-
Police Officers In NC Advised To Divest Property
For Immediate Release
http://adask.wordpress.com/2011/10/2...name/#comments
Quote:
10.27.11
North Carolina Police Departments all over the state have warned their officers to put their personal property (houses, land, cars and other assets) into someone else’s name because they may now be subject to lawsuits from the People of North Carolina.
The warning was issued in response to the recent ruling that upheld that the local Police Departments in North Carolina are classified as “private entities” and NOT connected to the state of North Carolina.
Judicial Review Judge, Paul C. Ridgeway, Wake County General Court Of Justice, Superior Court Division, upheld a lower court ruling that most Public Officials / Agencies are “private entities.” Judge Ridgeway upheld the earlier (1.17.11) ruling of lower court Judge J. Randall May in Class v. NORTH CAROLINA, Case No. 10 DOT 7047 (now known as 11 CVS 1559).
The police officers will now also have to fund their own Surety Bonds.
Bears checking out to see if this is true. Wouldn't it be nice if policy men were responsible for their own crimes?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
palani
They already are responsible for their own crimes... They just aren't usually held accountable.
-
If you find anymore information about this, please post it. This is very interesting!
-
-
Hmmm.... they are advising the hired guns that they will be on their own for law suits so get skinny and have nothing of value that can be taken in a just lawsuit. Or- they don't trust the legal system either and the liability in unjust lawsuits will threaten their wealth.
-
Quote:
North Carolina Police Departments all over the state have warned their officers to put their personal property (houses, land, cars and other assets) into someone else’s name because they may now be subject to lawsuits from the People of North Carolina.
Wouldn't it be better if they told them to stop violating peoples rights?
-
At least on the surface, this is EXTREMELY interesting. Are the cops just enforcers for corporate "law enforcement," in reality a private entity robbing the people? Is the County Sheriff the real law enforcement authority?
Very very interesting.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Neuro
Wouldn't it be better if they told them to stop violating peoples rights?
You mean stop all commerce in the State of North Carolina?
How would judges and legislators fund their vacations?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SWRichmond
Are the cops just enforcers for corporate "law enforcement," in reality a private entity robbing the people?
You can go to Manta.com and find the details of all corporations. This includes (as well as others): the federal government, the state government, county governments, courts.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Neuro
Wouldn't it be better if they told them to stop violating peoples rights?
That wouldn't fit the agenda at all.
-
Is the state trying to protect itself from legal liabilities associated with behavior of the police? Or is there some other motivation for this ruling that the police are private agencies? The criminal 'justice system' has for a long time deemed the police to be above the law, or at least more favored by the law than private citizens. This might be a fallout from the #OWS activism.
I just wonder if the judges are afraid that people brutalized by the police, or the families of people killed by police will fare much better in the courts with jury trials--awarding them large sums as damages. Maybe the judges see this coming, and they are circling the wagons by letting the state off the hook for damages caused by the police. I'd like to hope that the judges can be held accountable for their crimes, but that isn't on the horizon yet. I consider the judges the worst of the elite.
I can just see the Federal government stepping in and taking on the burden of damages resulting from police brutality.
I see this as a step in the right direction. If the cops can lose their asse(t)s in a lawsuit for brutalizing people, then they might behave better. I have noticed that there has been an exponential rise in police caused civilian deaths from their Israeli police training. Their model is the way Israelis treat Palestinians. I just hope all this insanity is starting to unravel, and we can see the end of it sooner rather than later.
Hatha
-
This is the case Rod Class and team have been working on. It's apparently a very big deal and is not limited to NC.
http://www.rodclass.com/09_25_2011_Press_Release.html
-
More...
Quote:
North Carolina Police Warned To Put Their Personal Property Into Someone Else's Name !
postoak.pr@gmail.com
978 – 635 – 9586For Immediate Release
10.27.11
North Carolina Police Departments all over the state have warned their officers to put their personal property (houses, land, cars and other assets) into someone else's name because they may now be subject to lawsuits from the People of North Carolina.
