Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,300 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 538,338
Pageviews Today: 715,560Threads Today: 128Posts Today: 3,179
07:48 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

**** News Flash: Voters FLEEING BOTH Political Parties ****

 
asymetriclogic

User ID: 876298
United States
12/08/2011 06:07 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
**** News Flash: Voters FLEEING BOTH Political Parties ****
According to this study both parties are going to suffer losses if they don't start doing whats right. Read on:

December 08, 2011
STUDY: Voters Fleeing Both Major Parties; Especially Bad For Democrats Re: The BUZZ.

Link: [link to www.wmal.com]

"A report released Wednesday by the centrist think-tank Third Way showed that more than 825,000 voters in eight key battleground states have fled the Democratic Party since Obama won election in 2008."

"In eight states that will be must-wins in 2012 -- Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina and Pennsylvania -- Democrats lost 5.4 percent of their registered voters while Republicans lost 3.1 percent. The number of independent voters in those states jumped 3.4 percent."

People are fed up with what has been going on with and in each of the two main political parties. They need to get thier sh*t together or get the hell out of the way.
Where spirit, logic, intuition, and truth intermingle.
the white rose

User ID: 108824
United States
12/08/2011 06:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: **** News Flash: Voters FLEEING BOTH Political Parties ****
To All,"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies . . . If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] . . . will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered . . . The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson -- The Debate Over The Recharter Of The Bank Bill, (1809)

Jefferson's prophesy has come true.Under the Constitution re-delegation of delegated authority is a felony breach.An Expose On The Legal Fraud Perpetrated On All Americans



THE COURTS RECOGNIZE ONLY TWO CLASSES OF PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES TODAY: DEBTORS AND CREDITORS

The concept of DEBTORS and CREDITORS is very important to understand.

Every legal action where you are brought before the court: e.g. traffic ticket, property dispute or permits, income tax, credit cards, bank loans or anything else government might dream up to charge you where you find yourself in front of a court. It is an equity court, administrating commercial law having a debtor-creditor law as the controlling law. Today, we have an equity court but not an equity court as defined by the Constitution of the United States or any other legal documents before 1938.

All the courts of this once great land have been changed starting with the Supreme Court decision of 1938 in ERIE V. THOMPKINS. I'll give you background which led to this decision. There is a terrible FRAUD being perpetrated on all Americans. Please understand that this fraud is a 24 hour, 7 days a week, year after year continuous fraud. This fraud is constantly upon you all your life. It doesn't just happen once in a while. This fraud is perpetually and incessantly upon you and your family. [link to www.theforbiddenknowledge.com] [link to www.freedom-school.com]Since March 27,1861 the DeFacto government of democracy achieved a defeat of the Republic and became outlaw to the Constitution,if you vote for the defacto government you become outlaw to the Constitution and give up your God given unalienable rights as enumerated in the 'BILL OF RIGHTS' the white rose DO NOT VOTE
the white rose

User ID: 108824
United States
12/08/2011 06:46 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: **** News Flash: Voters FLEEING BOTH Political Parties ****
TO ALL,Admiralty law: seizure and forfeiture
GET THAT GOLD FRINGE OFF MY FLAG!Flag Code, Etiquette and Laws
[link to www.outlawslegal.com]

=============================================================​==

Executive Orders And Laws relating to National Emergencies Laws [link to www.disastercenter.com]

NOTICE *** WARNING *** NOTICE *** WARNING
Forward to to every American Voter ALIVE...
When does a Non-Constitutional Gold Fringe Flag
Florida Supreme Court have the rights to VIOLATE
Voters Rights Stopping the Counts of We The People.?
You Violated Our Constitution, operating under
"color of STATUTORY LAW", WE WANT THE TRUTH..!!

=============================================================​==
In light of the legal events in Florida... study this one more time!
The Original 13th Article of Amendment
[link to www.apfn.org]

The "Bar" Treaty of 1947
Effectively Tying the Bar Associations of the Respective
Pan-American States Together and subverting our Constitution to
United Nations International Law
[link to www.nidlink.com]

By Jim Welch
I would like to bring up a most important point regarding the application of Admiralty Law against the American people.

An example is the below case. Others occur on a daily basis throughout the United States with every seizure of property without the property owner being charged in any crime. Rather they "charge" the property with the crime and seize the property.

Here is the point. The application of Admiralty Law against the People was one of the main causes of the Revolutionary War. The Founders were adamant in their opposition to this practice and there was never any provision for this oppression allowed in the Constitution.

