I heard a quote from Wesley “Your Christ is my Devil”. I could relate to his sentiment The Christ of the gospel message is completely misunderstood by the corrupt human heart. When a true Christian has a relationship with God through Christ he is easily criticized for his obedience which is foreign to all they know as righteous. It is why so many clamored to have Christ crucified. He knew that His true professions of the Godhead would be reflected by those who garner their righteousness from the devil.
What is so despicable about the judicial system Scott and I faced and still fight is that it borrows the righteous credibility of God’s righteousness buy follows the tenets of the devil. Christians foolishly allow themselves to be duped by the profession of righteousness and presume in their ignorance that God’s will is being performed. I tell you the fact by the knowledge of Christ, The true Christ, that our judicial system is akin to witchcraft and none who practice its art can know the Lord. If they profess a relationship with Christ their Christ is the devil of the true gospel.
I have had friends and I will use that term loosely who have studied the word of God with me. Yet when the institutions of law merely make the cursory claims of God’s authority they ignore the witness they have of me and condemn me as unjust. This is the work of the devil and true Christian love cannot practice it. So when you make the profession of Christ I am not easily moved and I will judge you by whose report you believe before I call you brother.
As for the judicial system it has made an enemy with Christ in me. I have no fear of the quantity or the size of the giants God throws at my rock. They will be defeated as Goliath because the true Christ of the gospel is more than a conjurer and is not deceived by the devil’s false righteousness.
As to the battles I face I do not grow weary and have always seen the victory inherent in Christ. So if you cannot understand my determination against or contempt for all things labeled lawful fear not it is easily understood: Christ is my devil.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4,870 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 3601 – 3800 of 4870 Newer› Newest»HA!!
YO DUN EVEN EXIST!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
How to create a free society without government.
http://www.crowdfreedom.com/book
Land needs to be owned by people who use land. Your body is owned by you because you use it, your car is owned by you because you use it, and everything else you own is your property, not someone else's. Again this stuff becomes more clear the more you think about it. At first it's a bit weird because we're not educated to think like this.
The Non-Aggression Principle
Now there is a 2nd part to property ownership.
In order to own yourself you need to be free from coercion. If you are coerced out of owning yourself this is breaking your self ownership. Somebody is infringing on it. If somebody initiates violence on you then they are infringing on your property, yourself. To use violence to interfere with the human experience is anti-human. It violates man's needs just as keeping sun from a plant violates its need. Violence can't be universalized. If you initiate coercion on another person you are no longer practicing behavior which can be universalized. If everybody initiated force on everyone else we would have problems. If everyone did not initiate force on everyone else we would not have problems, which is why the non-initiation of force is essential to property.
NAP = Non-agression principle
All governments depend on taxation. When governments tax they are violating the NAP. This is one of the main reasons why governments are violent. Governments all rely on taxation to run. If governments didn't tax people they wouldn't exist. If taxes were voluntary people would choose not to pay them. So governments force people to pay taxes. But governments don't use force to make people pay taxes you say. What happens if you don't pay taxes? Government will eventually come after you and use force to put in you jail. If people don't pay taxes the government will at some point or another use force to either imprison the person or make them pay taxes. So yes, taxation is violent.
As has already been stated: Taxation is theft, war is mass murder, military and jury conscription are forced labor and enslavement, imprisonment of victimless crimes is kidnapping, public schools are forced indoctrination, police are armed thugs, welfare is theft, national debt is enslavement of unborn and on and on. These are all highly immoral, violent behaviors that would be abhorred if done by anybody but the government. But when the government does them we change our position on the morality of them. We incorrectly believe that it is okay for government to do them because we think we need government.
Government creates 2 class divisions:
The rulers
The ruled
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendants argue that the Indictment should be dismissed because this Court lacks jurisdiction. For the reasons set forth below, the United States submits the defendants’ motion is frivolous and should be denied.
_________________________________
United States of America violates NAP. How do you defend yourself behind bars, before your case has even been to trial? Doesn't that violate the 1st Amendment's Freedom of Speech? Not only your body but your mind has been jailed- your freedom is now limited to the laywer-think.
"From this we can gather an important principle: the non-aggression principle, or NAP. The non-aggression principle basically states that the non-initiation of force is a moral principle for humans because it can be universalized and allows for the greatest fulfillment of human needs. The NAP is pro-human. When we violate the NAP we are being anti-human.
The non aggression principle and property go hand in hand. You can't have property without non-aggression. If people can freely steal your property then it's not property. If people can freely violate you then you don't own yourself. If we can go around raping anyone we want then we don't have property rights. So there has to be some container or thing that keeps people from messing with your property. There is, the NAP.
This doesn't mean that you can't use force as a defense. It means that you can't use force as an offense. You can't initiate force on another person. Defending property is much different than offensively aggressing against property. If somebody tries to steal from you and you defend your property you are claiming ownership by defending it. If everyone defends their property this can be universalized and we have no problems. If everyone attacks other people's property we do have problems. So it is the initiation of force that is the problem, not defense with force.
The NAP is the most basic of ethical principles. It is about as foundational as you can get and many other principles stem from it. It's what we teach our kids when they are younger. We teach kids not to use use force on other kids when they are growing up. And since the NAP is universal it applies to everyone no matter the age, race, status or number of people. It doesn't matter if you're 5 or 65, initiation of force is wrong. It doesn't matter if you're White, Black, Asian or Hispanic, initiation of force is wrong. It doesn't matter if 1 person initiates force or a group of 1,000,000 democratically elected people initiate force, it's still wrong. The potency of the NAP is in the simplicity of it. Simple things have less room for error. The closer you can get to the core of ethics the better. And the NAP, which goes together with property, is about as simple as you can get."
United States of America violates NAP. How do you defend yourself behind bars before your case has even gone to trial? Doesn't that violate the 1st Amendment's Freedom of Speech? Not only your body but your mind has been jailed- your freedom is now severely restricted to lawyer-think.
The defendants are trapped in time by what they already know. They are not allowed to learn or know anything more. What a crime that is.
The defendants are trapped in SPACE and TIME by what they already know. They are not allowed to learn or know anything more. What a violation of human rights that is. In Eustace Mullins' book The Rape of Justice he talks a bit about a guy named Andrew Melinchinski (sp?) and how he was arrested and jailed numerous times and how he got himself out each and every time using constitutional procedures. Sadly he didn't elaborate on what those proceedures were but I bet they had something to do with the 1st Amenmdment Freedom of Speech.
It's too bad the book Crowd Freedom cannot be purchased at Amazon in book form. I'd send them a copy if it was. Printing it out at the library is too costly, and I don't have a printer myself.
so that where kirk and scooty went wrong with the dg??
they jsut should have taken the court dox and writ VOID on them!!!!
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOOOOOOOOOOLOLLLLLLLLLLLLLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!
http://i-uv.com/and-here-you-go-with-todays-doings-10-13-17-us-v-hatj-rkb/comment-page-1/#comment-298346
so i no sum peepls ho are gond to cort, i jus gonna tell em dat to writ da wurds VOID on them an then they can home. dats it!! c ya!!!
i can smell yo TDA account$ with zillions of $$$ in it soooon!!!
OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLO!!!!!!
ORDER
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b), it is hereby
ORDERED
that the following motions
are
REFERRED
to the Honorable C. Clifford Shirle
y, Jr., United States
Magistrate Judge,
for his consideration and determination or
report and recommendation, as may be
appropriate: (1) defendant Heather Ann Tucci-Jarraf’s
pro se
“Praecipe to Enter Dismissal
with Prejudice and Declaration of Due Cause,
‘Praecipe and Declaration of Facts,’” which
the Court has docketed as a motion to dismiss
the indictment [Doc. 43]; and (2) defendant
Randall Keith Beane’s
pro se
Request to Join in Co-D
efendant Filing [Doc. 44].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Thomas A. Varlan
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:17-cr-00082-TAV-CCS Document 47 Filed 10/13/17 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 2102
so ho do dis works???
da CHEF US districk jugs sent it to anther jugs fo wha???
but he be da chef jugs, no?
why wuld he sent it to a low end jugs??
i dun understarn???
hep me??
hep me ronda, hep hep me ronda??
did they gift up??
wow!!!
come on listen to stroy about a man name jet,
a po mutnineer ho barly kep his famly fed,
den none day, he was shot at da food,
an up from da groun come bublin crew,
tda dat is,
green gold,
teks tee...
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
so when i gets my $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
jus puts in my S.S. ##
dats all??
duh duh duh duh duh dats all fokes!!!
ok, REALLY splain it to me lucy?
so the chief judge sends it down to a magistrate judge, why?
i would assume that a magistrate judge is a lower level judge.
so, can the mag judge also 'punt' on it and send it back for ??? i dont know, jurisdiction say, which is what they are arguing in the first place??
and, IF he does actually dismiss it, then is it home free to access ones SS/TDA treasury account money?
assuming that the treasury actually has any money left in it??
anyone?? splain it to me?? plz
i do know that a mag judge is more knowledgable of UCC and admiralty law.
is perhaps that why the CJ sent it down to him for resolution?
magistrate (noun)
of majesty, majestic, of the kings court (of Baal lol)
a US administrative judge (NOTE: not a trial judge, but a paper shuffler)
i dont knowk, but this action would make it seem like they are at least getting further than anyone thought possible in this case, instead of just being run over like a freight train, for a real judge to send it down to a magistrate. either he knows something and doenst want to wind up the fall guy for what is now a very, very real possibility for the whole dam to break.
i will begin review of the TDA process in the event that a green light is every given for access, as even if it is allowed, there seems to be quite some amount of knowledge and paperwork involved to do correctly.
maybe this will have some effect on the dg process as well?
settlements???