The warning was issued in response to the recent ruling that upheld that the local Police Departments in North Carolina are classified as "private entities" and NOT connected to the state of North Carolina.
Judicial Review Judge, Paul C. Ridgeway, Wake County General Court Of Justice, Superior Court Division, upheld a lower court ruling that most Public Officials / Agencies are "private entities." Judge Ridgeway upheld the earlier (1.17.11) ruling of lower court Judge J. Randall May in Class v. NORTH CAROLINA, Case No. 10 DOT 7047(now known as 11 CVS 1559).
The police officers will now also have to fund their own Surety Bonds.
Judge Ridgeway's September 15, 2011 ruling creates a conflict in the public's perception of basic government legitimacy because Judge Howard E. Manning, Jr (who recused himself in August 2011) declared in Mr. Class' 4.21.11 hearing that "the Defendants were NOT 'private entities' or 'private contractors' ", but were "public officials."
Are the judges confused ? Are these "government" agencies and officials NOT what they're portraying to their constituents ? Are they immune because they're "private" ? Do we actually have government "agencies" and elect "Public" Officials OR do we deal with "Private Entities" ? Is the public being frauded ? So many questions ! So many conflicts !
Here's some background:
Judge May's original 1.17.11 ruling:
Page 1 http://min.us/mbmc4SfNoQ
Page 2 http://min.us/m9ygLN5Fe
Page 2A (marked for emphasis) http://min.us/myxFZuE3d
Page 3 http://min.us/mbrIPmoLma
Judge Ridgeway's 9.15.11 ruling upholding Judge May is viewable at:
http://min.us/mbi7bovuy0
Mr. Class' filing, that caused Judge Manning's rambling recusal statement, that was the subject of the Ridgeway ruling, is viewable at http://min.us/m6M40HRrB
Judge Manning's rambling recusal: http://min.us/muCmadmgF
Mr. Class' original suit (Case No. 10 DOT 7047) accused the named North Carolina State departments and individuals with charges of Embezzlement of Federal funds from the local political subdivisions, and violations of the Right To Travel issue.
Mr. Class was acting as a Private Attorney General under provisions of an 1866 Federal Act, and was acting on behalf of all People, and political subdivisions "similarly situated" and affected by the charges in his Judicial Review.
Rod Class will be broadcasting live Friday night (10.28.11) at 9:00pm Eastern on his Talkshoe channel at:
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=48361
Mr. Class conducts twice weekly radio shows (Tues and Fri) on Talkshoe and archives of previous shows are available at the above link.
Mr. Class may be contacted at itconstitutional@aol.com or his office 704-742-3123 for details regarding the implications of Judge Ridgeway's ruling and the court's behavior in this action.
The website for all things Rod Class, including other actions he has in play, is athttp://rodclass.com. For a copy of one of the early filings that may have caused both court's consternation: http://www.rayservers.com/blog/rod-class-traffic-filing
Mr. Class has posted all of his filings, and responses from the court, and the defendants, on the Internet at various sites for the benefit of those in their efforts and interactions with these purported "private entities" (contractors), and to ensure that these rulings stay in the public domain and do not disappear !
- 30 -
-
-
Interesting. Almost sounds like officers may have lost their insurance. A lot of cops pay for individual 'insurance' against civil lawsuits in case they fuck up, and get sued.
No point in changing your assets if you have million dollar civil suit insurance.
BTW, I'll keep my opinions to myself, just thought I'd point that out.
-
Re: Police Officers In NC Advised To Divest Property
Palani,
Midnight Rambler,
I just happened to stumble across a Tim Turner Talkshoe 11/29/2011 9 PM EST interview conducted with Tad and his "You Have The Right.com" republic support network/organization.
Finished listening to it this AM.
