What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010:07:02:10:11:43 by Padre Pio.

This is only the good news.

The bad news is to ask Montreal residents are they all still paying off that MOntreal 1976 Olympic Game?

SImilarly, Londoners, don't be too happy.
You all will soon by paying off to IOC Mafia.

its a disgrace that the world media is ignoring the plight of the workers/strikers at the world cup.

You might spot it in the small print of the Guardian

"When we had to suffer the team is a lion because they suffer together." 4 July 2020 at Wolverhampton Wanderers
Arteta on his team's first away victory at a club above them in the Premiership since September 2015 at Leicester.

FIFA is corrupt like the Olympic organisers,supposed to benefit the South African people,yeh right,just puts more money in Blatters and his cronies pockets.
Sort out the Spanish tappers you tw@s

Which is partly the reason that I somehow, for the first time in 24 years have not been able to really get into this World cup.
Its a joke and an uncomfortable one at that. The stadiums are surrounded by shanty towns and poverty and the tv shows are trying in vein to convince me that their pundits "really care" about any of it.

The players involved in this World cup could house a massive proportion of those poor and forgotten people and not even feel it, obviously not in four bedroom houses but they could make a very real difference to the lives of those people and with that amount of money at their disposal, they damn well should.

FIFA is a disgrace and the only question is why the supporters of the game the world over put up with their corrupt dealings and totalitarian stance.
But it will never change when we live in a time when we get told that we "have to pay off the banks contracts" because they decided it did not benefit them to do so and then somehow, someway the bill got passed on to you and your family and everyone said "oh well" and switched back to the game.

These organisations get away with blue murder because we allow it and organisations like FIFA look at that type of apathy and think "well, if they can't even stand up to fight for the prosperity of their own children they will never stand up to us on any football issue" and right now, at this point in time..........................they are right in the vast majority of cases.

The corporations, governments, banks or any fictional corporate entity has no power whatsoever other than the credit/power that we the people give them either directly or indirectly, whether by consent or aquiesense (consent by silence).
We are the monsters now, we give the fictions any substance they claim to have.

Example, if the whole country boycotted NIKE and all other popular sports labels then NIKE would go bust in a month, if everyone decided that parking fines were unlawful and a scam and that nobody in this country would contribute willingly to being f'uked and nobody paid them, it would be unenforceable and would therefore disappear.

If we all write letters (everyone of us) to the government telling them that we do not consent to paying the banks dishonoured contracts and that we refused to be dragged into contracts that we have nothing to do with, then the banks would have been forced to either collapse or pay and thats the only choice you are ever given and whats good for the goose..........

We the people have become the problem because we accept this shi' and by teaching our children to accept them too we are damning them not to repeat our mistakes but to be culpable for them.

The corporate world is a disgrace and an insatiable beast and we are even more disgraceful and dangerous as we allow it to happen.

such a shame.... what is the essence of the wc in SA then??? big shame.

Can We Now Trust The Process 🤔🤷🏿‍♀️ or Should We Still Remain Cautious 🙇🏿‍♀️

Good post Billy, FIFA cream off 2 billion, SA get 4 billion debt

"When we had to suffer the team is a lion because they suffer together." 4 July 2020 at Wolverhampton Wanderers
Arteta on his team's first away victory at a club above them in the Premiership since September 2015 at Leicester.

But Padre, Fifa spends some of those money on footie on ground, training facilities etc in some countries. I don't know what proportions though..

About 2p I think

"When we had to suffer the team is a lion because they suffer together." 4 July 2020 at Wolverhampton Wanderers
Arteta on his team's first away victory at a club above them in the Premiership since September 2015 at Leicester.

Quote:

Billythekid
Which is partly the reason that I somehow, for the first time in 24 years have not been able to really get into this World cup.
Its a joke and an uncomfortable one at that. The stadiums are surrounded by shanty towns and poverty and the tv shows are trying in vein to convince me that their pundits "really care" about any of it.

The players involved in this World cup could house a massive proportion of those poor and forgotten people and not even feel it, obviously not in four bedroom houses but they could make a very real difference to the lives of those people and with that amount of money at their disposal, they damn well should.

FIFA is a disgrace and the only question is why the supporters of the game the world over put up with their corrupt dealings and totalitarian stance.
But it will never change when we live in a time when we get told that we "have to pay off the banks contracts" because they decided it did not benefit them to do so and then somehow, someway the bill got passed on to you and your family and everyone said "oh well" and switched back to the game.

These organisations get away with blue murder because we allow it and organisations like FIFA look at that type of apathy and think "well, if they can't even stand up to fight for the prosperity of their own children they will never stand up to us on any football issue" and right now, at this point in time..........................they are right in the vast majority of cases.

The corporations, governments, banks or any fictional corporate entity has no power whatsoever other than the credit/power that we the people give them either directly or indirectly, whether by consent or aquiesense (consent by silence).
We are the monsters now, we give the fictions any substance they claim to have.

