Buying gold and silver is now illegal

Silverlicious said:
wow. asylum, you sure you watched the video? do you work for government?
Click to expand...


Never take things at face value :) guess that can work for silver too.

Confirmation bias can get in the way.

And knowledge of history and a few facts in no way suggests I work for any government department.
 
The OPPT sounds all too New World Order-ish and New Age to me. What an ingenious way to control and take all the planet's resources from land, gold & silver to the human. Elitist families & groups have controlled humanity and earth for thousands of years, basically since the beginning. This is not going to change anything. Who are the real beneficiaries of this trust? Isn't the Appointer normally the real power and control in the trust rather than the trustees. There will always be somebody trying to play the role of God.

"No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a LUCIFERIAN Initiation." (David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations)

I don't think this is the answer to our system of enslavement. We will probably always need banks and governments. Just not in the hands and control of a few like 1%.

Keep all your gold and silver!! There is a spiritual reason why they want it all.
 
Not sure how OPPT sounds New World Order or New Age. All they have done is resume an old trust from the original American constitution and file every human being as a beneficiary. It's just like creating a corporate trust, and putting a billion dollars in it and then listing someone as a beneficiary of that billion dollars. There's nothing magic about it. It's just a trust and it's based on law. You can read all the filings yourself. Nothing fake about them. Let me tell you, if it is in fact the real deal, well congratulations all you stackers, because you are now ALL very rich just for being born.
 
Asylum said:
Silverlicious said:
wow. asylum, you sure you watched the video? do you work for government?
Click to expand...


Never take things at face value :) guess that can work for silver too.

Confirmation bias can get in the way.

And knowledge of history and a few facts in no way suggests I work for any government department.
Click to expand...

Mate I've spoken to the guy in the video. He is the real deal. If there's anything you shouldn't take at face value, it's your government. Look at their corporate structure. Why are the registered on the SEC in Washington? Why do they all have ABN's and copyright and trademark. They are all running as businesses. What is the sole purpose of a business? All the guy in the video did was challenge a government department to prove they were in fact a de jure government. And they didn't because they couldn't. And according to the law, if you are accused of something and you don't rebut it, then it is considered you agree with the accusations against you. Therefore, they confessed to being a corporation. if you are a corporation, terms and conditions should apply in any contract or request for money and you can stipulate your own terms and conditions too. He invoiced them because they inadvertently accepted his terms and conditions he put in his notice to them by the actual act of continuing to pursue him for money. They just cannot pursue you for any amount of money they choose they are not de jure government and are therefore imposing as government officials. Imposing as a government official is illegal and punishable by two years imprisonment.
 
Hey brother, There ain't no FREE LUNCH.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the gman makes laws for the peasants so he can remain in power, they don't apply to him. End of story.

You might be right legally, but that won't help you much when they ram down your door at 3 in the morning and put a gun to your head.

Boy Scout, meet Reality.


It pays to be pragmatic about all of it, your time on this planet is limited enough without wasting it with such silly stuff.


Now either the people pushing this mean well and they have ZERO chance of getting anything done before getting crushed like the crockroaches that they are.

OR

This is CONTROLLED OPPOSITION, one of many channels the banksters are using to push Agenda 21.

The fact that this was in the Guardian (communist paper run by the Fabian Society) is a hint that this is probably the later.

Never forget that Marx was on JP Morgan payroll and that Rockfeller financed Lenin. Same shit, different pile...

ps. if you want to give power back to the people, educate them. that means stop sending your kids to school.

Because the way people are right now (dumb as a ton of brick), well let's just say they deserve what's going to happen to them.

9556_carlin2.png
 
Silverlicious said:
And according to the law, if you are accused of something and you don't rebut it, then it is considered you agree with the accusations against you.
Click to expand...

As far as I am aware they only changed that law in NSW and only pertaining to murder, rape and assaulting an officer. It has nothing to do with Government departments.

As for your other points I am well aware of them and which are correct. I wrote a lengthy post on my points and have already answered some things you seem to have re-stated.

I am sure the guy is the real deal as in a real guy that imported a real car and met with some unfounded fees and charges and confusing rules. I've been there too.

But again, the video only states his opinion and contradicts itself and isn't backed up by many facts.

I don't disagree with the facts but there is a lot more to this than what is presented here and on various conspiracy or 'truth' websites.

Out of interest, would you refuse to pay your electricity bill because it is a company and not the government?

When I said don't take things at face value I meant everything, from this video to your government so don't think I am attacking you or the video directly, just opening up the discussion so that it is more than watching a video or a few random statements and yelling 'yeh right on up yours establishment!'
 
Asylum said:
Silverlicious said:
And according to the law, if you are accused of something and you don't rebut it, then it is considered you agree with the accusations against you.
Click to expand...

As far as I am aware they only changed that law in NSW and only pertaining to murder, rape and assaulting an officer. It has nothing to do with Government departments.

As for your other points I am well aware of them and which are correct. I wrote a lengthy post on my points and have already answered some things you seem to have re-stated.

I am sure the guy is the real deal as in a real guy that imported a real car and met with some unfounded fees and charges and confusing rules. I've been there too.

