Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Is absolutely void.

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    ... I think that I once mentioned that there are over 4,000 corporations in North America calling themselves government (or that the believers call
    Message 1 of 6 , Apr 22, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Michael was thinking and posted:

      > FF has often said the the government is actually comprised
      > of a network of over 4,000 corporations.

      I think that I once mentioned that there are over 4,000 corporations in
      North America calling themselves "government" (or that the believers
      call government). They may be slightly networked. The people who work
      in most of them are unaware of the others. When I mentioned it, it was
      connected to the thought that they all had to be in conformance with
      their founding charters. Or else.

      > If one enters a
      > "court" which is actually a corporation, it would seem that
      > the IMOC would apply to disqualify the corporation as not
      > being a part of the judicial branch of the state.

      Okay, let's see if I understand what you said: The initial moment of
      confrontation would apply to disqualify the corporation as not
      being a part of the judicial branch of the state?

      The Moment (IMOC) itself can do nothing; it is just a starting gun at
      the window of opportunity so it is the party in the moment that has
      powers that may or may not end up being waived. Who is in control of
      the situation when the IMOC occurs?! For me to treat the face in my
      face during the IMOC as a meaningful representative of any corporation
      would grant it legitimacy I do not believe it has, that of representing
      any corporation at all! Just because people don't go to jail doesn't
      mean crimes aren't being committed in plain daylight all around!
      Impersonation is a crime!

      Have any bankers gone to jail over the so-called "crisis"? Remember the
      S&L crisis? Many went to jail. There has been a coup. "The government"
      is riddled top to bottom with many groups who hate it and want to bring
      it down ("a man with a plan" x 100,000+), aside from the believers who
      take whatever is spoon fed to them (200M+). Few live by the law of the
      land anymore. They plead the Law of Necessity, so that when the ATM
      doesn't spit out FRNs someday, they can kill you because their baby is
      hungry. All my life I've been told that people will kill you for 5 bux
      and it is true. Watch what happens next!

      > Or, the disqualification may have to reach to the corporate
      > STATE, perhaps with the corporate court in question a
      > subsidiary of the STATE JUDICIAL BRANCH. Either way, it
      > would still be a separate and distinct corporation.

      Do you let just anyone represent corporations to you? Where I am you
      have to either be a corporate officer or his licensed attorney to do so
      and I don't want to make things easy for that type. I find
      disqualifications of everyone to be the best solution to all kinds of
      problems, but they must occur immediately, or record gets made that must
      then be overcome creating lots more work that anyone might have tried to
      be avoiding by waiving assertive defensive/offensive action in the IMOC.

      > It would then seem that the issue of oath of office to
      > support the constitutions "of" the United States, [federal?]
      > and "of" the STATE may come into play.

      The critters I'm dealing with haven't taken that oath and aren't obliged
      to it, since they are only actors, impersonators, portrayers,
      charlatans, knaves, doing it all for the fools who cough up the booty!

      > I have not seen this "argued" by anyone as a "court" tactic,
      > but it does seem to be an interesting one to expand on the
      > IMOC.

      I hope it never comes up that far down the road! Man! There are over a
      hundred steps that could be interjected before that issue ever could
      come up in a courtroom, unless you are dragged in, in chains and
      restraints. The latest I'd ever deal with this as you envision would be
      when I was in front of the magistrate I'd be demanding to see
      immediately if I was arrested. Only he'd never get to rule on anything
      because he's going to be disqualified before that.

      Criminal kidnappers often ignore the demands of their captives, so I
      hear, like in that Bette Midler movie...

      Regards,

      FF
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.