Land Of The Sheep And Home Of The Blind...

[lukep]

Yes, i have got out of paying my credit cards by copyrighting my strawman name. Each time they send me a letter, bam, i hit them with an invoice.

Legalese is not English, its a totally different language.

Are you Joking?

You actually took out a copyright on the name on your SS card and now when bills are sent to you, you send them back a bill for printing your protected intellectual property?

Hmm, I wonder if anyone has copywritten "electric bill" or "mortgage payment" yet...

 

[Scalped]

^^^^ Yes Id like to know if thats a joke or not aswell.

I might sound naive but when I saw that video I was like :uhoh2:

 

[tt9999]

rule No3 is pretty decent as long as they serve healthier food at the cafeteria - I would rather see kids eating vegs and fruits than triple cheese burgers with bacon, seven sauces, fried onions, and cheese-dipped fries that their mammas packed them for lunch

 

[SeoReborn]

Are you Joking?

You actually took out a copyright on the name on your SS card and now when bills are sent to you, you send them back a bill for printing your protected intellectual property?

Hmm, I wonder if anyone has copywritten "electric bill" or "mortgage payment" yet...

Not joking. I copyrighted the strawman. The strawman is your name in CAPITALS. Thats why in all application forms etc, you have to write in the name in capitals, it represents the strawman plus you have to write in black as black signifies death - your strawman is a legal fiction, a non living being. I autograph in red as I am a flesh and blood sentient living being. Also having a title next to the name is the strawman too. A 'person' in legalese is a legal fiction. So copyright capitalized name, with title and derivatives of. By the way, we don't have first name or last name, these belong to the strawman. We have a common name and a family name.

I have only used this vs credit cards bills. Since they have used my strawman to create credit, they have not loss anything, hence why should I 'pay back'. I respond to their letters asking for prove of debt. I then establish an tacit agreement with them (after giving them sufficient time to prove the debt) that should they contact me again, they owe me 3 times the alleged debt plus £1 million for each copyright infringement. Also I respond as an authorised representative to the strawman, and I tell them explicity that I am not the strawman they are referring to.

Your strawman was created when your parents signed for the birth certificate.

Check this out, the police attempts to interview Mr _ and this guys asks him to refer his questions to his birth certificate:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZWWZSVw3vE"]YouTube - tpuc.org Freeman on the Land Police Interview a Freeman 1 of 3.mp4[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK-7Y3HS2ao"]YouTube - tpuc.org Freeman on the Land Police Interview a Freeman 2 of 3.mp4[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQAxiosSrGc&"]YouTube - tpuc.org Freeman on the Land Police Interview a Freeman 3 of 3.mp4[/ame]

 

[lukep]

Alright, I just watched the 3-part vid and it has the ol' noodle churning.

It is an intriguing idea, but very risky sounding. For instance, we don't know anything about what happened outside of his house during the interview... Raymond from the family St. Clair could just as easily have been pronounced a Crazy person by the constibles' boss, and they decided not to prosecute simply because he seems harmless and therefore don't have a budget for prosecuting/socking away harmless mental cases.

Plus, that's England. They're much nicer over there... And far more educated.

I strongly suspect that if this interview had taken place on American soil by an American copper, ignorance from above would stop them from ever understanding my point, much less agreeing with it.

Not joking. I copyrighted the strawman.

Hmm. What for? St. Clair and everything else I'm seeing here points towards SEPERATING yourself from your strawman, not making another legally binding agreement between you and it... Copyrighting it would seem to give you more liability for its' actions.

I have only used this vs credit cards bills. Since they have used my strawman to create credit, they have not loss anything, hence why should I 'pay back'.

Were you able to prove that it was a legal fiction that spent their money, not you?

I respond as an authorised representative to the strawman, and I tell them explicity that I am not the strawman they are referring to.

In writing? Or to those mindless sales zombies at their call center? -I bet THAT was fun, trying to educate them on the difference between a human and a Person...

Now here's my big question for you, SeoReborn; How long has it been since you attempted this with the credit card company, and what has it done for your (excuse me, your copyrighted Person's) credit history?

(And isn't your credit score mixed in with it's credit score in one score/history?)

Thanks for the info; Good stuff.

 

[mont7071]

Why do so many people fall back on the "we just need to ban/outlaw/stop corporate lobbying" as the answer to everything?? I swear I've seen this trotted out too much lately, and it drives me nuts.

News flash..

1. One of our most cherished rights in America is "freedom of speech". Guess what "lobbying" is guys... yep, freedom of speech. How about that pesky little document our forefathers drew up blabbing on about "petition the government for redress of grievances". Yep, pretty much the definition of "lobbying" too.