Seems this N.C. posted above thing is for real, according to Turner's interview. And this N.C. posting iterated above is part and parcel of the re-training of LEOs in how to deal with Sovereigns and not get into personal financial trouble, which makes them personally liable for mistreating/ harrassing/ delaying/ impeding Sovereigns going about their personal business.
Turner stated categorically that this NC thing you posted up, (and rambler says is involved with Rod Class's actions) this N.C. public notice above is the DIRECT result of a ruling by the US Supreme Court, this July 2011, called the "Bond Decision".
As the result, not only has N.C. started "behaving differently," but the same type of LEO's training has started occuring in Henderson County NV, for the same reason. To keep the corporation state and it's employees being hammered by interferred with sovereigns, who carry their "freedom papers" on them I gathered, and were pulled over for some traffic excuse/reason.
As I gather it, the states and the courts are being bankrupted by the maritime / admiralty liens being placed on them by sovereigns more and more.
The Bond Decision was quoted as unequivocally declaring that only an individual, aka a living breathing man can be sovereign. Not a state, not a county, not a city, not a nation. Only an individual can be known and recognized as a sovereign, aka "a king upon the land."
This is opening up, as I understand it, huge opportunities to seek and perfect patenting one's paid for land, and attaining alloidial title. This action which will put even more financial pressure on the corporation since they cannot tax a sovereign's property, who has gone through his or her paces and secured their alloidial, land patented title lawfully.
This is huge, in my mind. Absolutely huge.
I wish I knew how to look up "the Bond vs United States ( Supreme Court) decision" of July 2011.
I found this by googling and landing on "The Federalist Society" website. http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/...ion-scotuscast
If anyone does, I'd like to read the opinion if a link could be found and posted here that is the actual decision and not the Federalist Society "post game analysis."
The audio connection was poor as usual on the talkshoe connection with Turner. However, I do believe he stated how many justices were in the "winning" side, vs. justices opposing. I just could catch it, sorry.
The other thing Turner said which caught my attention was this statement: There are more Article III courts now and more coming shortly. That has been a very VERY long time in coming. I heard Darrell Frech say he was successful in getting an Article III hearing, and one of the last ones as he understood it, to do so, and this was several decades ago.
Doesn't this Article III court thing have to do with common law as opposed to admiralty color of jurisprudence wretched system in which we are currently entrapped?
I'm not even sure I understand what an Article III court is, but I do know that Darrell thought having them available and functioning again was vital to regaining control of our lives, and our property.
Maybe there IS something to this Republic business after all, if the sovereigns the likes of Rod Class and Turner and others are winning these kinds of battles, such as the Bond vs..... case.
I'll try to dig up the link and be back with an edit to make it easier for y'all to listen for yourself since you follow this legal stuff closer than I do.
EDIT:
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web...d=46256&cmd=tc
IT IS FREE TO LISTEN TO. About 53 minutes start to finish. I gathered from contextual references within the program that "Tad" the talkshoe host is from Eugene OR wherever that is.
The Republic just celebrated their 1st anniversary of their founding last year. My how time flies....
beefsteak
-
Re: Police Officers In NC Advised To Divest Property
Governments and states are separate entities. States erect constitutions to rule the actions of their governments and governments cannot exceed the mandate they are given.
When I say state I mean YOU. A state is a body politic and at its' most elemental level that is a single individual. Turners republic does not change these ideas a bit. Simply stated it is easier to gain attention when a group of people become interested. Turners' state is no more sovereign than my own or yours.
Bond vs U.S. can be found here
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1227.pdf
-
Re: Police Officers In NC Advised To Divest Property
just one more way for the cops to hide there stuff plus it keep them from having there stuff taken .... that the first thing you do when you start a company ...
Corporation
Corporation
Corporation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about business corporations. For other uses, see Corporation (disambiguation).
"Corporate" redirects here. For the Bollywood film, see Corporate (film).
