remedy from central banking reveals that Federal Reserve Notes are for reserve banks. If you have Federal Reserve Notes in your wallet, in other words, you are considered a reserve bank.
To restate remedy, one could quit being a reserve bank by redeeming lawful money with their Federal Reserve Notes.
Corporate powers are defined in the Federal Reserve Act.
[63rd Congress, Sess. 2; Ch. 4-6, P. 254]"Upon filing of such certificate with the comptroller of the currency as aforesaid, the said Federal Reserve bank shall become a body corporate, and as such, and in the name designated in each organization certificate, shall have power- First. To adopt and use a corporate seal. Second. To have succession for a period of twenty years from its organization unless it is soon dissolved by and Act of Congress, or unless its franchise becomes forfeited by some violation of law. Third. To make contracts. Fourth. To sue and be sued, complain and defend, in any court of law or equity."
Section 16 carefully, the remedy from central banking reveals that Federal Reserve Notes are for reserve banks. If you have Federal Reserve Notes in your wallet, in other words, you are considered a reserve bank.
To restate remedy, one could quit being a reserve bank by redeeming lawful money with their Federal Reserve Notes.
Corporate powers are defined in the Federal Reserve Act.
[63rd Congress, Sess. 2; Ch. 4-6, P. 254]"Upon filing of such certificate with the comptroller of the currency as aforesaid, the said Federal Reserve bank shall become a body corporate, and as such, and in the name designated in each organization certificate, shall have power- First. To adopt and use a corporate seal. Second. To have succession for a period of twenty years from its organization unless it is soon dissolved by and Act of Congress, or unless its franchise becomes forfeited by some violation of law. Third. To make contracts. Fourth. To sue and be sued, complain and defend, in any court of law or equity."
Saturday, 26 January 2013
Defacto Government and Authority - illegal and illegitimate
Defacto - This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs that must be accepted for all practical purposes, but it is illegal and illegitimate.
===============================================================
a lie, is a FACT. Who put this child in charge of the creator.
the TRUTH is the LAW
===============================================================
De jure (in Classical Latin de iure) is an expression that means "concerning LAW-TRUTH", "LAW"as contrasted with de facto, which means "concerning FACT", an EXAMPLE: a "FACT", can be a lie, that is not the truth, but its a "FACT", its a lie, but its a "FACT" neveraless.
That "FACT" is a given, even though it was a lie, it was born from that lie, created that truth {lie/truth}, it has now become the truth, a Defacto truth/lie, concerning FACT, concerning FACT is a big clue.
.
The terms de jure and de facto are used instead of "in law-TRUTH" and "in practice (but not necessarily ordained by law-TRUTH)", respectively, when one is describing political or legal situations.
EXAMPLE:
It is, in fact, possible to have multiple simultaneous de jure legalities that are not de facto. Between 1805 and 1914, the ruling dynasty of Egypt ruled as de jure viceroys of the Ottoman Empire, but acted as de facto independent rulers who maintained a polite fiction of Ottoman suzerainty. However, from about 1882, the rulers had only de jure rule over Egypt.
De facto standard:
A de facto standard is a custom, convention, product, or system that has achieved a dominant position by public acceptance or market forces (such as early entrance to the market). De facto is a Latin phrase meaning "concerning the FACT" or "in practice".
The term "de facto standard" is used in contrast with obligatory standards (also known as "de jure standards"); or to express the dominant voluntary standard, when there is more than one standard available for the same use.
==========================================
'De facto' racial discrimination and segregation in the USA during the 1950s and 1960s was simply discrimination that was not segregation by law (de jure).
==========================================
The NAACP fought for the de jure law-TRUTH to be upheld and for de facto segregation practices to be abolished.
==========================================
Some countries have a de facto national language in addition to an official language.
The official language of Ireland is Irish.
English is considered to be the de facto language.
In Lebanon and Morocco the official language is Arabic, but an additional de facto language is French.
In New Zealand, Maori and New Zealand Sign Language are de jure official languages, while English is a de facto official language.
Russian was the de facto official language of the central government and, to a large extent, republican governments of the former Soviet Union, but was not declared de jure state language until 1990. A short-lived law effected April 24, 1990, installed Russian as the sole de jure official language of the Union.
===========================================
In social sciences, a voluntary standard that is also a de facto standard, is a typical solution to a coordination problem.
===========================================
A de facto government is a government wherein all the attributes of sovereignty have, by usurpation, been transferred from those who had been legally invested with them to others, who, sustained by a power above the forms of law, claim to act and do really act in their stead.
===========================================
A lie in a defacto government is a FACT, it becomes truth, because its the law of concerning FACT, bring me a FACT in the court. Its not LAW itself, its just a FACT.