But again, the video only states his opinion and contradicts itself and isn't backed up by many facts.

I don't disagree with the facts but there is a lot more to this than what is presented here and on various conspiracy or 'truth' websites.

Out of interest, would you refuse to pay your electricity bill because it is a company and not the government?

When I said don't take things at face value I meant everything, from this video to your government so don't think I am attacking you or the video directly, just opening up the discussion so that it is more than watching a video or a few random statements and yelling 'yeh right on up yours establishment!'
Click to expand...

All fair points though not sure how it contradicts itself. I thought facts were presented, or at least enough were to give you a foundation in which to conduct further research. Using an example of paying an electricity bill is not a good example because when you sign up to get your electricity connected, you are provided with terms and conditions that you agree to. When government introduces a new penalty for whatever reason and they impose that penalty on us, no terms and conditions are provided. Now if they are a business, as they are, then you as a customer have a right to see and agree to their terms and conditions and consent to being issued the penalty in the first place. Otherwise there is no contract. You are governed only by your consent. That is why Obama constantly bangs on about the importance people giving them their support by consent. He's mentioned it in numerous speeches. Without their consent, the government has no power over them. None. Zilch. Zip. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not anti government or rules, etc.. and we do need an income for infrastructure, etc. But how much of our money is going to overseas shareholders? And how much is going into infrastructure?
 
Was discussing this with someone today.

Basically laws are human constructs - what makes an earlier construct forever impervious and able to override anything subsequent?

"Law" is written by those with the guns, not those who prick their fingers for a drop of blood. OPPT is a fantasy, regardless of the arguments for its validity.
 
goldpelican said:
Was discussing this with someone today.

Basically laws are human constructs - what makes an earlier construct forever impervious and able to override anything subsequent?

"Law" is written by those with the guns, not those who prick their fingers for a drop of blood. OPPT is a fantasy, regardless of the arguments for its validity.
Click to expand...

Good to see your input GP but I'm curious to get a feel for what part of OPPT in your mind is fantasy and why?

Yes, they have guns that we paid for, but who fires the bullets?
 
Silverlicious said:
Asylum said:
Silverlicious said:
And according to the law, if you are accused of something and you don't rebut it, then it is considered you agree with the accusations against you.
Click to expand...

As far as I am aware they only changed that law in NSW and only pertaining to murder, rape and assaulting an officer. It has nothing to do with Government departments.

As for your other points I am well aware of them and which are correct. I wrote a lengthy post on my points and have already answered some things you seem to have re-stated.

I am sure the guy is the real deal as in a real guy that imported a real car and met with some unfounded fees and charges and confusing rules. I've been there too.

But again, the video only states his opinion and contradicts itself and isn't backed up by many facts.

I don't disagree with the facts but there is a lot more to this than what is presented here and on various conspiracy or 'truth' websites.

Out of interest, would you refuse to pay your electricity bill because it is a company and not the government?

When I said don't take things at face value I meant everything, from this video to your government so don't think I am attacking you or the video directly, just opening up the discussion so that it is more than watching a video or a few random statements and yelling 'yeh right on up yours establishment!'
Click to expand...

All fair points though not sure how it contradicts itself. I thought facts were presented, or at least enough were to give you a foundation in which to conduct further research. Using an example of paying an electricity bill is not a good example because when you sign up to get your electricity connected, you are provided with terms and conditions that you agree to. When government introduces a new penalty for whatever reason and they impose that penalty on us, no terms and conditions are provided. Now if they are a business, as they are, then you as a customer have a right to see and agree to their terms and conditions and consent to being issued the penalty in the first place. Otherwise there is no contract. You are governed only by your consent. That is why Obama constantly bangs on about the importance people giving them their support by consent. He's mentioned it in numerous speeches. Without their consent, the government has no power over them. None. Zilch. Zip. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not anti government or rules, etc.. and we do need an income for infrastructure, etc. But how much of our money is going to overseas shareholders? And how much is going into infrastructure?
Click to expand...


I will consent you fair points there but I think this is more a whiskey and cigars kind of thing :)
 
OK so it took me a while to watch but I have to agree to no small extent with Asylum - it is well produced, I'll give him that, but that's about all.

He bangs on and on about the Corporation in the USA - I don't think he could have read any of the SEC lodgments though otherwise he'd see that there are no "shareholders" to whom he believes taxes are being paid, nor is it anything other than a legal construct required under USA laws to enable federal and state governments to trade there (eg capital raising, sale of bonds etc).

His belief that the Parliament of the Commonwealth is somehow not the same as the Parliament of Australia is laughable - the constitution uses 2 interchangeable phrases to describe the parliament and does not prescribe what it can call itself.

All in all an interesting hour but not one that has been able to change my mind.

Thanks for posting though.

And I concur with you gentleman - time for a stiff drink!
 
XB said:
His belief that the Parliament of the Commonwealth is somehow not the same as the Parliament of Australia is laughable - the constitution uses 2 interchangeable phrases to describe the parliament and does not prescribe what it can call itself.
Click to expand...