Of course there are greedy people working for corps, of course money buys unfair amounts of social influence, of course politicians don't always protect the interests of their constituents, etc etc etc, but thinking that banning "lobbying" is the answer is incredibly short-sighted, nevermind the fact if you ask 50 different American what "lobbying" is, you'll get 50 different definitions.

It's a lot easier to say "ban lobbying" then it is to say "ban freedom of speech, and ban anybody standing up and telling their government that is supposed to represent them what they want" when in reality, its the same thing. Hiding behind the "umm..well, it only applies to those greedy corporations" argument is ridiculous, or is the concept that "all men are created equal" out of fashion now too?

People fall back on this vague concept that: "corporations = evil = lobbying = bad" and never stop to think about what it means, and why banning free speech is not the answer to our country's problems. It's intellectually lazy to say "just ban lobbying, simple fix, durr". That is NOT the answer. People (and yes, corps are extensions of the people who run them and the shareholders that invested in them) DO have a right to work towards their own interests, also known as "pursuit of happiness". Just because they make a high salary, wear a tie, or work at a publicly traded company doesn't make their opinions any less valid, or more evil, than an individual marching on Capitol Hill to protest war, or picketing a business that laid them off.

Think of the consequences, where do you draw the line on what kind of "lobbying" should be banned?? Nobody making over 250k can share their opinion, but if you're broke, its ok? How about if a company pays millions of dollar in taxes and hires thousands of people, they can't send a letter to their Congressman, because they are deemed "corporate evil" now? One of the larger lobbying organizations in Washington is AIM (American Indian Movement) has to shut up now, because Native Americans are evil if they "lobby" for their concerns to be heard?? Think of how ridiculous each of those examples sounds, yet these are all logical extensions of what happens when people think "just end lobbying" is the answer to all societal ills.

/rant

 

[lukep]

Why do so many people fall back on the "we just need to ban/outlaw/stop corporate lobbying" as the answer to everything?? I swear I've seen this trotted out too much lately, and it drives me nuts.

News flash..

1. One of our most cherished rights in America is "freedom of speech". Guess what "lobbying" is guys... yep, freedom of speech. How about that pesky little document our forefathers drew up blabbing on about "petition the government for redress of grievances". Yep, pretty much the definition of "lobbying" too.

Of course there are greedy people working for corps, of course money buys unfair amounts of social influence, of course politicians don't always protect the interests of their constituents, etc etc etc, but thinking that banning "lobbying" is the answer is incredibly short-sighted, nevermind the fact if you ask 50 different American what "lobbying" is, you'll get 50 different definitions.

It's a lot easier to say "ban lobbying" then it is to say "ban freedom of speech, and ban anybody standing up and telling their government that is supposed to represent them what they want" when in reality, its the same thing. Hiding behind the "umm..well, it only applies to those greedy corporations" argument is ridiculous, or is the concept that "all men are created equal" out of fashion now too?

People fall back on this vague concept that: "corporations = evil = lobbying = bad" and never stop to think about what it means, and why banning free speech is not the answer to our country's problems. It's intellectually lazy to say "just ban lobbying, simple fix, durr". That is NOT the answer. People (and yes, corps are extensions of the people who run them and the shareholders that invested in them) DO have a right to work towards their own interests, also known as "pursuit of happiness". Just because they make a high salary, wear a tie, or work at a publicly traded company doesn't make their opinions any less valid, or more evil, than an individual marching on Capitol Hill to protest war, or picketing a business that laid them off.

Think of the consequences, where do you draw the line on what kind of "lobbying" should be banned?? Nobody making over 250k can share their opinion, but if you're broke, its ok? How about if a company pays millions of dollar in taxes and hires thousands of people, they can't send a letter to their Congressman, because they are deemed "corporate evil" now? One of the larger lobbying organizations in Washington is AIM (American Indian Movement) has to shut up now, because Native Americans are evil if they "lobby" for their concerns to be heard?? Think of how ridiculous each of those examples sounds, yet these are all logical extensions of what happens when people think "just end lobbying" is the answer to all societal ills.

/rant

You are easily the most brainwashed person on this board... Jezus, where to begin??

1. Groups of people, say, voters, can get together to have their voices heard without pooling their money to BRIBE the Government, which is exactly what lobbying is... And this used to be illegal, by the way.

2. A Corporation is a fictional entity that greedy assholes in our past have managed to grant the same rights to that individuals enjoy... This is where the problems all stem from, and if we simply undo this one tragedy and make it illegal (LIKE IT USED TO BE) for corporations to fund campaigns and lobby washington directly then we'll have equality again.

But the way it is now; Votes don't mean a god damn thing! -Your vote is worth $1 or some silly shit like that to the election of a senator or president.... GE's is worth $$$ BILLIONS. -And that's only one of the many corporations who would want such an election tilted in their favor.