EXAMPLE:
I have this, you have that, this is mine, that is yours, its just a FACT, its not a LAW, its perceived as law, FACT is with contract and persuasion of force, but it isn't law, its unlawful and it's criminal. The creation from the mind is the FACT of the law, but the creation from the heart, is the guide to the LAW, true LAW.
===============================================================
a lie, is a FACT. Who put this child in charge of the creator.
the TRUTH is the LAW
===============================================================
De jure (in Classical Latin de iure) is an expression that means "concerning LAW-TRUTH", "LAW"as contrasted with de facto, which means "concerning FACT", an EXAMPLE: a "FACT", can be a lie, that is not the truth, but its a "FACT", its a lie, but its a "FACT" neveraless.
That "FACT" is a given, even though it was a lie, it was born from that lie, created that truth {lie/truth}, it has now become the truth, a Defacto truth/lie, concerning FACT, concerning FACT is a big clue.
.
The terms de jure and de facto are used instead of "in law-TRUTH" and "in practice (but not necessarily ordained by law-TRUTH)", respectively, when one is describing political or legal situations.
EXAMPLE:
It is, in fact, possible to have multiple simultaneous de jure legalities that are not de facto. Between 1805 and 1914, the ruling dynasty of Egypt ruled as de jure viceroys of the Ottoman Empire, but acted as de facto independent rulers who maintained a polite fiction of Ottoman suzerainty. However, from about 1882, the rulers had only de jure rule over Egypt.
De facto standard:
A de facto standard is a custom, convention, product, or system that has achieved a dominant position by public acceptance or market forces (such as early entrance to the market). De facto is a Latin phrase meaning "concerning the FACT" or "in practice".
The term "de facto standard" is used in contrast with obligatory standards (also known as "de jure standards"); or to express the dominant voluntary standard, when there is more than one standard available for the same use.
==========================================
'De facto' racial discrimination and segregation in the USA during the 1950s and 1960s was simply discrimination that was not segregation by law (de jure).
==========================================
The NAACP fought for the de jure law-TRUTH to be upheld and for de facto segregation practices to be abolished.
==========================================
Some countries have a de facto national language in addition to an official language.
The official language of Ireland is Irish.
English is considered to be the de facto language.
In Lebanon and Morocco the official language is Arabic, but an additional de facto language is French.
In New Zealand, Maori and New Zealand Sign Language are de jure official languages, while English is a de facto official language.
Russian was the de facto official language of the central government and, to a large extent, republican governments of the former Soviet Union, but was not declared de jure state language until 1990. A short-lived law effected April 24, 1990, installed Russian as the sole de jure official language of the Union.
===========================================
In social sciences, a voluntary standard that is also a de facto standard, is a typical solution to a coordination problem.
===========================================
A de facto government is a government wherein all the attributes of sovereignty have, by usurpation, been transferred from those who had been legally invested with them to others, who, sustained by a power above the forms of law, claim to act and do really act in their stead.
===========================================
A lie in a defacto government is a FACT, it becomes truth, because its the law of concerning FACT, bring me a FACT in the court. Its not LAW itself, its just a FACT.
EXAMPLE:
I have this, you have that, this is mine, that is yours, its just a FACT, its not a LAW, its perceived as law, FACT is with contract and persuasion of force, but it isn't law, its unlawful and it's criminal. The creation from the mind is the FACT of the law, but the creation from the heart, is the guide to the LAW, true LAW.
Abstract Nouns, Concrete Nouns and other Nouns
Originanl Article: "Nouns" http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/nouns
================================
A noun is a word that identifies:
a person (woman, boy, doctor, neighbour)
a thing (dog, building, tree, country)
an idea, quality, or state (truth, danger, birth, happiness).
There are several different types of noun, as follows:
An Abstract Noun
Cannot see, it cannot hear, it cannot smell, it cannot taste, it cannot touch.it
An abstract noun is a noun which refers to ideas, qualities, and conditions - things that cannot be seen or touched,
smelled and tasted and things which have "no physical reality", e.g. truth, danger, happiness, time, friendship, humour.
Abstract Noun:
chance,
fact,
idea, (truth, danger, birth, happiness)
news,
point,
problem,
position,
reason,
report,
situation,
thing,
deciet,
dedication,
curiosity,
trust,
relaxation,
justice
fairness,
equality,
chaos,
worship,
compassion,
knowledge,
attention,
panic,
hope,
liberty,
happiness,
time,
emotions,
love,
sadness,
hope,
mankind,
manhood,
=================================
Concrete noun:
A concrete noun is a noun which refers to people and to things that "exist physically" and can be seen, can be touched, can be smelled, can be heard, or can be tasted. Examples include dog, building, tree, rain, beach, tune, Tower Bridge.
Concrete noun:
dog,
building,
tree,
rain,
beach,
tune,
Tower Bridge.
================================
Proper noun:
A proper noun is a name that identifies a particular person, place, or thing, e.g.