Example, if the whole country boycotted NIKE and all other popular sports labels then NIKE would go bust in a month, if everyone decided that parking fines were unlawful and a scam and that nobody in this country would contribute willingly to being f'uked and nobody paid them, it would be unenforceable and would therefore disappear.

If we all write letters (everyone of us) to the government telling them that we do not consent to paying the banks dishonoured contracts and that we refused to be dragged into contracts that we have nothing to do with, then the banks would have been forced to either collapse or pay and thats the only choice you are ever given and whats good for the goose..........

We the people have become the problem because we accept this shi' and by teaching our children to accept them too we are damning them not to repeat our mistakes but to be culpable for them.

The corporate world is a disgrace and an insatiable beast and we are even more disgraceful and dangerous as we allow it to happen.

Spot on Billy, as usual when speaking on this kind of thing, as usual, its the culture of the 'agency' that allows the main players to distance themselves from the stench of exploitation. Every major business subcontracts its recruitment, often to businesses who subcontract it again, and again, hence by the time any enquiry can take place the initial cause of peoples misery has been long forgotten. Most significant example in the UK is the rail maintenance industry, and remember, the resulting negligence has caused actual deaths in this case, and many others.

But the usual question arises, we know it stinks, but we are compromised by our existance within the machine, our reliance in its by products, and very often on our employment within it, dissenters are dismissed as 'trouble makers' or in extreme cases 'terrorists' and the machine rolls on.

Short of full scale revolution, we shall have to wait until the machine collapses from within.

Thanks Padre and agreed celine, the machine will collapse within and my post pointed out how, if only superficially.
Follow me now, the government itself is a fiction, the rules it creates for itself are fictional also, as in they are not real in sense of substance i.e an apple is real, you can touch it, eat it etc as they exist only as perspectives, thoughts, ideas and ideals concocted in the minds of people, flawed and corrupt, other people.

Now those perspectives are only made real when you or I agree with them because it makes sense to you or comply with them, but those ideas, ideals and perspectives only have the force of law when you consent based upon logic and of your own free will without duress or coercion.
And "coercion" means threat of sanction or threat of force.

Why is it that you would not allow any private standing man to come to your house and tell you what to eat, what to wear, how to talk, who to be, how to discipline your children, but most accept those things every day from the "public officers" who the private man knows does not have his best interest at heart.
And "officers" means MP's, members of The law society et al.

Example: You move into a property somewhere in London and I send you a bill claiming 100 GBP per month from you to me as I sometimes clean a road quite near to you, now imagine you cannot dispute this claim without becoming liable to an action via the act of disputing the said claim ( drum roll ) and I give you ............................................council tax.

Then you research this so called "council tax" and discover online that every single last local council in this country are privately owned corporations operating om the international markets for a profit, with shareholders who get paid dividends from the profit.

Then you discover that the cash you are paying them is being invested in high risk financial bundles and negotiable instruments ( Icelandic bank ) and when it goes well your contribution into those instruments and the profits made on them are swallowed up by those shareholders and no one even knows that it ever happened, when it goes t'ts up they raise the council tax.

To sum up, they are charging you, investing that cash, paying the dividends and then paying the comparative pittance for your so called "services" from whats left over............someones getting "served" proper, more aptly in line with Merls post "serfed".

But the power is always with the people as it requires our and more appropriately "your" consent based on a decision arrived at by you without duress or coercion which is to operate outside of "the rule of law" as all offices and officers are bound under the rule of law itself, no one exists above it.
So if I deprive someone of life, freedom or property in substance then I'm in trouble, but if I have not then they cannot enforce an idea or perspective upon me without contradicting the rule of law itself, which is why a "statute" has been defined in law as : A legislative rule of society given the force of law by consent of the governed.

Does that rule make sense ? If no, then am I obliged to accept an idea that makes no sense to me ?! Obviously not and here in lay my point: When the fiction which the people created to serve us stop serving us and start attempting to control us under the guise of "the public interest" the people stop listening as we are all private entities, we stop giving these ideas credit and at this point the collapse has started down a road from which it cannot return.

We are on that road.

We defeated the poll tax collectively. I refused to pay and was taken to court, some people were imprisoned, I was lucky they never got round to me. That individual protest was important, but so was the collective organisation.

We had local groups that helped people defend against the baliffs. We had local demos and we encouraged millions to default.

People were convinced that Poll Tx was morally wrong and many that refused to pay could afford to pay but were supporting the poor. Finally a massive demo and riot finished it off. So you are right Billy if people do not believe in a law it can be defeated. But it needs collective organisation to achieve that.

"When we had to suffer the team is a lion because they suffer together." 4 July 2020 at Wolverhampton Wanderers
Arteta on his team's first away victory at a club above them in the Premiership since September 2015 at Leicester.

and I will be very impressed, incidentally, if anyone can remember the Arsenal game the score and the scorer that was on the same day as the poll tax riot.

I was at the riot - it was probably the best result that day

"When we had to suffer the team is a lion because they suffer together." 4 July 2020 at Wolverhampton Wanderers
Arteta on his team's first away victory at a club above them in the Premiership since September 2015 at Leicester.