Updated Part 2- Anything is Possible: Judge C Clifford Shirley p1
https://youtu.be/coYtFkBd-TA
zillion$$$$$$
LOLLOL!!!!!
like the dg, kurt and scott, one can start a biz, titled:
HOW TO ACCESS YOUR TDA ACCOUNT
SPECIAL PRICE (IF YOU ACT NOW!!!)
ONLY $1999-
HURRY!!
SEMINARS WILL FILL FAST!!
GET A DEAL ON HOTEL ACCOMODATIONS IN STOCKTON NOW!!!
Chris Langan... a Man with 200 I.Q.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA0gjyXG5O0
"... a lot of them call themselves CEOs. To succeed you have to learn how to kiss up. Kiss your way up the ladder of success."
A U.S. District Judge is an Article III judge, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and having life tenure. A Magistrate Judge is a kind of junior judge-- they serve only 10-year terms and are not appointed by the President but elected by the judges in that district. They handle routine matters, to save the District Judges time. On "nondispositive" motions (discovery motions and the like), the Magistrate can decide the motion; on "dispositive" motions (those that would decide the case, like a motion to dismiss), the Magistrate can only write a "recommendation" which can be reversed by the District Judge if either side appeals to the District Judge (though, in my experience, few recommendations get reversed).
"Do you see a change in the monetary system in the coming decade?"
Start listening at 36:40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piE4zzZOjZc&t=2384s
"The monetary economy right now is not necessarily rational, except for the people that control it." Chris Langan
Except for the people that control it? LOL
Must listen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPsksIDxqFc
... Ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs. That order and progress can only come when individuals surrender their rights to an all powerful sovereign." Barack Obama
https://www.facebook.com/ilovetexassssss/videos/753680301350400/?hc_ref=ARTywM3v2ZB_k4JRvLZCi9EYBa9dYUzzQ_Z1ou2c3JkHPBWFs3fTzoJUrnghaxrF6lM
i dont knowk, but this action would make it seem like they are at least getting further than anyone thought possible in this case, instead of just being run over like a freight train, for a real judge to send it down to a magistrate. either he knows something and doenst want to wind up the fall guy for what is now a very, very real possibility for the whole dam to break.
Exactly the opposite. The judge's referring the motion to dismiss to a magistrate means he is saying "this is the same old stuff I've seen 100 times before, I don't need to waste my time on it." The Magistrate will write a short opinion denying the motion (for the reasons in the Government's opposition) and, if Tucci-Jaraff appeals to the district judge, he will write a one-line order affirming.
that may correct, however, i do believe that this will wind down with those having the knowledge, actally able to access.
rember, this is jubilee year and all this milk and honey stuff is supposed to happen, and if it doesnt, then very, very severe judgment will come upon the usa.
then again perhaps judgment will come and there will be no redemption, seeing as the next total solar eclipse in 7 years, marks an 'X' over the usa. that could mean the end of the usa as we know it. as a matter of fact, 7 years is an approximation from 8-21-17 to 3-28-24. its more like 6 years, 6 moths, 6 weeks and 6 days till the next one....hmmmmmm....hwere have i seen that number before????? concedance?? i dont thik so....
the ptb will stalll for as long as they can...howver, they too will face gods judgment here in the usa...it will be over (milk and honey days) for them as well.
corse, they dont think so....so let them find out the hard way.
in fact, the cia factbook predicts that the pop. of the usa will be all the way down to only about 50 million by 2025.
tsunami? astrid hit? planten-x??
wht wil cause this astronoimical decrease???
speaking of things that could wipe out the united states, a hurricane brian - as large as the untied states?? holee sheet!!
https://youtu.be/JyPq6nhbKHw
updates from court on tda hearing/motions
as of 12:45pm edt
https://scontent.fzty2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t42.9040-29/10000000_165655440683638_3264298277377409024_n.mp4?efg=eyJ2ZW5jb2RlX3RhZyI6InNkIn0%3D&oh=1b2f35b6c65163abcaad92788bd74069&oe=59E7E062
come on jug beans....why yo holin up my doolas, yo???
i gots sheet dat i gots ta buy, yo!!
just finished watching it.
decision was that judge will take 30 days to make a ruling
my bad, next solar eclipse in usa is 4-8-24 not march 28 2024
spooky how its 6666 calendar periods till the next one
8-21-17 (last total solar ecl) add 6 years ->
8-21-23 add 6 months ->
2-21-23 add 6 weeks -> (2-21 is a wed. the 6th wed from then is...)
4-3-23 add 6 days -> 4-08-23
ok, it would be 9, but maybe leap year is not accounted for, or perhaps is is from middle east time or european time.
lookit, it so damn close, it must just be an error in figuring exactly where the eclispe is time from, what time zone/date.
to be so freakin close (1 day off) after 6+ years is no freakin coincidence.
wrap up of court proceedings held on 10-18 for the tda accounts.
heather tucci summary by heather herself: 50 mins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LQvY_Vd-4s&feature=youtu.be
#HATJ & RKB- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE CRIMINAL MINUTES 10.20.17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
CRIMINAL MINUTES
Case No.:
3:17-CR-82
At:
Knoxville, TN – Courtroom 3B
Date:
October 18, 2017
Style:
United States of America v. Randall
Keith Beane and Heather Tucci-Jarraf
P
RESENT
B
EFORE
:
H
ONORABLE
C.
C
LIFFORD
S
HIRLEY
,
J
R
.,
U
NITED
S
TATES
M
AGISTRATE
J
UDGE
Rachel Stone
Rebekah Lo
ckwood Michelle Gensheimer
Courtroom Deputy Co
urt Reporter
Law Clerk
Anne-Marie Svolto
Cynthia Davidson
Stephen McGrath (elbow cnsl)
United States Attorney(s)
Attorney for Deft Beane
Francis Lloyd, Jr. (elbow cnsl)
Attorney for Deft Tucci-Jarraf
Proceedings:
The parties presented before the Court
for a scheduled motion hearing. The Court
discussed the filings made by the pro se defenda
nts with both defendants. The Court also
allowed the government to respond to the defendan
ts’ filings. The Court will take these matters
under advisement.
Time:
9:30 a.m.
to
11:15 a.m.
Case 3:17-cr-00082-TAV-CCS Document 59 Filed 10/18/17 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 2777
"The Court will take these matters under advisement."
the biggest LOLLLOL
under advertisement...yea, right!!!
jugs, i advise yo to rool correctly. no wha i meens?
alleged UNITED STATES DISRTICT COURT"
OLOLOLOLLOOLOLLOLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOLOLOLLOLOL!!!!!!
evenry now and then you need a good laff!!! scuse me! a verrrrrrrrrrrrrrry good laff!!
http://i-uv.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Doc-56-Notice-of-Correction-of-Praecipe-Doc-54.pdf
hey yo, yo honor, are yo an 'alleged' judge?
jus more LOLOLOLOLOLL!!!!
btw, jus thinking, when are we gong to get our 'alleged' dg stalemints??? lol!!!
will they be fresh?
i will depost my alledged settlmint$ into my alleged bank and get an alledged receipt for it.
an also btw, yo honor, yo may want step back a bit as you can easily fall off the ledge yo standing on...yo dun wanna be too alleged yoself.
man to do luv having fun with this!!!!
yo hono? dis yo felt of da ledger????
was having a discussion this past week about this case, and how the waves of this case are already affecting the entire judiciary branches and bank branches…and all the craziness going on with the DOJ and DC…
Once this case is formally closed. ALL cases across the land will be void, it’s really that simple from a purely time based understanding. The quaintness is already complete. It’s really going to be wonderful seeing ALL cases voided and everyone that has been under the thumb of of owing $$ or debt will be gone.
I am also looking deeply int the Credit system, this fictitious ridiculous joke to be gone. Anyone’s thoughts on how the credit system will be gone(as it is already) however I am talking in linear time.
Example for context: I went to get an oil change yesterday,and I need 2 new tires and the place was very nice and the manager said well I could set you up with credit to pay for 6 months no interest. I stated “I am no longer engaged with the credit agencies as they have been foreclosed and further more never actually existed” You didn’t know this? I get the deer in the headlights look, and then a massive amount of energy it pointed at me, wanting more questions asked however the person or persons just move past what they want to ask and end the conversation.
Any thoughts?
Whaaaaat?
A military drill starting from Nov 4-6
Shantelle McBride:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10107433597268293&id=1217763
Still couldn't figure out if it's true or not:
https://www.snopes.com/dod-drill-coincide-november-demonstrations/
Ms. Tucci-Jarraf's jurisdictional hearing:
http://i-uv.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/RL10.18.17USA-vs.-Beane-and-Tucci-Jarraf.pdf
My favorite part starts at about p. 14 where the judge asks Ms. T-J where her "maxims of law" come from, and she says they're "universal" but can't cite a single book they're in.
Anyone who thinks this will end well for her is sadly mistaken.
My favorite part was where the Judge was totally ignorant about how the Court paper is sent from the Clerk of Court to the Federal Reserve to be monitized and securitized and the Judge's complete ignorance that a Court is considered a "bank", as also affirmed by Black's Law Dictionary too. Just because you are a Court Administrator and you are called "Your Honor", doesn't mean you have any honor, or are even a lawfully appointed Judgeship, or can even back up your authority when challenged. Course Heather showed how she completely stopped the paper from being able to be monetized. Another thing that went completely over the comprehension of the Judge. Heather showed he is just another "useful idiot" that is being used in the fraud.