Proper noun:Steven,
Africa,
Tower Bridge,
London,
Monday.
In written English, proper nouns begin with capital letters.
=================================
Collective nouns:
Collective nouns refer to groups of people or things, e.g
audience,
family,
government,
team,
jury.
Collective nouns can usually be treated as singular or plural, with either a singular or plural verb. Both the following sentences are grammatically correct:
=========================
The whole family was at the table.
The whole family were at the table.
=========================
A noun may belong to more than one category. For example, happiness is both a common noun and an abstract noun, while Tower Bridge is both a concrete noun and a proper noun.
================================
A noun is a word that identifies:
a person (woman, boy, doctor, neighbour)
a thing (dog, building, tree, country)
an idea, quality, or state (truth, danger, birth, happiness).
There are several different types of noun, as follows:
An Abstract Noun
Cannot see, it cannot hear, it cannot smell, it cannot taste, it cannot touch.it
An abstract noun is a noun which refers to ideas, qualities, and conditions - things that cannot be seen or touched,
smelled and tasted and things which have "no physical reality", e.g. truth, danger, happiness, time, friendship, humour.
Abstract Noun:
chance,
fact,
idea, (truth, danger, birth, happiness)
news,
point,
problem,
position,
reason,
report,
situation,
thing,
deciet,
dedication,
curiosity,
trust,
relaxation,
justice
fairness,
equality,
chaos,
worship,
compassion,
knowledge,
attention,
panic,
hope,
liberty,
happiness,
time,
emotions,
love,
sadness,
hope,
mankind,
manhood,
=================================
Concrete noun:
A concrete noun is a noun which refers to people and to things that "exist physically" and can be seen, can be touched, can be smelled, can be heard, or can be tasted. Examples include dog, building, tree, rain, beach, tune, Tower Bridge.
Concrete noun:
dog,
building,
tree,
rain,
beach,
tune,
Tower Bridge.
================================
Proper noun:
A proper noun is a name that identifies a particular person, place, or thing, e.g.
Proper noun:Steven,
Africa,
Tower Bridge,
London,
Monday.
In written English, proper nouns begin with capital letters.
=================================
Collective nouns:
Collective nouns refer to groups of people or things, e.g
audience,
family,
government,
team,
jury.
Collective nouns can usually be treated as singular or plural, with either a singular or plural verb. Both the following sentences are grammatically correct:
=========================
The whole family was at the table.
The whole family were at the table.
=========================
A noun may belong to more than one category. For example, happiness is both a common noun and an abstract noun, while Tower Bridge is both a concrete noun and a proper noun.
Friday, 25 January 2013
Emergency Banking Act, Saturday 9th March, 1933
The United States In Bankruptcy
Speaker – Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House:”Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11… Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government. We are setting forth hopefully, a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner’s report that will lead to our demise. It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress m session June 5, 1933 – Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.
The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers. With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R. 13955 reads in part: “The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States?’ Gold and silver were such a powerful money during the founding of the united states of America, that the founding fathers declared that only gold or silver coins can be “money” in America.
Since gold and silver coinage were heavy and inconvenient for a lot of transactions, they were stored in banks and a claim check was issued as a money substitute. People traded their coupons as money, or “currency.” Currency is not money, but a money substitute. Redeemable currency must promise to pay a dollar equivalent in gold or silver money. Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) make no such promises, and are not “money.” A Federal Reserve Note is a debt obligation of the federal United States government, not “money”
The federal United States government and the U.S. Congress were not and have never been authorized by the Constitution for the united states of America to issue currency of any kind, but only lawful money, -gold and silver coin. It is essential that we comprehend the distinction between real money and paper money substitute. One cannot get rich by accumulating money substitutes, one can only get deeper into debt. We the People no longer have any “money.” Most Americans have not been paid any “money” for a very long time, perhaps not in their entire life. Now do you comprehend why you feel broke? Now, do you understand why you are “bankrupt,” along with the rest of the country?
Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are unsigned checks written on a closed account. FRNs are an inflatable paper system designed to create debt through inflation (devaluation of currency). When ever there is an increase of the supply of a money substitute in the economy without a corresponding increase in the gold and silver backing, inflation occurs. Inflation is an invisible form of taxation that irresponsible governments inflict on their citizens. The Federal Reserve Bank who controls the supply and movement of FRNs has everybody fooled. They have access to an unlimited supply of FRNs, paying only for the printing costs of what they need. FRNs are nothing more than promissory notes for U.S. Treasury securities (T-Bills) – a promise to pay the debt to the Federal Reserve Bank.
There is a fundamental difference between “paying” and “discharging” a debt. To pay a debt, you must pay with value or substance (i.e. gold, silver, barter or a commodity). With FRNs, you can only discharge a debt. You cannot pay a debt with a debt currency system. You cannot service a debt with a currency that has no backing in value or substance.