I was at the riot too padre because was trying to get to charing cross after arsenal v everton, one nil to
arsenal from alan smiths deft chip from a groves run and pass. In the end we went to Waterloo instead and got chased half way round the south bank by millwall fans. I was so scared I was sick. I great day.

The same thing is happening with "council tax" Padre, the only difference is that this time there is no mainstream media coverage of it because we are not doing it by rioting, we are going into their corrupt admiralty courts, sending affidavits denying jurisdiction to the MOJ (privately owned corporation also) and the privately owned courts which operate underneath them.

One of the many things we have discovered is that the councils are renting out these Admiralty courts.
Now both of these institutions are privately owned and they collude in order to use the guise of authority (which is also fictional, common law is an authority not those operating it) to scare you into submission.

The council pays the court, who charge you under summary judgment to pay the council. Problem is that according to the "Interpretation act 1972" summary judgment can apply only to a "body corporate" or a fictional entity i.e a corporation as defined in the Oxford legal dictionary 5th edition 2003.

The mistake that the people make is that if you answer to the fictional name which was registered to them (MR WHOEVER U ARE) then you are granting these corporations jurisdiction over you because you just admitted to being a "body corporate" a fictional entity/corporation registered and therefore created by the state.

What they are attempting to do is to convince you through media influence and the corrupt operation of the law, that you do not exist as a free entity, that you are not a living entity, but instead that you are a fiction which they own via the process of registration.

That is the reason that the media refer to us as "persons" as a "person" is a legal fiction and the term legal fiction is also defined by the Oxford legal dictionary as : Something which is assumed to be true, irrespective of whether it is actually true or not.

The common law of this country, which we call the law of the land has been swallowed up by the waters of admiralty law, but the world is not without its Noah's.
The common law exists in contracts made between you and I as men or women, but when you use the fictional debtor name (MR WHOEVER U ARE) on a contract then that is a public contract because they created that entity via a legal fiction and now the contract is in the public or "civil" jurisdiction and the common law cannot be applied to it.

This means that there is no evidence necessarily required as you have moved from your common law standing which protects your rights, into the jurisdiction of tyranny where you are a government employee or crew member who has been accused by an officer of the ship called the law society.
This means that you are already guilty as you have been accused by an officer of the court and officers of the court (lawyers, barristers, cops ) cannot tell a lie as they are gentlemen.

So when the court says "are you MR WHOEVER U ARE and you reply yes" ?! Then you are f'uked, why ?!

Because are now appearing as the national insurance card name and that name was created to serve its the debtor in a trust, but it was supposed to serve you, the man on the private side of the trust, a trust which had to be created the second that substance was removed from the money (1694) and money became fiat currency, substance was removed and then by definition all contracts were incomplete and so a trust had to rush in to fill the void to complete the contract.

When substance was removed from the money and it became fiat currency England became bankrupt and the bank of England (a privately owned corp, of which no one is allowed to know the identities of its shareholders) started issuing fiat currency notes to the government with interest attached to every note.
So now the money became a promise to pay the bearer or an IOU, it became an instrument of debt.

Any country with a central bank is operating under bankruptcy and the more money these central banks print the less chance there is of ever repaying the debt. Indeed it is impossible to repay the debt as every instrument is printed and loaned to the government with interest attached so there will never be enough of this currency in the public to ever achieve this impossible task.
The banks would have to print what we owed, lend it back to us and with the nature of the currency there would be interest on that loan to find and back again we go to the merry go round.

It is impossible to pay one debt with another debt and this is where it gets complicated.
You are the beneficiary of the trust which was created via the registration of what the state calls a birth, the birth certificate and foreign situs trust which is on the private side which represents all of the "assets" (potential energy via your labour past, present and futue) the cestui que trust is the national insurance trust drawn against the foreign situs trust and represents all the "liability".

When you put an unreserved signature on a bill, promissory note, negotiable instrument, contract (all of these instruments are considered inasmuch as cash) then you are signing from the liability side of the account and not the assets, you are signing as the national insurance policy, as the debtor and not as the beneficiary of the initial foreign situs trust.

You see "cash" as in all of the instruments I named above, requires credit, its not the credit itself, and the credit is YOU.
Its us who give the fiat currency (cash) the credit, the credit is your agreement that this note is valuable.
It was Lord Denning an esteemed judge who stated that "It is trite in law that a negotiable instrument is to be accepted inasmuch as cash".

A bill is a negotiable instrument, therefore it is cash. They need you to agree to give their instrument value and so they want you to endorse it with your signature, but sign as the cestui que trust name and you sign as a debtor without assets or the insurance policy drawn up against the initial foreign situs trust.
Answer to that name and you are answering as an insurance policy or the "debtor".

The truth is far stranger than the fiction.

The previous post should not be considered to be, misconstrued as, or interpreted as legal advise in any way.
It is an opinion based upon a three year study, if you want legal advise then seek a lawyer.