This case is not about whether things will end well for Heather. She has already done well enough in her own defense, and in getting out of prison and their custody for at least now, and without having to post bond and all that other stuff Kurt & Scott were never even afforded.
The value of this case is about hearing how Judges and attorneys can be ignorant about the higher agenda that is going on, and seeing how corrupt the Courts are, and how the Courts do whatever they want anyway regardless of the law, and how justice isn't usually served, but is just a hope and a word that doesn't usually exist in the Courts. The Courts are there for the benefit of the creditors and the banks, not for the debtors, and the serfs and the alleged criminals as they get run over 98% of the time.
If this was a debate contest, Heather won, and proved by default that the Court doesn't have jurisdiction over her and the prosecution lost, and the Judge was exposed as incompetent. That's not to say that Heather won't go to prison.
What was also improper in my own opinion was that the Judge argued the case for the benefit of the Prosecuting Attorneys as it was completely apparent that he is not impartial, but was totally trying to argue against everything Heather said or stood for. The Judge didn't give her a break at all. That's not the Judge's position to do this. 90% of what was recorded was a confrontation and debate between the Judge and Heather. It was as if the Prosecution was there just to listen to the Judge defend their case and do everything for them.
Another good part was where the Defendants declared they are not "sovereigns" or "sovereign citizens", as it's true, the government has labeled them as "terrorists", and treat them that way, even though the Court and the Prosecution put them in this category, it's interesting that they both vehemently deny that label.
The Judge tried to trip Heather up many times, but Heather was very careful on how she answered questions, and what she said. For that, kudos to her.
I agree with your point. Heather could have done much better at providing Case Law to show that these "maxims of law" that she referred to are based upon universally accepted law, or court usage or court rules.
She still stymied and frustrated the Judge much more than he expected and showed she knew more about what goes on "behind the curtain" than he did when it comes to banking practices, the UCC, and several other subjects. She's not someone that can easily be rolled over. This is a good fight to watch, unlike the latest heavyweight boxing fight tonight that was the biggest mismatch in history. How pathetic to pair these fighters in the same ring. The contender and former heavy weight champion, was knocked down 3 times within the first couple minutes and if you went to the bathroom, you would have come back and the fight would have been over.
My favorite part was where the Judge was totally ignorant about how the Court paper is sent from the Clerk of Court to the Federal Reserve to be monitized and securitized and the Judge's complete ignorance that a Court is considered a "bank", as also affirmed by Black's Law Dictionary too.
Because that never happens. The court is not a "bank," and court papers are never sent to the Federal Reserve to be monetized.
If this was a debate contest, Heather won, and proved by default that the Court doesn't have jurisdiction over her and the prosecution lost, and the Judge was exposed as incompetent. That's not to say that Heather won't go to prison.
She will, in fact, go to prison, and for those of us who live in the real world, that is proof that the court does in fact have jurisdiction over her.
Heather could have done much better at providing Case Law to show that these "maxims of law" that she referred to are based upon universally accepted law, or court usage or court rules.
She couldn't provide any law for her delusional beliefs, because they're not true. If I say something is in the rules of every court, it should be easy for me to cite those rules by number. Heather couldn't cite one court rule, because what she says isn't there.
Dr. C. said:
"My favorite part starts at about p. 14 where the judge asks Ms. T-J where her "maxims of law" come from, and she says they're "universal" but can't cite a single book they're in."
Like the common law, maxims of law aren't necessarily written.
http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/common-law.htm
She can cite all the common law maxims till the cows come home, but it's not going to get her anywhere because the prosecutor, judge, jury that are not of her peers. That's why the case is doomed.
One smart eyetalian chik that heather toochi coochi coo!
Where maxims of law are not written down, they are only someone's opinion, and not binding on a court. Heather insisted, however, that her maxims are in the court rules of every state. The judge challenged her on this, and she couldn't support her allegation.
A few states (and they're a distinct minority) have written down their maxims of law. Here is California's version:
https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2009/civ/3509-3548.html
Two things to note: (1) these are only guides to the interpretation of other laws; they don't supersede any specific statute (see section 3509). (2) The "maxim" that Heather insisted is "universal"--that an unrebutted affidavit stands as fact-- is nowhere to be found in the California list. In fact, I have never seen that "maxim" in any state's code or rules.
Shocking new evidence has emerged that JP Morgan carefully orchestrated the sinking of the Titanic so that he could form the Federal Reserve.
Back in 1889, a book was written by Morgan Robertson, spookily titled “Wreck of the Titan”, detailed the demise of a luxury liner that hit an iceberg killing everyone on board.
The book became eerily prophetic as the disaster would play out almost to the exact detail of the book.
What was different with the Titanic was the huge political implications it would have after it sunk.
Some of the wealthiest key figures in the financial industry died when the Titanic sunk, all of them had one thing in common; they opposed the Federal Reserve.
The book became eerily prophetic as the disaster would play out almost to the exact detail of the book.
Let's get to the facts:
FACT: JP Morgan funded/built the Titanic
FACT: JP Morgan was booked on the voyage but canceled at the last second.
FACT: Friend of JP Morgan, Milton Hersey, also canceled at the last moment. (and survived to build the Hersey food empire)
What was different with the Titanic was the huge political implications it would have after it sunk.
FACT: There were no red flares on board to signal to any boats for rescue. Only white flares that signal a party and that everything is okay.
FACT: It was the first ship of its kind with the ability to seal decks electromagnetically which could also seal people below deck.
FACT: The Captain Edward Smith was one of the most decorated Captains of his time and would have been totally out of character by avoiding precautions.
FACT: The author of the book was poisoned to death a couple years after the Titanic sank.
FACT: The Federal Reserve was formed the very next year.
FACT: The Astor Family was one of the richest families in the world and John Astor III opposed the Federal Reserve.
inventor.
sank and look at the similarities.
been designed, there are some remarkable similarities between the fictional and real-life counterparts.
John Jacob Astor IV, the richest man in the world at the time, a friend of Nikola Tesla, and an outspoken opponent of the creation of the Federal Reserve.
Astor gained his wealth, in part, as a real estate builder, investor, and inventor.
Other prominent Federal Reserve detractors, such as Benjamin Guggenheim and Isa Strauss, also died on board.
DID JP MORGAN GET THE IDEA OF HOW TO KILL OFF THE OPPOSITION TO THE FEDERAL RESERVE FROM A BOOK WRITTEN 14 YEARS PRIOR?
This was a book titled “The Titan” published 14 years before the Titanic sank and look at the similarities.
Did they hatch a plan at Jekyll Island to build a ship to eliminate the competition?
Similarities to the Titanic -
Although the novel was written before the Olympic-class Titanic had even been designed, there are some remarkable similarities between the fictional and real-life counterparts.
Like the Titanic, the fictional ship sank in April in the North Atlantic, and there were not enough lifeboats for the passengers.
There are also similarities between the size (800 ft long for Titan versus 882 ft 9 in long for the Titanic), speed (25 knots for Titan, 21 knots for Titanic) and life-saving equipment.
Beyond the name, the similarities between the Titanic and the fictional Titan include: Described as “unsinkable”
The Titanic was the world’s largest luxury liner (882 feet, displacing 63,000 long tons), and was once described as being practically “unsinkable”.
The Titan was the largest craft afloat and the greatest of the works of men (800 feet, displacing 75,000 tons), and was considered “unsinkable”.
Shortage of lifeboats -
The Titanic carried only 16 lifeboats, plus 4 Engelhardt folding lifeboats, less than half the number required for her passenger capacity of 3000.
The Titan carried “as few as the law allowed”, 24 lifeboats, less than half needed for her 3000 capacity.
Struck an iceberg -
Moving too fast at 22½ knots, the Titanic struck an iceberg on the starboard side on the night of April 14, 1912 in the North Atlantic 400 miles away from Newfoundland.
Also on an April night, in the North Atlantic 400 miles from Newfoundland (Terranova), the Titan hit an iceberg while traveling at 25 knots, also on the starboard side.
Sinking -
The unsinkable Titanic sank, and more than half of her 2200 passengers died.
The indestructible Titan also sank, more than half of her 2500 passengers drowning.
Went down bow first, the Titan actually capsizing before it sank.
Dr. Caligari:
You are showing your ignorance of case law if you really believe the last post you just posted:
http://thematrixhasyou.org/Affidavit-IRS-complete/Summons-affidavit/attachment-p.html
Heather was correct, she just didn't go into depth. That's all!!!! It's truly unfair to expect her to totally prove without a shadow of a doubt everything she said. The Court is suppose to accept her testimony as long as there is not evidence to the contrary. The Prosecution has provided no evidence to date that they have jurisdiction over her since 2012. Her limited conversation on the subject to prove some of her maxims of law is not the final nail in her coffin as you suggest, nor is it a highlight.
She embarassed the Judge and the Prosecution enough in the hearing. Anymore embarassment by her to her opposition would have just been overkill.
The Prosecution and the Judge know they don't have jurisdiction over her. It's all a chess game and a charade. They tried to argue around it by limiting the importance of the UCC filings and other arguments and to say that the UCC is pretty much meaningless since all States have different versions of the statutes. The Judge made many mistakes by several of his admissions on the record.
Again, it held that plaintiff had failed to comply with Rule 56(c)(2) when he filed new material in response to the motion and held, as a result, that defendant's statement of undisputed facts was deemed admitted." Gallipo v. City of Rutland (2004-041
So should Heather be immediately released since Case Law is irrelevant to you and to the Judge and to the prosecution to prove a point on certain maxim of laws that Courts should follow? Isn't that why it's called "Common Law" because many Court Judges keep ruing the same and issuing orders based upon other already settled cases? These maxims of law are common to the principles of Common Law. That's what Heather was saying I believe, why do you try to make fun of this?