No contract in Common law is valid unless it involves an exchange of “good and valuable consideration.” Unpayable debt transfers power and control to the sovereign power structure that has no interest in money, law, equity or justice because they have so much wealth already. Their lust is for power and control.
Since the inception of central banking, they have controlled the fates of nations. The Federal Reserve System is based on the Canon law and the principles of sovereignty protected in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In fact, the international bankers used. “Canon Law Trust” as their model, adding stock and naming it a “Joint Stock Trust.” The U.S. Congress had passed a law making it illegal for any legal “person” to duplicate a “Joint Stock Trust” in 1873. The Federal Reserve Act was legislated post-facto (to 1870), although post-facto laws are strictly forbidden by the Constitution. The Federal Reserve System is a sovereign power structure separate and distinct from the federal United States government. The Federal Reserve is a maritime lender, and/or maritime insurance underwriter to the federal United States operating exclusively under Admiralty/Maritime law. The lender or underwriter bears the risks, and the Maritime law compelling specific performance in paying the interest, or premiums are the same. Assets of the debtor can also be hypothecated (to pledge something as a security without taking possession of it.) as security by the lender or underwriter.
The Federal Reserve Act stipulated that the interest on the debt was to be paid in gold. There was no stipulation in the Federal Reserve Act for ever paying the principle. Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913) “hypothecated” all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, -in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a “beneficiary” of the trust via his/her birth certificate.
In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their “subjects,” the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System. In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United States corporation all the credit “money substitute” it needed.
Like any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the federal United States didn’t have any assets, they assigned the private property of their “economic slaves”, the U.S. citizens as collateral against the unpayable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.
Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution, feudal roots whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title to property.
Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the people have exchanged one master for another. This has been going on for over eighty years without the “informed knowledge” of the American people, without a voice protesting loud enough.
Now it’s easy to grasp why America is fundamentally bankrupt. Why don’t more people own their properties outright? Why are 90% of Americans mortgaged to the hilt and have little or no assets after all debts and liabilities have been paid? Why does it feel like you are working harder and harder and getting less and less? We are reaping what has been sown, and the results of our harvest is a painful bankruptcy, and a foreclosure on American property, precious liberties, and a way of life. Few of our elected representatives in Washington, D.C. have dared to tell the truth. The Federal United States is bankrupt. Our children will inherit this unpayable debt, and the tyranny to enforce paying it. America has become completely bankrupt in world leadership, financial credit and its reputation for courage, vision and human rights. This is an undeclared economic war, bankruptcy, and economic slavery of the most corrupt order! Wake up America! Take back your Country.”
From the United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993: Vol. 33, page H-1303
The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers. With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R. 13955 reads in part: “The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States?’ Gold and silver were such a powerful money during the founding of the united states of America, that the founding fathers declared that only gold or silver coins can be “money” in America.
Since gold and silver coinage were heavy and inconvenient for a lot of transactions, they were stored in banks and a claim check was issued as a money substitute. People traded their coupons as money, or “currency.” Currency is not money, but a money substitute. Redeemable currency must promise to pay a dollar equivalent in gold or silver money. Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) make no such promises, and are not “money.” A Federal Reserve Note is a debt obligation of the federal United States government, not “money”
The federal United States government and the U.S. Congress were not and have never been authorized by the Constitution for the united states of America to issue currency of any kind, but only lawful money, -gold and silver coin. It is essential that we comprehend the distinction between real money and paper money substitute. One cannot get rich by accumulating money substitutes, one can only get deeper into debt. We the People no longer have any “money.” Most Americans have not been paid any “money” for a very long time, perhaps not in their entire life. Now do you comprehend why you feel broke? Now, do you understand why you are “bankrupt,” along with the rest of the country?
Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are unsigned checks written on a closed account. FRNs are an inflatable paper system designed to create debt through inflation (devaluation of currency). When ever there is an increase of the supply of a money substitute in the economy without a corresponding increase in the gold and silver backing, inflation occurs. Inflation is an invisible form of taxation that irresponsible governments inflict on their citizens. The Federal Reserve Bank who controls the supply and movement of FRNs has everybody fooled. They have access to an unlimited supply of FRNs, paying only for the printing costs of what they need. FRNs are nothing more than promissory notes for U.S. Treasury securities (T-Bills) – a promise to pay the debt to the Federal Reserve Bank.
There is a fundamental difference between “paying” and “discharging” a debt. To pay a debt, you must pay with value or substance (i.e. gold, silver, barter or a commodity). With FRNs, you can only discharge a debt. You cannot pay a debt with a debt currency system. You cannot service a debt with a currency that has no backing in value or substance.
No contract in Common law is valid unless it involves an exchange of “good and valuable consideration.” Unpayable debt transfers power and control to the sovereign power structure that has no interest in money, law, equity or justice because they have so much wealth already. Their lust is for power and control.