The following vid is not meant to be a complete resource but does show you a very clear picture of the overall problem in America and list some great references. I Highly advise you to commit it to memory before you respond:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5kHACjrdEY]YouTube - The Story of Citizens United v. FEC (2011)[/ame]

 

[bluechinagroup]

Why would anyone want less sheeple? Lets keep them ignorant and happy so we can continue to convince them to buy our products. If you can't beat em, join em.

Always be careful for what you wish for.

I do think political contributions should be capped to make it a much more level playing field though.

 

[lukep]

Why would anyone want less sheeple? Lets keep them ignorant and happy so we can continue to convince them to buy our products. If you can't beat em, join em.

This attitude allows me to sleep at night, as a fallback... Knowing that I'm above the sheeple and using them for my income allows me to have some control of my destiny; but at a cost that many would argue is much worse. (The feelings of evil and awareness of how powerless you really are.)

Remember; Ignorance is bliss. With a socialist government like we have today, the truly ignorant can be happy their whole lives eating our acai berries and thinking that their government cares about them.

We can't.

So there is a trade-off; To be as free as we possibly can be we must trade away our happiness... And even then we can't be as free as we'd like, not with Corporations driving the whole show.

 

[JakeStratham]

You are easily the most brainwashed person on this board...

I'm pretty sure this ain't the case. Are you venting again, lukep?

 

[lukep]

I'm pretty sure this ain't the case. Are you venting again, lukep?

Yes, Mr. language police officer, I am.

Do I get a Ticket?

-But seriously, even Hellblazer wouldn't defend corporations like that... This guy deserved to be drawn and quartered!

 

[SeoReborn]

Alright, I just watched the 3-part vid and it has the ol' noodle churning.

It is an intriguing idea, but very risky sounding. For instance, we don't know anything about what happened outside of his house during the interview... Raymond from the family St. Clair could just as easily have been pronounced a Crazy person by the constibles' boss, and they decided not to prosecute simply because he seems harmless and therefore don't have a budget for prosecuting/socking away harmless mental cases.

Plus, that's England. They're much nicer over there... And far more educated.

They'll have a hard time prosecuting Raymond, he knows what he's talking about.

I strongly suspect that if this interview had taken place on American soil by an American copper, ignorance from above would stop them from ever understanding my point, much less agreeing with it.

Not all coppers are the same but from what I have seen, American coppers have a superiority complex and have no idea what is lawful and legal. They can't even follow legal never mind lawful.

However, the job of coppers is not prosecution.

Hmm. What for? St. Clair and everything else I'm seeing here points towards SEPERATING yourself from your strawman, not making another legally binding agreement between you and it... Copyrighting it would seem to give you more liability for its' actions.

That is true also. Part of the community says we must avoid all claims of ownership of the person as that belongs to the corporation known as UNITED KINGDOM or UNITED STATES. By doing this you are providing controversy to adjudicate. So claiming ownership to the strawman could shoot you in the foot if you go against 'government' corporations.

However in terms of dealing with the banks, we made it clear that we are not the legal fiction yet we are authorised representatives, just like a solicitor is a representative to its defendant. We have copyrighted the name of the strawman yet we have not claimed ownership of the strawman either. It also gives the banks something to lose since when it comes to court, they can argue I owe them thousands, but I'll take them on for millions for infringements.

Were you able to prove that it was a legal fiction that spent their money, not you?

Well, since they are making the claim that I have the debt with them, the onus is on them proving the debt. Since in my letters I said I am more than happy to pay anything owed if they can prove it. So far none have been able to prove it as this banking system is one big scam. They also have issues in bringing it to court as I did not 'refuse' to pay, I asked for clarification.

In writing? Or to those mindless sales zombies at their call center? -I bet THAT was fun, trying to educate them on the difference between a human and a Person...

Yep its all in writing. I have picked up the phone sometimes to have a laugh with these guys. I've not tried to educate them about the difference between a human and a person, but I heard a recording of someone who tried. It was really funny, the sales guy had to hang up first lol.

Now here's my big question for you, SeoReborn; How long has it been since you attempted this with the credit card company, and what has it done for your (excuse me, your copyrighted Person's) credit history?

Its been almost a year now. Not looked at the credit report, but others who did the same thing says their report shows the debt as settled in full however, the default is still registered against them. Credit rating can be built up again anyway so I'm not concerned. All debts are statute barred in 6 years, with the records being removed including the defaults. Besides, the thousands I got from CC's to buy gold n silver is many times better than a credit rating which I can repair in 2-3 years. Yeah, once its repaired, you can bet I'll do this again.

 

[lukep]

Part of the community says we must avoid all claims of ownership of the person as that belongs to the corporation known as UNITED KINGDOM or UNITED STATES. By doing this you are providing controversy to adjudicate. So claiming ownership to the strawman could shoot you in the foot if you go against 'government' corporations.