Rather, just the opposite is evidenced by three documents. The Declaration of Independence was actually the third Declaration issued by the Founders. The Declaration of Independence culminated the frustrations of the Colonies because Great Britian ignored the pleas to correct the injustices listed in the 2 earlier Declarations. AND BOTH LISTED THE APPLICATION OF ADMIRALTY LAW AGAINST THE PEOPLE AS A GRIEVANCE!

The first Declaration was the, "DECLARATION AND RESOLVES OF THE FIRST
CONTINENTAL CONGRESS," October 14,1774.

I wish to underscore the significance of placing this grievance in the FIRST paragraph of this declaration of grievances. In the FIRST paragraph, our Founding Fathers stated:

"Whereas, since the close of the last war, the British parliament, claiming a power, of right, to bind the people of America by statutes in all cases whatsoever, hath, in some acts, expressly imposed taxes on them, and in others, under various pretences, but in fact for the purpose of raising a revenue, hath imposed rates and duties payable in these colonies, established a board, with unconstitutional powers, and extended the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty, not only for collecting the said duties , but for the trial of causes merely arising within the
body of a county."

NOTES: The "last war" they are referring to is the "French and Indian War." Please notice the Founder's objection to the extension of Courts of Admiralty. These Courts were to operate on the high seas, and to serve as collectors for duties on imported goods or fees associated with ships as well as administering the "Prize Courts" (the seizure of property). These courts, however, were not supposed to be applied on land against the people. On land, the People were to be served by "Common Law." They were never supposed to be used "for the trial of causes merely arising within the body of a county."

Great Britian ignored the first declaration, and so the following year, the Founders went on to again bring up this grievance in the second declaration issued on July 6, 1775. This Declaration is known as, "THE DECLARATION OF THE CAUSES AND NECESSITY OF TAKING UP ARMS."

In this declaration the Founders state:

"These devoted colonies were judged to be in such a state, as to present victories without bloodshed, and all the easy emoluments of statuteable plunder." (MY NOTE: Please understand the preceeding sentence. Today is a carbon copy repeat of this philosphy of government)

"The uninterrupted tenor of their peaceable and respectful behaviour from the beginning of colonization, their dutiful, zealous, and useful services during the war, though so recently and amply acknowledged in the most honourable manner by his majesty, by the late king, and by parliament, could not save them from the meditated innovations.

Parliament was influenced to adopt the pernicious project, and assuming a new power over them, have in the course of eleven years, given such decisive specimens of the spirit and consequences attending this power, as to leave no doubt concerning the effects of acquiescence under it.

They have undertaken to give and grant our money without our consent, though we have ever exercised an exclusive right to dispose of our own property; statutes have been passed for extending the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty and vice-admiralty beyond their ancient limits; for depriving us of the accustomed and inestimable priviledge of trial by jury, in cases affecting both life and property; for suspending the legislature of one of the colonies; for interdicting all commerce to the capital of another; and for altering fundamentally the form of
government established by charter, and secured by acts of its own legislature solemnly confirmed by the crown; for exempting the 'murderers' of colonists from legal trial, and in effect, from punishment; for erecting in a neighbouring province, acquired by the joint arms of Great-Britain and America, a despotism dangerous to our very existence; and for quartering soldiers upon the colonists in time of profound peace. It has also been resolved in parliament, that colonists charged with committing certain offences shall be transported to England to be tried. But why should we enumerate our injuries in detail? By one statute it is declared, that parliament can of right make laws to bind us in all cases what so ever. What is to defend us against so enormous so unlimited a power?"

Please once again notice the position in their list of grievances where the Founders place this policy of "...extending the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty ...." They placed this grievance BEFORE objecting to not having a trial by jury, BEFORE the suspension of one of the legislatures of one of the Colonies (equal to suspending the legislature of one of our States), BEFORE their complaint of the central government (Great Britain) changing the very system of our government, and even BEFORE complaining that the central government was "...exempting the 'murderers' of colonists from legal trial...!"

Indeed, the Founders strenously objected to applying Admiralty Law against the people! The third proof is found in the Constitution itself, in the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment guarantees, "The Right of the People to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; ...."

And the 5th Amendment states, "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of Law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

Just what kind of Law does the Constitution refer to, when it speaks of the
people being subjected to?

The 7th Amendment gives that answer.