Since the inception of central banking, they have controlled the fates of nations. The Federal Reserve System is based on the Canon law and the principles of sovereignty protected in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In fact, the international bankers used. “Canon Law Trust” as their model, adding stock and naming it a “Joint Stock Trust.” The U.S. Congress had passed a law making it illegal for any legal “person” to duplicate a “Joint Stock Trust” in 1873. The Federal Reserve Act was legislated post-facto (to 1870), although post-facto laws are strictly forbidden by the Constitution. The Federal Reserve System is a sovereign power structure separate and distinct from the federal United States government. The Federal Reserve is a maritime lender, and/or maritime insurance underwriter to the federal United States operating exclusively under Admiralty/Maritime law. The lender or underwriter bears the risks, and the Maritime law compelling specific performance in paying the interest, or premiums are the same. Assets of the debtor can also be hypothecated (to pledge something as a security without taking possession of it.) as security by the lender or underwriter.
The Federal Reserve Act stipulated that the interest on the debt was to be paid in gold. There was no stipulation in the Federal Reserve Act for ever paying the principle. Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913) “hypothecated” all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, -in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a “beneficiary” of the trust via his/her birth certificate.
In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their “subjects,” the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System. In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United States corporation all the credit “money substitute” it needed.
Like any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the federal United States didn’t have any assets, they assigned the private property of their “economic slaves”, the U.S. citizens as collateral against the unpayable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.
Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution, feudal roots whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title to property.
Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the people have exchanged one master for another. This has been going on for over eighty years without the “informed knowledge” of the American people, without a voice protesting loud enough.
Now it’s easy to grasp why America is fundamentally bankrupt. Why don’t more people own their properties outright? Why are 90% of Americans mortgaged to the hilt and have little or no assets after all debts and liabilities have been paid? Why does it feel like you are working harder and harder and getting less and less? We are reaping what has been sown, and the results of our harvest is a painful bankruptcy, and a foreclosure on American property, precious liberties, and a way of life. Few of our elected representatives in Washington, D.C. have dared to tell the truth. The Federal United States is bankrupt. Our children will inherit this unpayable debt, and the tyranny to enforce paying it. America has become completely bankrupt in world leadership, financial credit and its reputation for courage, vision and human rights. This is an undeclared economic war, bankruptcy, and economic slavery of the most corrupt order! Wake up America! Take back your Country.”
From the United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993: Vol. 33, page H-1303
Crown Copyright - To be a Corporation or not to be a Corporation.... that is the Question?
Crown Copyright
To be a Corporation or not to be a Corporation.... that is the Question?
From the National Archives it has this to say about Crown
Copyright :
Crown copyright covers material created by civil servants, ministers and government departments and agencies.
It is legally defined under section 163 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 as works made by officers or servants of the Crown in the course of their duties.
Copyright can also come into Crown ownership by means of assignment or transfer of the copyright from the legal owner of the copyright to the Crown.
From the Open Government License we get the following information :
You are free to :
copy, publish, distribute and transmit the Information;
adapt the Information;
exploit the Information commercially for example, by combining it with other Information, or by including it in your own product or application.
All seems well so far and then from the national Archives page on copyright guidance we find the following :
Guidance – Copying of Birth, Death, Marriage and Civil Partnership Certificates
Number: 7 Date: 27 October 1999 (Revised April 2009)
Introduction
1. This guidance note sets out the arrangements for the reproduction of official birth, death, marriage and civil partnership certificates (‘extracts’ in Scotland.)
Copyright in the layout of layout of certificates is owned by the Crown. The Crown does not assert any rights of ownership in the contents of the forms.
The guidance goes on to say under the heading Reproduction :
This guidance does not {authorise you} to reproduce the contents of any certificate containing personal data about living individuals
If we look at the statement; “The Crown does not assert any rights of ownership in the contents of the forms”, it is a fact that unless we are trained in sophistry, we look upon the sentence and we understand it to mean the crown does not own the contents of the certificate. But the keyword in that sentence is “assert” which we must define to understand its presence in the sentence and its power of expression :
from the Oxford Dictionary 1989 7th edition, the term assert is defined thus : declare; state clearly; enforce claim to (rights);
from the Oxford edition 2005 10th edition, the term assert is defined thus : state a fact or belief confidently; make other people recognise something; assert yourself.
from the Collins English Dictionary 2004 12th edition it says thus : declare forcefully; insist upon (ones rights etc.)