So basically you have to make a choice up front; Separation from your strawman if you have plans to so something unlawful and get away with it, and Ownership of your strawman if you plan to cancel debt or screw with other Corporations than the state. -Tough choice...

Well, since they are making the claim that I have the debt with them, the onus is on them proving the debt. Since in my letters I said I am more than happy to pay anything owed if they can prove it. So far none have been able to prove it as this banking system is one big scam.

So no one who's tried this has EVER had a judgement against them? Do you have any idea how many ppl have tried?

Yep its all in writing. I have picked up the phone sometimes to have a laugh with these guys. I've not tried to educate them about the difference between a human and a person, but I heard a recording of someone who tried. It was really funny, the sales guy had to hang up first lol.

Sounds fun. Most ppl could never do such a thing because talking "down" to a stranger goes against their nature... Americans especially are taught from infancy to be passive as they are being sold to. -But I now think of this kind of confrontation as a fun sport... Got a link to that recording?

Its been almost a year now. Not looked at the credit report, but others who did the same thing says their report shows the debt as settled in full however, the default is still registered against them. Credit rating can be built up again anyway so I'm not concerned. All debts are statute barred in 6 years, with the records being removed including the defaults. Besides, the thousands I got from CC's to buy gold n silver is many times better than a credit rating which I can repair in 2-3 years. Yeah, once its repaired, you can bet I'll do this again.

Ok, so at least that tells me the credit system is still on their side. So anyone attempting a strawman-argument debt dismissal of some kind has got 7-10 years of credit problems, and a possible court date although that's more rare.

I know most people are scared shitless of getting a bad credit score but personally I'm an all-cash man with a strong hatred of home ownership... About the only thing I'd need credit for is when moving to a new apartment. Sounds like something I should look into further then... If that's the worst of it.

Do you know of anyone sent to jail or otherwise arrested over this? Any other possible drawbacks?

Thanks again!

 

[SeoReborn]

So basically you have to make a choice up front; Separation from your strawman if you have plans to so something unlawful and get away with it, and Ownership of your strawman if you plan to cancel debt or screw with other Corporations than the state. -Tough choice...

Well we don't look to do something unlawful, we all look to act in a lawful manner and stay in honour. Maybe illegal but not unlawful.

No need to worry about copyrighting the name or not, as you do not have to present the copyright side of things if you do go against the state.

So no one who's tried this has EVER had a judgement against them? Do you have any idea how many ppl have tried?

Don't know about judgement but in the early days before the copyright strategy was used, we only asked them for proof of debt and so it resulted in court summons sometimes. Now with the copyright strategy, no one have gone to court. Some has been threatened and was about to go to court but later found that they mistakenly put down the wrong account number in the letters or directed their letters to another person during the process. After they sorted it out, the bank/debt collectors did not proceed with court. If you think about it, its a disadvantage for them to try to take us to court. They claim we owe them thousands and we claim they owes us millions. If one of us wins in court, the case will spread like wild fire and everyone who has invoiced them will try to get their share and that's when they are screwed. Its funny, one of the guys even asked a debt collector to collect their debt from another debt collector lol.

Sounds fun. Most ppl could never do such a thing because talking "down" to a stranger goes against their nature... Americans especially are taught from infancy to be passive as they are being sold to. -But I now think of this kind of confrontation as a fun sport... Got a link to that recording?

Here's a conversation with a debt collector

zSHARE - Debt Call.mp3

It goes silent in one part as the indian puts him on hold.

In terms of normal sales guys, I just politely say I'm not interested but with debt collectors and the like, I play around. Like with one of them, got him to stay on the phone for 30 mins occasionally explaining the guy he wanted is just about to get on the phone and for them to wait just a little longer lol. I put him on loudspeaker so I didn't waste my time and was doing my internet marketing at the same time.

Ok, so at least that tells me the credit system is still on their side. So anyone attempting a strawman-argument debt dismissal of some kind has got 7-10 years of credit problems, and a possible court date although that's more rare.

For credit card debt,, I don't see it going to court. If for larger amounts like mortgages, its more than definite. Going for mortgages needs a different strategy, but some have managed to get of them too. Basically mortgages are the biggest scam of all time (I won't get into this in the thread) and through proving this scam in court, they don't need to pay anymore.

I know most people are scared shitless of getting a bad credit score but personally I'm an all-cash man with a strong hatred of home ownership... About the only thing I'd need credit for is when moving to a new apartment. Sounds like something I should look into further then... If that's the worst of it.

Do you know of anyone sent to jail or otherwise arrested over this? Any other possible drawbacks?

Thanks again!

So far, no one has been arrested nor gone to jail nor even gone to court if done properly.

 

[TheKey]

anyone listen to alex jones?

Yep, probably the purest well of truth you'll find these dayz.

 

[lukep]

Yep, probably the purest well of truth you'll find these dayz.

Back to hell with you Troll!