I was in a case where the Judge said he had to accept the instrument I recorded because there was no recorded proof or any affidavit to rebut my ownership. This Judge understood the basic principle, why are you so blind to it?
Statutes are not the law. If a statute is unconstitutional, it is void. Statutes are not universal.
Judge said his authority doesn't come from Mr. Sessions, the Attorney General, his boss, so he couldn't produce ANY EVIDENCE from him about his authority over Heather, even if he wanted to. In fact, he couldn't produce any evidence at all, no affidavit, no declaration, nothing, other than a statute that doesn't even apply to Heather after 2013. Hence, the Court has shown it's a kangaroo Court already. That's now my favorite part. LOL Judge was insistent he didn't have to prove any of this, but Heather must prove her maxims of law and everything else she says? Seems like a double standard to me and makes the subject of personal and subject matter jurisdiction the biggest joke.
p. 60 lines 18-25
p. 61 Lines 1-23
P. 62 Lines 1-4
All of this shows according to Heather's belief and experience, why she is not going to jail on a conviction in this case, as the indictment has been cancelled by Heather herself based upon her 20 years experience in banking practices. The bonding paperwork can't be sent to Chase Bank for securitization and monetization because the original issuer (Heather) cancelled the paperwork for securitization/banking purposes.
Further proof of Heathers belief of a good result in the end is here:
p. 82 Line 19 when she says: "I don't consent to doing any of that, and it never was designed--this case was not designated and those involved MADE SURE, it would not go there---it would not go to that disposition.
That statement is made as if Heather in fact has had direct meetings with the real power way up the food chain of power that caused the indictments to be made in the first place. and Heather received certain promises. And if you don't believe that, you must believe she is just crazy or is lying. At any rate, this is a woman that doesn't believe for a minute she will be convicted period.
Heather claims she was offered millions of dollars by the "powers that be", yet she turned it down because the powers that be didn't want to give that same offer to everyone else. Heather claims she is really working for the benefit of everyone.
Likewise Kurt made the same claim of turning down millions of dollars if he would just go away and stop what he was doing and stop taking in clients.
The same play is made out of the standard playbook, when you turn down an offer from the powerful people way up the food chain, you get charges thrown against you for not accepting their offer.
lil by lil, the 'onion' is unraveling....my take is, taht even if they 'stop' heather at this point, it just leaves 'more work to do' to unravel it completly. meaning, that the 'group' can go over where the roadblocks are and 'rework' it again and come back to challenge....or maybe this will be the final challenge to unravel it all taht is necessary....either way, the 'worm' continues to burrow into its host and its end (host)is assured
and certianly no concidance taht the next fed reserve chair will be a gentile.
but to be truthfully honest, i think that when this occurs, it will mark the begiining of 'end times' so better enjoy all the $$$ whilst one can becase there may be a limitied amount of time to enjoy it....peacefully....then again, maybe the days of 'milk and honey' will last quite some time????? hope so.....
rv, global collateral accoutns, TDAs, dg settle mints, prosperity programs....even bruly baals HYPEs may even payuout! LOLOLLLLLO!!!
oh and lets not forget the GPP, global penson plan too!! LOLLO!!! payout overdue by about 12 years now....
and dun forget my says tea cake trust...im hungry fo $$$$ with my tea...
The CESTUI QUE VIE Trust is an account you inherited due to the bankruptcy of the U.S. in 1933 and the subsequent ceasing of all the citizens gold, silver and other assets as collateral. This account contains millions of dollars in your name. The only problem is that the government and legal system failed to inform you about it and how to access your money. In the meantime, they are drawing down on it for their own personal use and as payment to the Vatican and the English crown.
"It is the funds contained in this CESTUI QUE VIE that the Judge, Clerk and County Prosecutor are really after or interested in! This Trust actually pays all of your debts but nobody tells you that because the Elite consider those assets to be their property and the Federal Reserve System is responsible for the management of those Investments."
"Social Security; SSI; SSD; Medicare and Medicaid are all financed by the Trust. The government makes you pay TAXES and a potion of your wages supposedly to pay for these services, which they can borrow at any time for any reason since they cannot access the CESTUI QUE VIE TRUST to finance their Wars or to bail out Wall Street and their patron Corporations."
"You may receive a monthly statement from a Mortgage Company; Loan Company or Utility Company, which usually has already been paid by the TRUST. Almost all of these corporate businesses double dip and hope that you have been conditioned well enough by their Credit Scams, to pay them a second time. Instead of paying that Statement next time, sign it approved and mail it back to them. If they then contact you about payment, ask them to send you a TRUE BILL instead of a Statement and you will be glad to pay it? A Statement documents what was due and paid, whereas a TRUE BILL represents only what is due. Banks and Utility Companies have direct access into these CESTUI QUE VIE Trusts and all they needed was your name; social security number and signature."
" This account contains millions of dollars in your name."
did you put my $$ in some nuns elses name??
do i have to go ask the preest hos name it is in?
if it got mellons in my name, i want to eat them now plz.....some cot aged chz on the side plz
just like i thougth before i saw this...
yes, as the fiat/fed res goes down like the tittyanic, then a war must find a way to be started at all costs, as if the fiat goes down, then they are doomed anyway...so.......
Israel Begins "Largest-Ever Aerial Military Drill", As Saudis Consider Missile Strike "Act Of War"
da soddis are the base fo da "terroists" and da 'so call' cummunist cuntrees (china, russky, eye ran, etc) are the only nones ho semm to no dis...da free cuntrees dun no dis....da soddys works wit da isreelys to keep da fiat system gong buy use of terroists...da ben ladeens, etc....all fake crated terrists to keep da war/secruity e con o mee gong to prop up da doola kep it afloats...but it gong down like da tit a nick did
I bet if you send your mortgage company a true bill, they won't send anything to you and show you delinquent.
and what if yo send dema a false bill??
tell em da chic is in da mayle
"I bet if you send your mortgage company a true bill, they won't send anything to you and show you delinquent."
All you have to do is ask them what they gave you in exchange for the loan. What did they loan you? Ask them to show you what they gave you? They won't be able to answer because they didn't give you anything. You gave them something (a promissory note deposited on their books), but they gave you nothing! It's not a genuine loan.
The Role of Money by Frederick Soddy (1934)
Genuine and Fictitious Loans. - For a loan, if it is a genuine loan, does not make a deposit, because what the borrower gets the lender gives up, and there is no increase in the quantity of money, but only an alteration in the identity of the individual owners of it. But if the lender gives up nothing at all what the borrower receives is a new issue of money and the quantity is proportionately increased. So elaborately has the real nature of this ridiculous proceeding been surrounded with confusion by some of the cleverest and most skilful advocates the world has ever known, that it still is something of a mystery to ordinary people, who hold their heads and confess they are "unable to understand finance". It is not intended that they should. But if, instead of trying to puzzle it out along the lines of "what you get for money", these people will reverse the procedure, as in this book, and do so on the of "what you give up for it", the trick is clear enough.
What did they GIVE UP for the loan? They GAVE UP nothing!
It's the same game with credit cards. Nothing for something is the name of the[ir] game. The something they get for nothing is your promise to pay.
The following I copied from an email sent through the Teaparty yahoogroup. If you THINK about it, there is no such thing as a True Bill in Commerce- at least not under the federal reserve system, because they never give you anything that would make the bill they sent you a True Bill.
"First of all, in order for them to do that there would have to be paperwork, a True Bill in Commerce (This is a ledgering or bookkeeping/accounting, with every entry established). There would have to be sworn Affidavits by someone that this is a true, correct and complete and not meant to deceive, which, in commerce is, essentially “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” when you get into court. Now, nobody in the IRS is going to take commercial liability for exposing themselves to a lie, and have a chance for people to come back at them with a True Bill in Commerce, a true accounting. This means they would have to set forth the contract, the foundational instrument with your signature on it, in which you are in default, and a list of all the wonderful goods and services that they have provided for you which you owe them for; or a statement of all the damages that you have caused them, for which you owe them.
"What did they GIVE UP for the loan? They GAVE UP nothing!
THey will tell you that they gave you $$$ in you bank acct.
I know, becase I already tried to tell them this and that was the answer I got when I told them that they gave me nothing, or gave up nothing.
They will tell you that they gave you $$$ in you bank acct.
__________________
Really ? They admitted what they loaned you was a promissory note deposited on their books?
The only thing they gave you was a promissory note to sign and give back to them. It's worthless without your signature.
At the end of the transaction, nobody evens knows who the individual owner of the property is. The bank doesn't own the property because they can never come up with the paperwork proving ownership. They are simply middlemen, not owners, in the transaction.
Genuine and Fictitious Loans. - For a loan, if it is a genuine loan, does not make a deposit, because what the borrower gets the lender gives up, and there is no increase in the quantity of money, but only an alteration in the identity of the individual owners of it. But if the lender gives up nothing at all what the borrower receives is a new issue of money and the quantity is proportionately increased. So elaborately has the real nature of this ridiculous proceeding been surrounded with confusion by some of the cleverest and most skilful advocates the world has ever known, that it still is something of a mystery to ordinary people, who hold their heads and confess they are "unable to understand finance". It is not intended that they should. But if, instead of trying to puzzle it out along the lines of "what you get for money", these people will reverse the procedure, as in this book, and do so on the of "what you give up for it", the trick is clear enough.
"They will tell you that they gave you $$$ in you bank acct."