If the crown was not in the position of ownership of the contents, then the second statement; “This guidance does not {authorise you} to reproduce the contents of any certificate containing personal data about living individuals”, would not be present, because to authorize means to give authority, which can only be given by the owner. Should it not be the case that copyright belongs with the crown, then they would not be obligated to have furthered the issue pertaining to copyright of something it does not own, however, as a precaution it could have presented guidance in the manner of reminding that consent must be gained by the owner of the information if it is to be copied. It does not do this, it claims authority by informing you, you are not authorised. The certificate is one half of the equation the other would be filling out the certificate thus forming the corporate ‘legal person’ as a mimic of a birth name being registered, as such the legal person becomes nothing other than a commercial debt account at which all statutory claims are made, the trick is then to encourage living humans to claim to be the liable agent by claiming ownership of the certificate, because of course the crown is not asserting ownership via copyright breech, it will make a lot more money by levelling a range of statutes against you, recoup-able in a cash value, be that in fines and repossessions, or given the same realm is in control of all the private corporate interests moving in on our civil system, they also make a lot of money incarcerating you to the tune of some £50k per year.
What the crown is informing you of, is the fact it does not assert [ 'its' ] ownership outside the guidelines presented, it does not state it owns the rights outright, but acts in a position of authority to deny the use of personal information on living individuals to be copied.
Two terms to absorb in order you better understand your relationship with the legal person :
Power of Attorney
Liable agent
You must consider your relationship with the legal person created when your birth name is registered by your parents, it exists and so do you. Therefore it is essential you understand the difference because the statutes certainly do. On the one hand you are you, as such you are fully responsible for yourself, the other is to claim ownership for something you clearly do not own and in so doing, handing ownership of your destiny to the crown and whichever raft of statutes they are attempting to enforce against your claim to be the liable agent for a legal document belonging to someone else.
I have used three definitions of the term assert, in order we can better understand that changes in our language, especially relating to the meaning of words, do not change due to social pressure, they change in accordance with the next wave of statutes to be laid against us. Through this very clever manipulation of the English language, they have been able to push the statute state upon us without it being noted, while setting as precedent statutes over our land law. The Law of the land protected the people and the state offices from foreign threats and internal government lunges for power, the statute state protects the corporate realm while categorising and herding the peoples into any forms of profit creation, this is how slavery is born and protected, even better if this system is so under contractual consent, and who cares if that consent is gained under a great deception? ….. I think it is time to care. The path is open, are you going to walk it?
To be a Corporation or not to be a Corporation.... that is the Question?
From the National Archives it has this to say about Crown
Copyright :
Crown copyright covers material created by civil servants, ministers and government departments and agencies.
It is legally defined under section 163 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 as works made by officers or servants of the Crown in the course of their duties.
Copyright can also come into Crown ownership by means of assignment or transfer of the copyright from the legal owner of the copyright to the Crown.
From the Open Government License we get the following information :
You are free to :
copy, publish, distribute and transmit the Information;
adapt the Information;
exploit the Information commercially for example, by combining it with other Information, or by including it in your own product or application.
All seems well so far and then from the national Archives page on copyright guidance we find the following :
Guidance – Copying of Birth, Death, Marriage and Civil Partnership Certificates
Number: 7 Date: 27 October 1999 (Revised April 2009)
Introduction
1. This guidance note sets out the arrangements for the reproduction of official birth, death, marriage and civil partnership certificates (‘extracts’ in Scotland.)
Copyright in the layout of layout of certificates is owned by the Crown. The Crown does not assert any rights of ownership in the contents of the forms.
The guidance goes on to say under the heading Reproduction :
This guidance does not {authorise you} to reproduce the contents of any certificate containing personal data about living individuals
If we look at the statement; “The Crown does not assert any rights of ownership in the contents of the forms”, it is a fact that unless we are trained in sophistry, we look upon the sentence and we understand it to mean the crown does not own the contents of the certificate. But the keyword in that sentence is “assert” which we must define to understand its presence in the sentence and its power of expression :
from the Oxford Dictionary 1989 7th edition, the term assert is defined thus : declare; state clearly; enforce claim to (rights);
from the Oxford edition 2005 10th edition, the term assert is defined thus : state a fact or belief confidently; make other people recognise something; assert yourself.
from the Collins English Dictionary 2004 12th edition it says thus : declare forcefully; insist upon (ones rights etc.)
If the crown was not in the position of ownership of the contents, then the second statement; “This guidance does not {authorise you} to reproduce the contents of any certificate containing personal data about living individuals”, would not be present, because to authorize means to give authority, which can only be given by the owner. Should it not be the case that copyright belongs with the crown, then they would not be obligated to have furthered the issue pertaining to copyright of something it does not own, however, as a precaution it could have presented guidance in the manner of reminding that consent must be gained by the owner of the information if it is to be copied. It does not do this, it claims authority by informing you, you are not authorised. The certificate is one half of the equation the other would be filling out the certificate thus forming the corporate ‘legal person’ as a mimic of a birth name being registered, as such the legal person becomes nothing other than a commercial debt account at which all statutory claims are made, the trick is then to encourage living humans to claim to be the liable agent by claiming ownership of the certificate, because of course the crown is not asserting ownership via copyright breech, it will make a lot more money by levelling a range of statutes against you, recoup-able in a cash value, be that in fines and repossessions, or given the same realm is in control of all the private corporate interests moving in on our civil system, they also make a lot of money incarcerating you to the tune of some £50k per year.