A corporation is created under the laws of a state as a separate legal entity that has privileges and liabilities that are distinct from those of its members.[1] There are many different forms of corporations, most of which are used to conduct business. Early corporations were established by charter (i.e. by an ad hoc act passed by a parliament or legislature). Most jurisdictions now allow the creation of new corporations through registration.
An important (but not universal) contemporary feature of a corporation is limited liability. If a corporation fails, shareholders may lose their investments, and employees may lose their jobs, but neither will be liable for debts to the corporation's creditors.
Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like natural persons ("people"). Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state,[2] and they can themselves be responsible for human rights violations.[3] Corporations are conceptually immortal but they can "die" when they are "dissolved" either by statutory operation, order of court, or voluntary action on the part of shareholders. Insolvency may result in a form of corporate 'death', when creditors force the liquidation and dissolution of the corporation under court order,[4] but it most often results in a restructuring of corporate holdings. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offenses, such as fraud and manslaughter. However corporations are not living entities in the way that humans are. [5]
Although corporate law varies in different jurisdictions, there are four characteristics of the business corporation:[6]
-
Re: Police Officers In NC Advised To Divest Property
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mick silver
Although corporate law varies in different jurisdictions, there are four characteristics of the business corporation:
[6]
Corporations have one huge overwelming advantage. As they only exist in the mind of man they do not appear. They must be represented. They have no feet or hands or body so everything is done by agents.
When you are represented in court the attorney has a corporation for a client. Real men and women have all the advantages and can only lose in a court by being represented. A principal deals only with other principals if he is smart. If you adapt this policy agents go away.
-
Re: Police Officers In NC Advised To Divest Property
I would like to hear more of your thoughts on Corporations , what the good and bad by being a Corporations ? thanks palani
-
Re: Police Officers In NC Advised To Divest Property
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mick silver
I would like to hear more of your thoughts on Corporations , what the good and bad by being a Corporations ? thanks palani
You have a corporate side. Your name in all capital letters represents that entity. You animate it (become an agent for it) when you answer up to your name. This corporate side is also your estate. People work to build their estate. Gravestones are engraved with the name of the estate (in all capitals). The corporate side is what handles Federal Reserve Notes. Real men and women use gold, silver or copper.
Like joins with like. Corporations can only do business with other corporations. In order to survive in the world today in society you must do so through a corporation.
Rights do not come from government. They come from a creator. Yet the government must deal with both rights and duties and they do so through "persons". Persons includes corporations. That is to say, a person is ONLY a corporation and nothing else. Government attempts to hide this little detail by coining the phrase "natural person" and you are intended to believe this is a man or a woman. It is not. It is only a corporation.
Hobbes defines a person as 1) an action 2) a word or 3) representation. Government is representation. Agency is representation. Real men and women perfom actions like jaywalking. The action of jaywalking creates a person. The person has rights and duties. Don't jaywalk and you will not create a person and will not incur a duty (fine). A word is also a person. Commit libel or slander and create a person, also punishable by fine or imprisonment.
On the rights side go out and discover a gold mine. Mark it out and go down to the land office to have your right recorded. You created a person. The person has rights rather than you.
I tend to call Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) corporate coupons. They only have value in the corporate world. They do not purchase anything because they do not extinguish debt. No ownership occurs because of "purchasing" something with a FRN. Government has it well established that they own everything that is capable of being owned.
Just a few thoughts. You might have some of your own.
-
Re: Police Officers In NC Advised To Divest Property
They better find a way to put their blood in some one else's name, because that is what the people will be after.
As i understand it most Police Dept have blanket bonds for all the officers, they do not have individual bonds anymore, (as they are Lawfully required). I have not been able to verify this?
If i commit a crime, then move all of my assets out of my name for reasons of evading, i would have the book thrown at me.
-
Re: Police Officers In NC Advised To Divest Property
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sui Juris
If i commit a crime, then move all of my assets out of my name for reasons of evading, i would have the book thrown at me.
That is why North Carolina is advising policymen to do it NOW before the liens start hitting the recorders office.