____________________
Again, that's not what a genuine loan is. "For a loan, if it is a genuine loan, does not make a deposit, because what the borrower gets the lender gives up, and there is no increase in the quantity of money, but only an alteration in the identity of the individual owners of it.
"What did they GIVE UP for the loan? They GAVE UP nothing!
THey will tell you that they gave you $$$ in you bank acct.
I know, becase I already tried to tell them this and that was the answer I got when I told them that they gave me nothing, or gave up nothing.
__________________
If you don't understand the loan transaction then you can't ask the right questions. If you can't ask the right questions then you will not get the right answers because they know you don't really understand what you are asking.
They won't give you the right answers anyway, even if you ask the right questions and know what's going on as they will never admit to fraud.
What did they GIVE UP for the loan? They GAVE UP nothing!
You got a house, didn't you?
The seller of the house got a deposit which, had they wanted to, they could have instantly converted into a large pile of FRNs, which, had they wanted to, they could have used to buy a large stack of Krugerrands.
So who got defrauded in this scenario?
If you don't like dealing with banks, then tell the seller of the house you'll give them your signature. See if they take it.
Yes, I got a house by the bank stealing my asset (the promissory note) which they got for free with no financial consideration on their part.
The Seller of the house can't take my signature for value, because they don't have a license to "create check-book money" like a bank has.
It's not that people dislike dealing with banks, it's just that they are almost the only game in town due to their licensing privilege. Course I think you already knew that, but are just trying to be obstinate.
That's what the thief told the Pawnbroker. You got a diamond ring from me didn't you and I got the cash for it. Fair trade, right?
It's of course irrelevant that the diamond ring was stolen property. LOL
If you don't like dealing with the police, don't use Pawnbrokers pawning stolen property.
It's only logical right?
You got a house, didn't you?
___________________
You got a rental, not a house.
They won't give you the right answers anyway, even if you ask the right questions and know what's going on as they will never admit to fraud.
_________________________________
If you crafted your questions right, fraud would be obvious. Get to the heart of loan and ask WHO the owner is.
Genuine and Fictitious Loans. - For a loan, if it is a genuine loan, does not make a deposit, because what the borrower gets the lender gives up, and there is no increase in the quantity of money, but only an alteration in the identity of the individual owners of it.
Admit or deny that Mr. & Mrs. Borrower is the owner of the property located at ___________.
What kind of a loan is it if you can't admit or deny who the owner is?
Admit or deny that Mr. & Mrs. Borrower is the owner of the property located at ___________.
Based on their answer, then do a Request for Documents which proves that Mr. & Mrs. Borrower are the owners of the property. If they denied that Mr. & Mrs. Borrower are the owners of the property then you'll need to see some documentation for that too showing who exactly the owner is.
You got a house, didn't you?
_________________
The whole purpose of buying a house is to own the house. That's what everyone who buys a house believes they are doing: buying. That's where the fraud begins.
If you cannot identify through discovery who the owner is, what does that tell you about the loan? The answer is obvious: It's fictitious/counterfeit/fraudulent.
Admit or deny that Mr. & Mrs. Borrower is the owner of the property located at ___________.
What kind of a loan is it if you can't admit or deny who the owner is?
You can always admit or deny it, but the answer will vary by state. In "lien states" (e.g., Connecticut, New York), the borrowers are the record owners, but the lender has a lien on their title. In "title states" (e.g., Alabama, Texas) the lender is the record owner of the property until the mortgage is released.
The borrower is told he is the "equitable title holder," and that the lender is the "legal title holder" (owner) as the lenders interest is superior due to his lien on the property as you legally conved the property to the lender when you took out a mortgage. That is their authority to foreclose on certain conditions.
Yet the statutes say that all property is held in the government's trust as only the government can hold the highest title to property. or really be the owner of the property. as the government is only entity that can own property.
The proof of that is that since you are obligated to pay real estate taxes on the property, and that the government can take the property from you, and hold a sale upon nonpayment is evident that you don't really own the property. You are just leasing the property from the government and the tax is your lease payment on the property.
You obviously don't own the property with a pion claim or inferior claim to it. If you owned the property you could do whatever you wanted with the property despite zoning ordinances, and despite taxing authorities and despite trustees that are always there to take it away from you in a nonjudicial sale or a judicial sale when you miss your monthly payments.
"You got a house didn't you?" Nope I didn't. I just got a debt I may not be able to repay. Only the government owns property in the good old USA. You are but a lessee serf on the property. Your mortgage payment is your lease payment.
Dr. C. said... "You can always admit or deny it, but the answer will vary by state."
All you need is the document evidencing the alteration in the identity of the individual owners of the property.
Genuine and Fictitious Loans. - For a loan, if it is a genuine loan, does not make a deposit, because what the borrower gets the lender gives up, and there is no increase in the quantity of money, but only an alteration in the identity of the individual owners of it.
Possible Foreclosure Defense:
Ownership of property is impossible through law. Wondering how the courts would view this? This means since I couldn't convey clear title to the lender and paperwork I signed such as a deed of trust giving the lender/bank legal title and a mortgage on my property is also void as I cant give something I never possessed nor can i guarantee clear title to the lender as the documents made me claim that the banks attorney drew up which I signed.
Senate Document No. 43, 43rd Congress Section 1 was passed in 1933, the same year that the United States Inc. went into Chapt. 11 bankruptcy. The Senate declared "ownership of all property is in the State." Individual so called ownership is only by virtue of government i.e. law amounting to MERE OCCUPANCY. And use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State. So we are all Socialists whether we believe it or not.
Judges are obligated to recognize the law and honor the law not circumvent the law.
NO ONE CAN OWN ANYTHING INCLUDING BANKS IN THIS COUNTRY. All land was pledged to the United States in a bankruptcy. This means that the mortgage and note I signed, foolishly thinking I was the owner of my home is void. If either the note or the mortgage is void by law, than any foreclosure to oust me from the Land/property is also a legal impossibility, so any foreclosure than becomes an unlawful foreclosure for which I am entitled to financial damages. The logic is flawless and the law is clear and has never been overturned. Is this the silver bullet to prevent the bank stealing the house, theft by deception through their illegal foreclosure scam?
"The logic is flawless and the law is clear and has never been overturned."
I beg to differ. The law is not flawless, honest, or even clear. If it was the borrower would not be told "he is the 'equitable title holder,' and that the lender is the 'legal title holder' (owner) as the lenders interest is superior due to his lien on the property as you legally conved the property to the lender when you took out a mortgage. That is their authority to foreclose on certain conditions." They do the same thing with the tax code. By giving a different definition to certain words and making their definition different than everybody else-- to confuse and convince everyone that their definitions are the right ones.
Mogel007 said... "Yet the statutes say that all property is held in the government's trust as only the government can hold the highest title to property. or really be the owner of the property. as the government is only entity that can own property."
____________
Well, of course the statutes are going to say that. That's how they control you and your prpoerty, which includes your labor, i.e., by making their own rules and writing their own definitions.
Pretty clear to me: "Ownership is in the State".
That specific statute seems to go against everything you say, that they are trying to trick you. If ownership is in the State, than there is no confusion, and you know you aren 't buying a house and the lender can't own the house either as the legal title owner, hence they can't foreclose, only the government can.
You don't want to go to any of their codes or statutes because said codes and statutes were created for the corporation, including the ALL CAP NAME.
"Ownership is in the State" is NOT clear because they don't tell you that the State of _____ means "corporate" State of ________. They're talking about the corporate States not the de jure states (small s) state of __________.
That's why I can hardly wait for this system to crash. Life under it is hard; it's unnecessarily difficult. They make life difficult for you, making you something you are not.
Ownership is in the "corporate State" as you say, making it impossible for you to own the property so it's clear enough.
Crash or be changed by design? If it crashes this might cause more difficulties than we are presently under.
Hardly something to look forward to if the System crashes as economic conditions will probably be worse.
Yet the statutes say that all property is held in the government's trust as only the government can hold the highest title to property. or really be the owner of the property. as the government is only entity that can own property.
What statute says that?
Citation please.
Senate Document No. 43, 43rd Congress Section 1 was passed in 1933, the same year that the United States Inc. went into Chapt. 11 bankruptcy. The Senate declared "ownership of all property is in the State."
It doesn't actually say the corporate State owns all property. It's ambiguous if you ask me.
HJR 192 fo yo!!!
house joint (smoking) revelations fo yo!!! ;-)
dun b smoking to many joints...it not gook fo yo....
btw, wahver hoppens to dr. flinston???
is he still wit wilman??
filmin?
yo no, dr. flinston ho ran da dg in capt. kriks place while capt. krik was a ways on alex jones prison planet
dr. h fred flinston at yo service....
dr. fred? prolly d e a d. he was a major mess last time I saw him!
No, Dr. Fred is doing fine.
it just goes to show you... some bodies never die... despite its condition.
Can someone help me find the contact information such as email, home address, or phone number for this Judge. Name is: Judge Joan E. Donoghue:
http://www.icj-cij.org/files/images/members-of-the-court-images/donoghue.jpg
Here's a better link:
http://www.icj-cij.org/files/members-of-the-court-biographies/donoghue_en.pdf
International Court of Justice, The Hague Netherlands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Donoghue
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice
Again, I don't need general information, I need to contact her personally.
If you don't know her personally, you probably won't be able to contact her.
Maybe you can contact the International Court of Justice for her business (not personal) email address. Unless she gives it to you personally, you'll probably never get it.