What the crown is informing you of, is the fact it does not assert [ 'its' ] ownership outside the guidelines presented, it does not state it owns the rights outright, but acts in a position of authority to deny the use of personal information on living individuals to be copied.
Two terms to absorb in order you better understand your relationship with the legal person :
Power of Attorney
Liable agent
You must consider your relationship with the legal person created when your birth name is registered by your parents, it exists and so do you. Therefore it is essential you understand the difference because the statutes certainly do. On the one hand you are you, as such you are fully responsible for yourself, the other is to claim ownership for something you clearly do not own and in so doing, handing ownership of your destiny to the crown and whichever raft of statutes they are attempting to enforce against your claim to be the liable agent for a legal document belonging to someone else.
I have used three definitions of the term assert, in order we can better understand that changes in our language, especially relating to the meaning of words, do not change due to social pressure, they change in accordance with the next wave of statutes to be laid against us. Through this very clever manipulation of the English language, they have been able to push the statute state upon us without it being noted, while setting as precedent statutes over our land law. The Law of the land protected the people and the state offices from foreign threats and internal government lunges for power, the statute state protects the corporate realm while categorising and herding the peoples into any forms of profit creation, this is how slavery is born and protected, even better if this system is so under contractual consent, and who cares if that consent is gained under a great deception? ….. I think it is time to care. The path is open, are you going to walk it?
Thursday, 24 January 2013
Legal Person What is its Nature?
Fictional (Artificial)
So if we are not in reality, unless we claim to be so, a legal-person, then how would we best describe our relationship to it?
If you have followed our exploration into British law then at this point you should be aware of the{fact}, the {title} which mimics our family name denoted in the uppercase, and or, {Mr},{Mrs}, {Miss}, {Master}, {Squire}, is specific to what is called the legal-person. To further expand this deception it would be wise to consider the following two legal terms :
Power {of} Attorney
Liable Agent
By definition of the mimic, the person so created by the mimic has an identity in the world of commerce as a legal-person, a legal person can be sued and can sue, not within the realm of lawul-law, but in the realm of statutes, the two are distinct.
The best way to better understand the relationship we would want, if we had {all the facts}, with the invented legal-person denoted in the uppercase, and or with a CAPITAL LETTER at the front of the {N}ame, we must look at definitions of the word person through the law books over a time frame, this also exposes the change of meaning of words to suit statutes to be released with the specific aim of setting as precedent statute regulation definitions over land law definitions.
Definitions
A {legal-person is a company} which carries out {all the obligations} {and rights of its behalf}. When establishing a business or an enterprise legal-person, is the company laque assumes all it has to do with the rights and obligations of the same and not the owner himself.
The implication is that all obligations and debts that the company has fully guaranteed and are only limited to anything with the company under its name and capital, and equity.
Advantages of the legal person
Source
Legal personality (also artificial personality, juridical personality, and juristic personality) is the characteristic of a "non-human entity" regarded by law to have the status of a "person".
A legal person (Latin: persona ficta), (also artificial person, juridical person, juristic person, and body corporate, also commonly called a vehicle) has a legal-name and has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and liabilities under law, just as natural persons (humans) do. The concept of a legal-person is a fundamental legal fiction. It is pertinent to the philosophy of law, as is essential to laws affecting a corporation (corporations law) (the law of business associations).
Legal personality allows one or more natural persons to act as a single entity (a composite person) for legal purposes. In many jurisdictions, legal personality allows such composite to be considered under law separately from its individual members or shareholders. They may sue and be sued, enter into contracts, incur debt, and have ownership over property. Entities with legal personality may also be subject to certain legal obligations, such as the payment of tax. An entity with legal personality may shield its shareholders from personal liability.
The concept of legal personality is not absolute. “Piercing the corporate veil” refers to looking at individual human agents involved in a corporate action or decision; this may result in a legal decision in which the rights or duties of a corporation are treated as the rights or liabilities of that corporation’s shareholders or directors. Generally, legal persons do not have all the same rights as natural persons – for example, human rights or civil rights (including the, although the United States has become an exception in this regard).
Source
To further expand the issue we must look at other terms used to relate to {who I am}, they are; {a person, an individual, a natural person or a human}.
Person - The Revised Code of Washington, RCW 1.16.080, (I live in Washington State) defines a person as follows: “The term ‘person’ may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation, as well as an individual.”
Person - Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 791, defines ‘person’ as follows: “In general usage, a human-being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers.”