It says, "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed 20 dollars, the Right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact, tried by a jury shall be reexamined in any Court of the United States than according to the rules of the Common Law."

Please note it does not leave any wiggle room. The Law we are to be subjected to in any controversy exceeding 20 dollars is the Common Law! NOT ADMIRALTY LAW!

And, YES!, this abridgement of our Liberties is as serious today as it was in 1775! the white rose
the white rose

User ID: 108824
United States
12/08/2011 07:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: **** News Flash: Voters FLEEING BOTH Political Parties ****
TO ALL,The "missing" 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads
as follows:

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive,
or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the
consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension,
office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king,
prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen
of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office
of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

At the first reading, the meaning of this 13th Amendment (also called the
"title of nobility" Amendment) seems obscure, unimportant. The references to
"nobility", "honour", "emperor", "king", and "prince" lead us to dismiss
this amendment as a petty post-revolution act of spite directed against the
British monarchy. But in our modern world of Lady Di and Prince Charles,
anti-royalist sentiments seem so archaic and quaint, that the Amendment can
be ignored. Not so. Consider some evidence of its historical significance:

* First, "titles of nobility" were prohibited in both Article VI of the
Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Sections 9 and 10 of
the Constitution of the United States (1787);
* Second, although already prohibited by the Constitution, an additional
"title of nobility" amendment was proposed in 1789, again in 1810, and
according to Dodge, finally ratified in 1819.

Clearly, the founding fathers saw such a serious threat in "titles of
nobility" and "honors" that anyone receiving them would forfeit their
citizenship. Since the government prohibited "titles of nobility" several
times over four decades, and went through the amending process (even though
"titles of nobility" were already prohibited by the Constitution), it's
obvious that the Amendment carried much more significance for our founding
fathers than is readily apparent today.
[link to www.tomdavisbooks.com] the white rose
the white rose

User ID: 108824
United States
12/08/2011 07:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: **** News Flash: Voters FLEEING BOTH Political Parties ****
TO ALL, (Note: Serve this NOTICE on "Agencies", extortionists, Captors,
Pirates; Ransomers, "Jailers", or "police" - not on Court)

"NOTICE OF NON APPEARANCE" based upon NO UNDERSTANDING and NO CONSENT based upon

"I did NOT "understand", - if and when I did sign anything, and you have to prove I did understand". (See Garrett v. Moore McCormack Co.)

"An Appearance induced by Fraud (legal coercion, physical duress, or fictitious party) has no efficacy" (Stultz v. Stultz, 94A.2d 527, 24 N.J.Super, 354, 6 C.J.S. §18)

per Court Rule 12 (b) (1) "MOTION TO DISMISS due to lack of jurisdiction. (Do NOT touch the issue)

"Holding or detaining beyond 48 hours without "charging" or "booking" is unlawful" per COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE vs. McLAUGHLIN 111 S.Ct 1661 (1991)

1. U.S. vs. IKE KOZMINSKY et al 487 US 931, 934 (no involuntary servitude)

2. GARRETT vs. MOORE-McCORKACK Co. 317 U.S. 238 (no full understanding = no meeting of minds = no intent)

3. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE vs. McLAUGHLIN 111 S.Ct 1661 (1991) (No incarceration beyond 48 hours without "charging" or "booking")

4. MIRANDA vs. ARIZONA 384 U.S. 436 "You have the right to remain silent (and NOT make "Appearance" by a statement) or the court will appoint a Lawyer for you, who will make an "Appearance" for you and grant the Court "Jurisdiction" for you.

Note: We must file with Court: 1. "OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION" (failure to (object] reserve your rights,- waives your rights).

2. "DEMAND TO DISMISS" due to lack of jurisdiction (no consent to use "Code") and denial of "Due Process" therefor, due to no "consent". (per Court Rule 12 (b) (1) MOTION TO DISMISS -no jurisdiction)


signed,

Dated: August 25, 1998

Accused/Detainee
real live flesh and blood Natural Man
Private Party Foreign State

Non "corporate fiction person subject" A man was ORDERED to get an Attorney before the next HEARING
date or he would be put in jail. The date arrived, and the Judge said, "Well do o have an attorney?" The man said "Judge, I tried, but I couldn't find an attorney who was qualified and willing to take my case, who was not an "Esquire". "Case Dismissed" , "Record Sealed" the white rose

News








Proud Member Of The Angry Mob