What he is saying is that under the constitution, if the government wants to change it's name then it has to be recorded and evidence provided of such as change, otherwise it's deemed to be unlawful.

Maybe they are registered on the SEC for trading, maybe not. It sounds logical and maybe that is one reason. One point he raises I think is difficult to answer and that is why all government departments and councils have an ABN. Is that so they can pay GST and then collect it back off themselves? And why do they need to copyright and trademark their names, logos, etc if they weren't operating as businesses? If you are on Centrelink payments you get a "customer number". If you are paying child support, you get a customer number. You are, we are customers to the government. I for one don't see myself as a government customer. I see myself as their employer through the taxes I pay. Watch this next video and then tell me who is controlling who.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFkNDsWEk5Q[/youtube]
 
Silverlicious said:
XB said:
His belief that the Parliament of the Commonwealth is somehow not the same as the Parliament of Australia is laughable - the constitution uses 2 interchangeable phrases to describe the parliament and does not prescribe what it can call itself.
Click to expand...

What he is saying is that under the constitution, if the government wants to change it's name then it has to be recorded and evidence provided of such as change, otherwise it's deemed to be unlawful.
Click to expand...
Ah but there's the rub.... under the constitution there is no "name" given for or to the parliament. He picked, and constantly referred to only one of 2 definition phrases - that is there are 2 phrases within the constitution used to DESCRIBE the parliament and conveniently forgot that the other could also be used. He also ignores the fact that there is no formal name given to the parliament in the constitution that MUST be used by the parliament.

Silverlicious said:
One point he raises I think is difficult to answer and that is why all government departments and councils have an ABN. Is that so they can pay GST and then collect it back off themselves? And why do they need to copyright and trademark their names, logos, etc if they weren't operating as businesses? If you are on Centrelink payments you get a "customer number". If you are paying child support, you get a customer number. You are, we are customers to the government. I for one don't see myself as a government customer. I see myself as their employer through the taxes I pay. Watch this next video and then tell me who is controlling who.
Click to expand...

It's not hard at all. It's recognised that governments and councils conduct business as defined within the GST legislation - they buy goods and services and pay GST on that - just as you or I do. So yea they register for GST and claim that GST back. Why not? It's also recognised by the way that many of their activities are GST-free or exempt and on those activities GST is neither claimed nor paid. But if they buy copy paper, it includes GST so why would they not claim that back, the same as any other business in Aus? Would you prefer them to pay the GST but not offset that and thereby increase the costs of their operation?

As for copyright and trademarks - again, why would they not do this and protect their IP?

Governments run businesses. So what. OK so maybe they should treat us more like employers than customers, that would be great. But until that happens, they treat us as they do, customers. That has no bearing on whether they are valid or not.

I've watched that video btw. Has not told me anything I didn't already know and unlike you I disagree with nearly all of it. It distorts the position to satisfy the end they want to achieve rather than what the position actually is. They either through misunderstanding or deliberate obfuscation choose to adopt a position which is illogical, insupportable by the evidence, and does not accord with the actual wording of the constitution.

But thanks for giving it to me again.

Silverlicious said:
Maybe they are registered on the SEC for trading, maybe not. It sounds logical and maybe that is one reason.
Click to expand...
There is no other reason to do it. If you look at the codes under which it registers, the codes used for what is lodged, and what that relates to under the 1934 SEC laws, and the actual documents lodged, you will see that is actually the case. It's the same for many many countries - search the SEC and you'll find NZ, and Canada amongst many many others.
 
I don't believe the OPPT is fantasy: it's all to do with OCC law.
You agree to the Australian Government's terms and conditions as soon as your parents sign your birth certificate. It all goes back to the straw-man argument.
GST, personal income tax, debt, inflation and etc. is all there to keep you enslaved.
What makes earlier law able to override subsequent law is precedent.
Just like State and Federal State can override each other laws on certain matter... I just made that up Lol
Everybody does see the world differently. I think all of us being here on this forum makes us a little more ahead of the curve than the average people.
I promise you out of a 100 Australian, you will lucky to find one who is able to discuss OPPT, OCC Law, and gold & silver with you. This includes judges and lawyers who know "Law".
 
Vic_Bitter said:
I don't believe the OPPT is fantasy: it's all to do with OCC law.
You agree to the Australian Government's terms and conditions as soon as your parents sign your birth certificate. It all goes back to the straw-man argument.
GST, personal income tax, debt, inflation and etc. is all there to keep you enslaved.
What makes earlier law able to override subsequent law is precedent.
Just like State and Federal State can override each other laws on certain matter... I just made that up Lol
Everybody does see the world differently. I think all of us being here on this forum makes us a little more ahead of the curve than the average people.
I promise you out of a 100 Australian, you will lucky to find one who is able to discuss OPPT, OCC Law, and gold & silver with you. This includes judges and lawyers who know "Law".
Click to expand...

Yeah it looks like the real deal to me when I read through the filings. When you say OCC, are you referring to UCC?
 
Just remember what the word government as I have explained before just in case you still think government is looking out for you.
Govern means to control and ment means mind. Hmmmm. :-)
Get the government to explain why its listed on the stock exchange as a corporation and see how you go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top