Person - Oran’s Dictionary of the Law, West Group 1999, defines Person as:
1. A human being (a “natural” person).
2. A corporation (an “artificial” person). Corporations are treated as persons in many legal situations. Also, the word “person” includes corporations in most definitions in this dictionary.
3. Any other “being” entitled to sue as a legal entity (a government, an association, a group of Trustees, etc.).
4. The plural of person is persons, not people (see that word). - Person - Duhaime’s Law Dictionary. An entity with {legal rights} and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are {“persons” in law} unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity. Many laws give certain powers to “persons” which, in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations or associations. -
Person, noun. per’sn. - Webster’s 1828 Dictionary. Defines person as: [Latin persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the stage.]
legal-person - Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law 1996, defines a legal-person as : a body of persons or an entity (as a corporation) considered as having many "of" the rights and responsibilities "of" a natural-person and esp. the capacity to sue and be sued.
A person according to the above definitions, is basically an entity – legal fiction – of some kind that has been legally created and has the legal capacity to be sued. Take note of the emission of the word lawful within these definitions?
Well….. I am not “the {U}nited {S}tates, this state, or any territory, or any public or private corporation”. I am not “labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers.” So, I cannot be a ‘person’ under this part of the definition.
The RCW quoted above also states that a person could also be an “individual”.
Black’s Law Dictionary also defines a person as a “human being,” which they define by stating “(i.e. natural-person)”. So let’s first check to see if I am an “individual”.
Individual - Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 533, defines “individual” as follows: “ As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural-person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons.”
Well now, I have already been shown that I am not a ‘person’, and since ‘individual’ denotes a single ‘person’ as distinguished from a group or class, I can’t be an ‘individual’ under this definition either. But I see the term ‘natural-person’ used in the definition of the RCW, and also in the definition of some of the Law Dictionaries. Maybe I am a ‘natural’ person, since I know I am not an ‘artificial’ one.
I could not find the term ‘Natural-person’ defined anywhere, so I had to look up the word ‘natural’ for a definition to see if that word would fit with the word person…
Natural - Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 712, defines ‘Natural’ as follows: “Untouched by man or by influences of civilization; wild; untutored, and is the opposite of the word “artificial”. The juristic meaning of this term does not differ from the vernacular, except in the cases where it is used in opposition to the term “legal”; and then it means proceeding from or determined by physical causes or conditions, as distinguished from positive enactments of law, or attributable to the nature of man rather than the commands of law, or based upon moral rather than legal considerations or sanctions.”
Am I untouched by man (depends on what the word ‘man’ means), or by influences of civilization? I don’t think so. Am I ‘wild’, or ‘untutored’? nope, not me. Even though the definition states that this word is the opposite of the word ‘artificial’, it still does not describe who I believe I am. So I must conclude that I am not a ‘natural’ person, under this definition of the word ‘natural’. So the term ‘natural-person’ cannot apply to me.
Black’s Law Dictionary also used the term ‘human being’, and although Black’s defined it as a ‘natural-person’, maybe they made a mistake, maybe I am a ‘human being’. ‘Human’ or ‘human being’ does not appear to have a ‘legal’ definition, so I went to my old standby 1888 Noah Webster’s Dictionary for a vernacular definition of this word.
Human - Webster’s 1888 Dictionary defines ‘human’ as follows: n. A human being; one of the race of man. [Rare and inelegant.]
“Sprung of humans that inhabit earth.” …To me, the etymology of the word Hu-man, suggests that it is a marriage of two separate words ‘Hue’ (defined as the property of color), and man. But this cannot of course be correct, at least not politically correct, so I can’t go there, because the word would then mean ‘colored man’!
Am I of the race of man? Rare and inelegant? Sprung of humans that inhabit earth (ground)? (I’m not colored either). Well, it looks like I have to define the word ‘man’ through Webster’s because there appears to be no legal definition for ‘man’.
Man - Webster’s 1888 Dictionary defines ‘man’ as follows: An individual of the human race; a human being; a person.
What Owns the Vatican
The Holy See (Sancta Sede) – not to be confused with the Vatican City over whose independent territory the Holy See is sovereign – is a subject of international law just as other states. Its possession of full legal personality in international law is shown by the fact that it maintains diplomatic relations with 178 states and that it is a member state in various intergovernmental international organizations, such as the United Nations and the WIPO. It would appear not even the Holy See has escaped from statutory consent, so to lay blame at the church itself is incorrect. Like all institutions today the statutes are restricting while determining thought and then action, and like any institution it only requires that the elite of an institution succumb to the pressure of the real power, commerce, and the whole ethos of that institution can be shifted in spite of those who are the clear majority of that institution, the priests and the congregation.
The danger for the church comes in its move to allow commerce to rule its ethos which is the anti-thesis of the doctrines, and tied as she is to International law, then Statutory International law will determine what it is to be an emissary of the man who turned the tables of commerce.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)