Senate Document No. 43, 43rd Congress Section 1 was passed in 1933
That's not a law; it wasn't passed by both houses or signed by the President. It was a Senate Resolution ordering that an article someone wrote be printed in the Senate's journal. That's a favor senators often do for constituents. It doesn't mean the article is a law, correctly states the law, or otherwise has any official standing.
http://www.icj-cij.org/en/contact-the-court
http://www.icj-cij.org/en/current-members
It says it was passed in 1933.
It says it was passed in 1933.
Who is "it," and why is "it" to be trusted?
I was able to read "Senate Document 43" on line. It is a resolution (which did pass the Senate, but not the House) to print a certain article in the Senate Journal. It is not a formal endorsement -- lots of articles saying all kinds of things used to get published in the Senate Journal as a favor to constituents-- and thus not an admission by the Government. Certainly nothing in it has the force of law.
"btw, wahver hoppens to dr. flinston???
"No, Dr. Fred is doing fine.
glad to hear it...always liked dr. fred flinston...din care to much for barny rabble tho....
ok, on a serious note....since we have not heard anything of the dg proceedings, etc nor from dr. fred, nor kurt nor scotty, does anyone have the latest info which may even be very old info but any info on waht the status of this whole thing is....the last blog posts by the authors stated that they were waiting for a court procedure, the name of which i forget to start something else, an memory serves that the last blog posts were about a year or so ago...
so what is the latest on all this?
is it still alive or what?
and i actually recall that the latest from dr. fred was taht he was doing audios on talkshoe or something a few years ago on how to set up trusts in which to put ones dinar into before they rv?
actually to correct myself, it wasnt dr. fred posting a years or so ago on what was transpiring with the judge, but probably mogel, who stated at the time that kurt, etc were waiting for something to happen and that soon we would all be hearing from them personally on what is (was) going on...we never heard from them again nor mogel about anything "official" from dr. fred et. al.
" November 13, 2017 at 2:16 am
I can guess that the documents filed by Heather were ordered destroyed? In the transcripts of the court case of Heather and Randy (date of Oct 18, 2017) it was stated by Heather that the UCC was closed – terminated on March 18, 2013. Heather states above that on June 10, 2013 the DOJ ordered documents destroyed. I am guessing it is all related. If anyone has not read that transcript, I would highly recommend it. Neil Wolfe suggested in one of his videos that we read it and I took his advice. Thank you Neil!
------------------------------------------------------------
"....it was stated by Heather that the UCC was closed – terminated on March 18, 2013.
???? what mean the UCC is closed? the UCC for this "case" or UCC in general is no longer functioning??
i would guess that it refers to the case, but ho nose???
FED REVERSE BANK MAYFIA BOSS -- 'LORD' RAWFSHILL FEARED DED-
https://www.usatoday24x7.com/lord-rothschild-feared-dead-after-plane-crash-in-buckinghamshire/
Lord Jacob Rothschild feared dead after plane crash over his estate in Buckinghamshire, UK
Lord Jacob Rothschild and four other people are feared dead after a plane and helicopter crashed in mid-air over the Rothschild estate in Buckinghamshire on Friday afternoon.
yes me lawd....
no me lawd...
oh me gawd!!!
FED REVESRE BANK MAYFIA 'BOSS OF ALL BOSSES'
BBC News – Aircraft and helicopter in mid-air crash in Waddesdon https://t.co/z0GWGpJFEE WHY IS THIS SIGNIFICANT? ITS A ROTHSCHILD HOUSE #QAnon
— A Mountain (@annie_amountain) November 17, 2017
Live Stream of crash in UK over Rothschild estate 👇#Storm #QAnon #FollowTheWhiteRabbit https://t.co/SeGvhpp1OM
— carocarocjdl (@carocarocjdl) November 17, 2017
maybe he nose dat feather has won her case which meens dat da fed preserves bank is dun fo?? it like peenit budda n jeely
Almost unbelievable. Hellywood style...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHtrqGpeF7o
Another good one...
start listening at approximately the 5 min mark all the way to the end.
Eating poop and having sex with animals ????
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H9ZNzL9c2g&t=488s
8:40 "Satan ia always demanding more and more sacrifices."
Doesn't that sound familiar ? more and more and more sacrifices... like first it was 911 and now it's all the random mass shootings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H9ZNzL9c2g&t=526s
Decision on Heather Tucci-Jarraf's jurisdictional motions:
http://i-uv.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/62-Shirleys-Report-and-Recommendation.pdf
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
WHO in the hell is that?
Of course, you already knew what the result would be.....so kurt gave it try, now heather, a different method also only to fail....so what's it gonna take to finally break the hold that these bastards have on the monetary sytem???
-----_-------------------------------------------
"The Court has considered the parties’ filings and arguments at tThe Court has considered the parties’ filings and arguments at the hearing in light of the Constitution of the United States and the relevant statutes and case law. For the reasons set out below, the undersigned finds that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee has jurisdiction over both the subject matter of this case and the persons of Randall Keith Beane and Heather Ann Tucci-Jarraf. Accordingly, the Court recommends that their pro se request to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction be denied. he hearing in light of the Constitution of the United States and the relevant statutes and case law. For the reasons set out below, the undersigned finds that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee has jurisdiction over both the subject matter of this case and the persons of Randall Keith Beane and Heather Ann Tucci-Jarraf. Accordingly, the Court recommends that their pro se request to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction be denied.
"Accordingly, the Court recommends that their pro se request to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction be denied....
Accordingly, you should all come down with terminal cancer."
Of course, you already knew what the result would be.
Read the comments on the 3601-3800 page. Lots of people said she would win her motion. They were wrong.
count me in...i thought that there was at least a 'fair'chance that she would win...ie, at least 50% probablity...but like i had also said, she has exposed where the new roadblocks are....and one of these days.....
why i always thought that you could never win in a court...cuase they can just rule as they see fit....
The case is dismissed because THATS WHAT WE RULED. IT DOESNT HAVE TO BE BASED ON ANYTHING LOGICALLY. IT ONLY HAS TO BE BASED ON WHAT WE (THE KANGAROO) COURT RULING IS.
HINT: DONT BOTHER TO ATTACK US IN BAALS COURT IN THE FUTURE. YOU CANNOT WIN BECAUSE WE SAY THAT YOU CANNOT WIN. IT IS NOT BASED ON LOGIC OR EVEN PREVIOUS RULINGS AS WE MAKE THE RULES FOR US TO WIN AS WE GO ALONG.
THERE NOW.....
FEEL BETTER???
so whats going on with dr. fred flinton and capt. kirk an da dg??
Neil Keenan speaks ill of Heather and her purposes and accuses her of having Rothchilds ties saying that her UCC liens are fraudulent:
http://americannationalmilitia.com/neil-keenan-exposing-oppt-global-account-fraud/
i guess that this is what will finally put an end to their fiat moneary system. or more aptly, they will put an end to it themselves....
IMF Head Foresees the End of Banking and the Triumph of Cryptocurrency
Bitcoin "puts a question mark on the fractional banking model we know today."
puts an end to the fictional banky model we no toddy
I AM THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ.
DONT COME INTO MY COURT WITH UR NONSENSE UCC FILLINGS.
PUT THEM INTO UR CAVITIES IN UR MOUTH. THEY WILL BE OF BETTER USE THERE THAN TO WASTE UR TIME COMING INTO MY COATROOM WITH THEM.
yea, but then nell kennan must thinkg that shes pretty stupid.
becase, like kirk/scooty, if she works for ratsheeld, then she is doing real 'jail time'.
so how would she work for them unless she isnt too bright for a real laywr.
".....get you money fo nuttin...get yo chix fo free..."
i meant checks....
so this is what nell canyon has to say:
Heather Ann Tucci-Jarraf admits that she formed the concept behind OPPT with the help of a Rothschild trustee.
The Vatican is exempted from the OPPT foreclosure, with no explanation given.
OPPT claims to have created a universal trust with the Consent of the People – do you recall giving your consent to these people?
OPPT’s communist ideology: “Everyone is assigned equal value under the concept of the CVAC (Creator’s Value Asset Center), so there are no rich or poor there are just equitable humans”….so if someone gains more wealth through self-effort, who decides to enforce the so-called equity? Old Uncle Joe Stalin would love this one.
Destruction of national sovereignty: Tucci-Jaraff has stated “there are basically 195 registered corporations operating under the guise of government…COUNTRIES in the old system.” And in the new system? Not to worry, the United States of America, China, Russia, Ireland, et al, will happily surrender their national identities and sovereignty to the 5th Dimensional NWO. Right….
The hallmark of the New World Order is globalism: the OPPT is globalist all the way – One World, One Trust, One Order, One Currency….sound familiar? Back in the Cold War era we called it “totalitarianism.”
OPPT claims to intend to set humanity free for humanity’s sake, but they are now attempting (with no success) to take physical control of Global Account assets which properly belong to the rightful depositors, the families and nations in whose name the assets were originally placed. But since OPPT apparently intend to abolish private ownership, such considerations need not stand in their way.
The report that OPPT supposedly based its filing on was issued by a shell corporation, operating out of a Swiss industrial park.
An international arrest warrant on suspicion of fraud and counterfeiting remains in effect for Karl Langenstein, Tucci-Jaraff’s supervisor in the preparation of the founding OPPT document referred to as the “Paradigm Report.”
Heather Ann Tucci-Jarraf admits that she formed the concept behind OPPT with the help of a Rothschild trustee. SO WHAT?
The Vatican is exempted from the OPPT foreclosure, with no explanation given. VATICAL BOUGHT AN EXEMPTIN FROM THE POWER WIZARD OF OZ.