A local guy liened up a deputy sheriff. Did it by the book. Got his permission and all (silence). Now the deputy cannot sell his house until the lien is settled. Too bad. So sad!!!
If there were a personal bond in place the liability would be limited to the bond (I believe this to be a true statement but not verified). The lack of a bond makes an officer de facto. There is no limit to his liability.
-
Re: Police Officers In NC Advised To Divest Property
i have heard you can only take so much blood from a corporate so would that mean that you could only get so much paper notes from them if you were to sue ? if so would it make it so you could not cause a corporate to fail ?
-
Re: Police Officers In NC Advised To Divest Property
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mick silver
i have heard you can only take so much blood from a corporate so would that mean that you could only get so much paper notes from them if you were to sue ? if so would it make it so you could not cause a corporate to fail ?
You would have to have an ACTION against that corporation. What you can recover are dictated by your damages. Simply because a corporation is recognized to exist does not give you an automatic right to name it in a suit.
There is a concept called "piercing the corporate veil" that allows damage to flow from a corporation to the individual man or woman (their corporate identity that is) who actually did the damage. As far as I know this a one-way concept. You don't go after the individual to get to the corporate assets. You would go for the corporation and try to show that it is used as a front for the individual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercin...corporate_veil
-
Re: Police Officers In NC Advised To Divest Property
Quote:
Originally Posted by
palani
Governments and states are separate entities. States erect constitutions to rule the actions of their governments and governments cannot exceed the mandate they are given.
When I say state I mean YOU. A state is a body politic and at its' most elemental level that is a single individual. Turners republic does not change these ideas a bit. Simply stated it is easier to gain attention when a group of people become interested. Turners' state is no more sovereign than my own or yours.
PALANI...last time I respond to anything you post, you arrogant JERK!
I was giving Turner as the SOURCE for you to listen to the Bond V US discussion w/r/t your opening N.C. post. THAT is where I found the reference to what is going on in North Carolina and Why, from Turner's own lips. You can hate TUrner or whatever on your time, but don't you dare dump crap on me for posting a source of pertinent follow-up comment in regards to any of your opening posts.
It is the SUPREME COURT'S DECISION/DEFINITION of what a Sovereign is, and where I got the new intel, not YOUR definition/decision/imposition crap.
I don't need CRAP from you for posting a source when I responded to what I thought you wanted in your opening post, which was any additional comments regarding NC.
If you "knew about the Bond V US decision" and didn't feel like the rest of us sovereigns needed to know about it, that's on you. And it certainly begs the question as to why you didn't feel the need to "share..."
Sucks to be you, pal. I ain't posting squat to you in the future, since you are such a friggin' know-it-all, your way or it's no way. You may be a sovereign/state/pimple on a gnat's ear, but you act like an asshole and I'm callin' you on it.
ticked off BEEFSTEAK
-
Re: Police Officers In NC Advised To Divest Property
Quote:
Originally Posted by
beefsteak
You can hate TUrner or whatever on your time, but don't you dare dump crap on me for posting a source of pertinent follow-up comment in regards to any of your opening posts.
I have never met Turner and don't believe I have even heard him speak. That said as there is no requirement to hate anybody then I choose to stay neutral on the subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
beefsteak
You may be a sovereign/state/pimple on a gnat's ear, but you act like an asshole and I'm callin' you on it.
You can tell that from a few sentences? I'm truly impressed. You must be worth a fortune.
-
Re: Police Officers In NC Advised To Divest Property
I briefly whisked through these posts but never saw Palani as described by beefsteak. Hey Beef- you got PMS again?
-
Re: Police Officers In NC Advised To Divest Property
Spec...
instead of bragging about not reading, why don't you read...
PMS==You mean, Perturbed Male Sydrome...
Yeah, that's the way I signed my name to my post, joker.
Not surprised you couldn't see it...
I get PMS when I see your name too, come to think of it, Spec....
