There are people out there who work for the crown and the deep state who try to discredit it and that’s what all these doubters see so they think it’s debunked. The gaslighting is everywhere.
Yes. It was bunk in 1925, it was bunk in 1933, it was bunk in 1944, it was bunk in 1953-59, it was bunk in 1976, and every year in between and since, it was bunk.
I think Lin Wood has pushed it, or at least implied it. Maybe he believes it, maybe it's disinformation, or maybe it's less mindfuck to talk about "UNITED STATES IN ALL CAPS ERMAHGERD" than "extraterrestrial aliens"? Still bunk.
Connect what you know to be real, to what you perceive to be real, to what the purveyors of this sort of stuff want you to think it real. Perhaps the connections are valid, even if the connectors are not? Q has communicated this way in the past, and vice versa.
"Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them." PENHALLOW v. DOANE'S ADMINISTRATORS (Supreme Court of the United States 1795)
CRUDEN v. NEALE 2N.C. (1796) 2 SE 70 "Every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent.”
You know all of the texts of these cases is available online? Go find out what happened to the first person who cited 3 US 54 in this way, and let us know.
There is an interestingly-named company that deals in registering corporations for people, and the 1871-tards think that's their huckleberry.
so are you saying that all this talk about the 1871 stuff it total bunk?
There are people out there who work for the crown and the deep state who try to discredit it and that’s what all these doubters see so they think it’s debunked. The gaslighting is everywhere.
I don't have to debunk anything. OP says there's a bankruptcy case. I say there ain't. Link it.
And I’m saying it’s fake shit to distract from the real shit.
Yes. It was bunk in 1925, it was bunk in 1933, it was bunk in 1944, it was bunk in 1953-59, it was bunk in 1976, and every year in between and since, it was bunk.
I think Lin Wood has pushed it, or at least implied it. Maybe he believes it, maybe it's disinformation, or maybe it's less mindfuck to talk about "UNITED STATES IN ALL CAPS ERMAHGERD" than "extraterrestrial aliens"? Still bunk.
Connect what you know to be real, to what you perceive to be real, to what the purveyors of this sort of stuff want you to think it real. Perhaps the connections are valid, even if the connectors are not? Q has communicated this way in the past, and vice versa.
Yes and the Federal Reserve is also a legitimate operation. Very contsituonal. Nothing to see here, look the other way.
Federal Reserve is constitutional, that doesn't make it right.
"Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them." PENHALLOW v. DOANE'S ADMINISTRATORS (Supreme Court of the United States 1795)
CRUDEN v. NEALE 2N.C. (1796) 2 SE 70 "Every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent.”
You know all of the texts of these cases is available online? Go find out what happened to the first person who cited 3 US 54 in this way, and let us know.
No. Look into it