OPPT claims to have created a universal trust with the Consent of the People – do you recall giving your consent to these people? YES. THEY CALL ME UP LAST TUESDAY AND ASK MY PERMISSION. GRANTED.
OPPT’s communist ideology: “Everyone is assigned equal value under the concept of the CVAC (Creator’s Value Asset Center), so there are no rich or poor there are just equitable humans”….so if someone gains more wealth through self-effort, who decides to enforce the so-called equity? DORTHY ENFORCES IT WITH TOTO. Old Uncle Joe Stalin would love this one.
Destruction of national sovereignty: Tucci-Jaraff has stated “there are basically 195 registered corporations operating under the guise of government…COUNTRIES in the old system.” And in the new system? Not to worry, the United States of America, China, Russia, Ireland, et al, will happily surrender their national identities and sovereignty to the 5th Dimensional NWO. ALREADY DONE DEAL.
The hallmark of the New World Order is globalism: the OPPT is globalist all the way – One World, One Trust, One Order, One Currency….sound familiar? Back in the Cold War era we called it “totalitarianism.” NON-SEQUITUR.
OPPT claims to intend to set humanity free for humanity’s sake, but they are now attempting (with no success) to take physical control of Global Account assets which properly belong to the rightful depositors, the families and nations in whose name the assets were originally placed. But since OPPT apparently intend to abolish private ownership, such considerations need not stand in their way. RIGHT!
The report that OPPT supposedly based its filing on was issued by a shell corporation, operating out of a Swiss industrial park. ACTUALLY, IT WAS IN A MCDONALDS THERE.
An international arrest warrant on suspicion of fraud and counterfeiting remains in effect for Karl Langenstein, Tucci-Jaraff’s supervisor in the preparation of the founding OPPT document referred to as the “Paradigm Report.” YOUR POINT BEING...?
nell jus trying to makes money fo hisself....using HIS sytem, not feathers...where hes the boss
Maybe Heather isn't too bright and is over-rated? After all, she provided no proof in the court record of her maxims of law she called "universal", and her most important pracepie to dismiss the criminal action got over-ruled.
And she doesn't believe in the Constitution as she claims she is not a party to it. And she has made promises and predictions that simply aren't true and has caused false hope for many. She says that she is not a "sovereign citizen", yet believes and espouses many of their philosophical doctrines, (1) You can't go to prison if you don't consent, (2) Court has no jurisdiction over her etc.
she basically used similar arguments that kurt/scott used with the SAME result:
*-DENIED-*
Some comments:
[1:07:02 PM 11.18.17 | Edited 1:08:04 PM] Terran: Judge Shirley issued a recommendation not a decision. He effectively moved the hot potato to Judge Varlin. If he was confident he had jurisdiction he would have issued a decision. Varlin, a Title 3 Judge gave him the power to do either. He took what he believes is the safe route and bought time (they think) for the court.
[1:07:15 PM] 11.18.17 Arthur K: Letter of recommendation. If the person who gives a commercial letter of recommendation honestly states his opinion, believing at the time that he states the truth, he is “not liable in an action of deceit, although the representation turns out to be untrue.’ See Communication, Privileged, 3. ~ A Dictionary of Law…. William C Anderson
[1:47:19 PM] 11.18.17 Reuben Efamily Ⓘ: Interesting – trying to cover his own behind. The only part that is tricky about that is determining whether he actually believes what he is stating to be true, and if he does believe it to be true, why did he pass it off to someone else to make the call… (chuckle)
[2:33:36 PM] 11.18.17 a d: The judge Shirley forgot the Clearfields Trust judgment, https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914a2b1add7b0493469cac3
they can not be simultaneously true governments and corporations and the UCC regulates corporations’ operations.
[4:02:01 PM | 11.18.17 ] Paul Francis McDonald: Thank you C. Clifford Shirley Jr., alleged, for entering that document onto the eternal record, duly accepted as it is as “prima facie evidence” of bad faith, collusion and deceptive acts and practices, for ALL of existence to see and whereas the entire system being formerly foreclosed, is NOW rendered entirely demolished, utterly void of any credibility whatsoever and therefore effectively useless for the purposes for which it was perceived and claimed to have been designed, or indeed, for any purpose. END.
ALL the best for now, lotsolove :) (heart)
Judge Shirley issued a recommendation not a decision. He effectively moved the hot potato to Judge Varlin. If he was confident he had jurisdiction he would have issued a decision. Varlin, a Title 3 Judge gave him the power to do either. He took what he believes is the safe route and bought time (they think) for the court.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. I explained this several pages ago. A Magistrate Judge is not an Article III judge and therefore does not have the power to dismiss a case; all he can do is make a recommendation to the District Judge. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 59(b)(1). If Ms. Tucci-Jarraf doesn't appeal to the District Judge, the Magistrate's decision stands. Id., 59(b)(2). If she does timely appeal the recommendation, the district judge will decide. Id., 59(b)(3).
ie, the derelict judge will decide not to decide, more ie, allow the re co from da notstrate judge to stand.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA???
I don't understand, I don't understand, I don't understand. I used that defense against someone who was trying to scam me on the phone. I kept saying, I don't understand, I don't understand, I don't understand what you are saying. As soon as the scammer believes you understand they keep going and going, but how can they keep going if you don't understand what they are saying? LOL
The court cannot move forward if you don't understand the charges against you. Every paper Tucci and her friend wrote indicate they fully understand the charges. 100%! I'm sorry, but I don't understand UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The judge may order a psychological evaluation, but it will make no difference if I repeatedly deny the related charges against me from UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
The court has jurisdiction when you understand (stand under) the black robe priest reading the charges against you.
" The judge may order a psychological evaluation, but it will make [no] a HUGE difference....
da jugs will then ordo yo to be commted to a syche ward fo evalotuion for 30 days...then if yo still dun stand, yo will be commted to 'sit' in the syche ward fo 30 mo days...then of yo still dun stand...yo will order to go back and 'sit' there in da sick ward until yo 'do undestand'....undastand yo????
good luck with dat.
yo could be sittin in da sick ward for 90-120 daisys until yo unda stand...an by then, yo mine will be so funked up, dat yo wont be lying when yo come out....yo relly wont unda stan anything by then....stand??
its obvious that you cannot go into a courtroom no matter how much knowledge you have becase the game is rigged. they will lie and use precedent cases which were of themselves based on lies to enforce their decisions...its all useless...um surprised that kurt/scott had never figured this out...they cant let you win, otherwise the whole system comes down, and no matter what the cost of thier lying/cheating, its less for them to lose than having the whole system crash....with nothing to show for it
so again, i will ask, what is the latest status of the dg project?
does anyone know? mongrel?
Persistancepays: Why don't you shoot me an email at:
mogel007@gmail.com
Even Kurt recently admits that there is no justice in the court system and that there is no remedy there for him.
The judge Shirley forgot the Clearfields Trust judgment, https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914a2b1add7b0493469cac3
they can not be simultaneously true governments and corporations and the UCC regulates corporations’ operations.
1. Your link goes to the lower court's decision in Clearfield; the case went on to the Supreme Court, whose decision is the controlling one.
2. Neither opinion in the Clearfield case says anything about the UCC, which isn't surprising because Clearfield was from 1943 and the UCC wasn't written until 1952.
3. The Clearfield decision from the Supreme Court holds almost the exact opposite of what you said: the Supreme Court held that when the Government issues negotiable commercial paper such as checks, those checks are governed by federal law, not state laws about negotiable instruments. So, even if the UCC had existed in 1943, it would not have applied to the Government. (The UCC is state law, not federal law-- see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Commercial_Code_adoption).
ucc is adopted for use of states, but cannot be state law otherwise there would be no agreement between the states. every state would be different. so states agreed on ucc codes, but in a dispute, it would take a federal (office) court, to enforce. some entity that could only be federal would be needed to enforce infractions of ucc, even if that entity is a federal court, in cases of violation of ucc code
Mogel said: "Even Kurt recently admits that there is no justice in the court system and that there is no remedy there for him."
He understands that much.
ucc is adopted for use of states, but cannot be state law otherwise there would be no agreement between the states. every state would be different. so states agreed on ucc codes, but in a dispute, it would take a federal (office) court, to enforce. some entity that could only be federal would be needed to enforce infractions of ucc, even if that entity is a federal court, in cases of violation of ucc code
Absolute nonsense. The UCC was proposed because state laws were not uniform. The idea was that each state would adopt the same law on the subject matters covered by the UCC (sales, negotiable instruments, security interests, letters of credit, etc.). But each state had to enact it separately, and as a result, there is not perfect uniformity-- New York and California, for example, have each enacted something they call "the UCC" but which contains a number of non-uniform provisions. The UCC is thus state law, and is enforced in state court, and each state enforces its own version (although in the majority of cases, the provisions really are uniform). Federal courts almost never decide cases under the UCC, except where there is diversity of citizenship.
if there is a dispute between states over ucc violations, it would take a federal court to resolve it. else, how are the state courts going to resolve an issue with another state? a state court would be biased for its own state.
if there is a dispute between states over ucc violations, it would take a federal court to resolve it. else, how are the state courts going to resolve an issue with another state? a state court would be biased for its own state.
Then I'm sure you can give me an example of a federal court "resolving a dispute between states over ucc violations."
And, BTW, none of this has anything to do with your totally backwards reading of the Clearfield case.
"The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), first published in 1952, is one of a number of uniform acts that have been put into law with the goal of harmonizing the law of sales and other commercial transactions across the United States of America (U.S.) through UCC adoption by all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories.