-
Re: Police Officers In NC Advised To Divest Property
Dude... don't know what is eating you, but you have been wound too tight for a long time.
-
Re: Police Officers In NC Advised To Divest Property
Quote:
Originally Posted by
beefsteak
Spec...
instead of bragging about not reading, why don't you read...
PMS==You mean, Perturbed Male Sydrome...
Yeah, that's the way I signed my name to my post, joker.
Not surprised you couldn't see it...
I get PMS when I see your name too, come to think of it, Spec....
Beef, he hadn't replied in this thread till you posted yesterday. I don't know that the first response he posted was even directed at you. What gives? You've been on edge.
-
Re: Police Officers In NC Advised To Divest Property
Quote:
Originally Posted by
osoab
Beef, he hadn't replied in this thread till you posted yesterday. I don't know that the first response he posted was even directed at you. What gives? You've been on edge.
It's probably just the Dooom gettin' to him. lol
It can eat into ones presence of mind if one lets it.
-
Re: Police Officers In NC Advised To Divest Property
Quote:
Originally Posted by
palani
Turners' state is no more sovereign than my own or yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
beefsteak
ticked off BEEFSTEAK
I could be way off on this, but I think Palani was just trying to say that each human being is an independant state, and Turner is no more or no less a "State" than any other human being. (Does that even make sense? WTF and I typing? Haha!)
But my Palanese is pretty sub-standard, so I could be wrong.
-
Re: Police Officers In NC Advised To Divest Property
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Awoke
I could be way off on this, but I think Palani was just trying to say that each human being is an independant state, and Turner is no more or no less a "State" than any other human being. (Does that even make sense? WTF and I typing? Haha!)
Basically correct but I would not use human being. I would refer to the the class called "man".
States and governments are separate entities. Governments represent states but I doubt if human beings can be states. Man has the elements of both state and government in himself yet if he chooses to be irresponsible then he must be governed externally.
-
Re: Police Officers In NC Advised To Divest Property
Quote:
Originally Posted by
palani
Basically correct but I would not use human being. I would refer to the the class called "man".
What about K-os?
-
Re: Police Officers In NC Advised To Divest Property
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Awoke
What about K-os?
...........
Quote:
Genesis 1:27 KJV
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Male and female are the two varieties of man.
Man is both male and female.
I'm a male man (but I'm not postal).
;D
-
Re: Police Officers In NC Advised To Divest Property
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sirgonzo420
...........
Male and female are the two varieties of man.
Man is both male and female.
I'm a male man (but I'm not postal).
;D
'Male'/'female' refers to animals.
With God's creation of the image of Himself it is 'man' and 'wo(mb)man'.
Do NOT refer to me as a 'male'.
-
Re: Police Officers In NC Advised To Divest Property
Quote:
Originally Posted by
midnight rambler
'Male'/'female' refers to animals.
With God's creation of the image of Himself it is 'man' and 'wo(mb)man'.
Do NOT refer to me as a 'male'.
Take it up with King James' translators; I was quoting them. In the original hebrew "man" is "ha adam" (האדם). The essence of man/האדם is both "man" and "woman". That is to say, genderless, like the Creator. In other words, a complete man is actually a couple composed of a man and a woman.
In the context of the KJV of Genesis 1:27, I am a male man. Otherwise I am just a man.
-
Re: Police Officers In NC Advised To Divest Property
If you wish to consider yourself an animal, have at it.
-
Re: Police Officers In NC Advised To Divest Property
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sirgonzo420
Take it up with King James' translators; I was quoting them. In the original hebrew "man" is "ha adam" (האדם). The essence of man/האדם is both "man" and "woman". That is to say, genderless, like the Creator. In other words, a complete man is actually a couple composed of a man and a woman.
In the context of the KJV of Genesis 1:27, I am a male man. Otherwise I am just a man.
So according to what you say, one has nuts and the other is nut-less as in non gender?