While largely successful at achieving this ambitious goal, some U.S. jurisdictions (e.g., Louisiana and Puerto Rico) have not adopted all of the articles contained in the UCC, while other U.S. jurisdictions (e.g., American Samoa) have not adopted any articles in the UCC. Also, adoption of the UCC often varies, although to different degrees, from one U.S. jurisdiction to another. Sometimes this variation is due to alternative language found in the official UCC itself. At other times, adoption of different revisions to the official UCC contributes to further variation. Additionally, some jurisdictions deviate from the official UCC by tailoring the language to meet their unique needs and preferences.
*****Lastly, even identical language adopted by any two U.S. jurisdictions may nonetheless be subject to different statutory interpretation by each jurisdiction's courts.****
*****Lastly, even identical language adopted by any two U.S. jurisdictions may nonetheless be subject to different statutory interpretation by each jurisdiction's courts.**
so, if different jurisdictions courts CANT AGREE, then it doesnt take a genius to see that it would have to be resolved in a federal office/court.
a federal arbitrator included. i only said 'court' to mean an office at the federal level, not a state level. you can go back and see i used the word 'office' in a previous post. dont take it out of context
so, if different jurisdictions courts CANT AGREE, then it doesnt take a genius to see that it would have to be resolved in a federal office/court.
Except it doesn't. Many laws vary from state to state. Each state applies its own laws. Federal courts do not have the power to resolve those differences. They can only do that where different courts disagree as to the meaning of federal law.
Federal courts do not have the power to resolve those differences.
its done all the time. one state sues another for violation of many things. pollution, clean air, waste, etc
dont know how you can state this. fed courts resolve anything that the states are unable to. has been going on for decades if not centuries now.
dont know how you can state this. fed courts resolve anything that the states are unable to.
So surely you can point me to one federal case that decided which state's interpretation of the UCC is the correct one?
"dont know how you can state this. fed courts resolve anything that the states are unable to."
Could the State of California have resolved Scott and Kurt's case? It was a criminal matter was it not?
Article III sec. 2
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
I guess Kurt and Scott didn't commit any crime within the State of California, but in some other place or places as the Congress may have by Law have directed. I wonder what that place was?
It was alleged that Kurt committed "insurance fraud" according to the State of Utah as that was one of the reasons why he was extradited to Utah. Kurt claimed that he had a choice to be under the jurisdiction of Utah and have his alleged crimes be tried there. However, the Feds took over and claimed to have jurisdiction over him and the State of Utah obviously relented, and not giving Kurt the choice where to be tried. Maybe that constituted a civil rights or Constitutional violation?
His civil rights were definitely violated when the Feds ordered him to be in the Bureau of Prisons system, and then illegally changed that order and illegally put him in a "secret prison" not authorized by Congress, being housed in Marion, Illinois, a CMU unit, only one of two in the U.S. which houses only "terrorists". He was convicted of a Conspiracy charge, and now they treat him as a "terrorist" where he is locked up 23 of 24 hours of each day and put in solitude. That probably constitutes, "cruel and unusual punishment", another Constitutional issue or violation. Kurt claims that the Bureau of Prisons gave up custody of him when they put him in an illegal incarceration, and that the only remedy for that is to let him go free.
You will need to note that Scott was never sent to a CMU prison even though convicted of the same alleged crimes. This begs the question of why? One is treated as a "terrorist" and the other is not? Where's the justice or equality under the law here?
His civil rights were definitely violated when the Feds ordered him to be in the Bureau of Prisons system, and then illegally changed that order and illegally put him in a "secret prison" not authorized by Congress, being housed in Marion, Illinois, a CMU unit, only one of two in the U.S. which houses only "terrorists".
The federal prison at Marion, IL, is hardly a "secret prison"-- it has its own Wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Penitentiary,_Marion
As that page notes, it is indeed operated by the Bureau of Prisons. Nor are its occupants limited to "terrorists."
Every day that Kurt is housed in an illegal prison constitutes a separate financial penalty of 1 million dollars per day which the UNITED STATES one day will have to pay for being a conspiratorial party to this illegal incarceration and kidnapping not authorized by Congress.
As the saying goes, "Eventually you have to pay the Piper". These CMU prisons have been illegal prisons now going on 9 years as Congress turned down funding for these, as that's a matter of record, but they were built anyway by "Black Opps money". The History Channel a year ago put on a documentary entitled "Americas Secret prisons" and how many illegal aliens, and even US Citizens, are whisked away for days, even months, even years in Kurt's case without speedy remedy or justice or arraignment or appeal. So much for the right to a speedy trial or equal rights under the law, however, illegal incarceration is an issue that the UNITED STATES can't ever overcome or justify, as this is an act outside of their jurisdiction as Congress never approved it. Huge mistake that will come back and bite them in the ass.
Doesn't matter if the Bureau of Prisons pretends to be a part of it or is even part of this Black Opps operation. It's an illegal prison is the bottom line because it was not meant to be there and built or operate or house prisoners. It's building was never officially and legally approved by Congress. There are always a few occupants that aren't "terrorists", but that is done on purpose so it can show that there is no "discrimination". The few that go there, that aren't "terrorists" don't stay very long, and are considered "token prisoners". The Documentary mentioned this. It's like a huge landlord that owns thousands of units that rents to a couple black people on purpose so he can never be accused of illegal housing discrimination.
The fact is that 95% of these prisoners in the CMU are Muslims that have been accused of being terrorists.
That's even better that the Bureau of Prisons claims that these illegal CMU's are part of the B.O.P. prison system under their control. Fact is they were built with Black Opps money, because the money appropriation was never approved by Congress. This is an admission that the Bureau of Prisons is liable for running or being a part of, at least two illegal prison not authorized by Congress, one in Marion, Illinois, and one in Indiana, both places where Kurt has spent time.
The doctrine of "fruits from the poison tree" applies. In law, one can not benefit from an illegal activity. This is a crime. The Bureau of Prisons financially benefits by incarcerating Kurt in a prison not authorized by Congress, but the incarceration is illegal as the prison was never approved and was never meant to be built and never approved but in fact Congress turned down. It is a "secret prison" in the sense that this secret activity goes on without most of the public being aware of what is going on inside the prisons and the government officials running these secret prisons do whatever they want without consequences due to the censorship and abuses there or prisoners rights. It is secret in the sense that the 2 prisons were built with Black Opps money with Black Opps agenda which is secret and held from the public's knowledge.
Kurt was sent to this illegal prison so he he can't exercise his constitutional rights and remedies that he would like to set in motion. The system has punished him for trying to make certain people accountable for their illegal actions. Whistleblowers like Kurt are often singled out and punished more severely just for telling the truth and educating the public on what goes on in these "secret prisons" and the abuses that go on.
The B.O.P. can't make this illegal prison justified in any sense. Congress said, "it won't be built or approved". It was built anyway without their blessing. This is lawlessness or illegal activity, no matter how you cut it or define it. It's like a corporation that acts outside their legal operations approved by their charter. All acts are illegal and void.
Good links:
http://www.ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/assets/files/CCR_CMU_Factsheet_March2013.pdf
https://ccrjustice.org/home/get-involved/tools-resources/fact-sheets-and-faqs/cmus-federal-prison-system-s-experiment
It appears Kurt is treated as a "political prisoner", but I suspect he could have been put there in a CMU out of retaliation of him exercising his rights because when in prison several times the prison officials would get in Kurt's business. He would stand up to them by filing paperwork that this prison person was his trustee, because they wouldn't mind their own business and then Kurt would file UCC-1 liens against that prison official and file a tax form which showed this prison official owes the IRS a tax liability due to their bad behavior. That's as best as I can explain it, I don't completely understand it. This caused Kurt to get transferred to another prison, where the officials would again stomp on his rights & he would stand up to them through his paperwork. I know he got in trouble for helping one inmate get a patent for a guy that was in a gun business which the prison officials retaliated & misconstrued what he was doing. . Or another time where he gave an inmate his food, which thew him into the hole and they punished him for that. Or another time where he started a betting pool just for fun, and the prison thought he was running a gambling operation, so they sanctioned him for that. All stupid stuff where the prison officials overreacted. Those things hardly justify labeling him as a terrorist though and putting him in a CMU prison.
On Saturday August 8, 2015, there was a l hour documentary on the HIstory Channel, "Americas Book of Secrets" about the Secret Prisons Education by Jonathan Adams filmed in 2014. This was about a look inside America's Maximun security secret prisons unveiling their hidden agendas and covert operations. Episode: 31 Original Air date 5-13-2004.
Now 1 in 107 Americans are in prisons. America has 25% of the world prison population, yet they are only 5% of the population. Does this country have more criminals? Obviously not.
The CMUs’ visitation policy is even more restrictive than that of the BOP’s notorious “supermax” prison, where prisoners have over four times more time allotted for visits than prisoners in the CMU.
By the way, I'm not the person that coined or used the expression, "secret prisons" when referring to the two CMU's.
Anyone can do a search on wikepedia to learn about the CMU, but if you aren't housed there, you really don't know what goes on behind closed doors. Much of what goes on is in fact, secret, not visible to the public's vision and ears. As the article says, the two prisons are a "social experiment" and not authorized by Congress.
Here's a link to the video documentary, "Secret Prisons"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3724418/?ref_=ttpl_ql
Hee's the documentary on "Americas secret prisons" that you can watch for free:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqpqmTrRh5c
The video says that people like Kurt are put in a separate unit at a CMU, due to their
"inspirational significance". It's a euphemism for "Political prisoner". Kurt is no "terrorist", but he is housed in a CMU so he can't communicate the way he needs to with his family or friends to exercise his remedies. The government is basically afraid of him.
Post a Comment