A Conversation with Freeman Burt, Dr. Tom, and John – “Corporate Abortion” – #179

Share

GM_179

This episode is a conversation with Freeman Burt, Dr. Tom, and John K. titled “Corporate Abortion” and is being released on Monday, October 7, 2013. This conversation was recorded Thursday, October 03, 2013.

IMPORTANT POINTS ABOUT WHAT A CITIZEN is 1 WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION 2

1. A corporation has no standing in a court against one of the people due to the 3 following undeniable facts: 4
A. All corporations are property. 5
a. A corporation is property and therefore cannot be a Citizen within the meaning of the 6 Constitution as explained in detail within the opinions of the United States Supreme 7 Justices in the case U.S. Supreme Court-Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 19 How. 393 8 393 (1856). 9
b. People have no standing in any forum/court against property . 10
c. People cannot be coerced to stand in any court against property or be coerced to 11 prosecute property in court. 12
d. People cannot be coerced to stand in any forum/court on the same level as property. 13
e. A corporation cannot submit a testimony and cannot be questioned. 14
f. A corporation does not meet the limitations of 15 Article III Section 2 of the Constitution for the United States due to the 16 undeniable fact that a corporation is property which cannot stand in any court as a 17 Citizen of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution for the United 18 States of America. 19
g. A corporation does not meet the limitations of 20 AMENDMENT XIV Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868. 21 It is an undeniable fact that a corporation is neither born nor naturalized in the United 22 States unless being born means being created on paper by men and such meaning is 23 embraced by the courts. 24 It is an undeniable fact that corporations are not freed slaves upon which the 25 citizenship created by the 14th Amendment can be vested on unless the courts are now 26 accepting corporations as freed slaves. 27
h. It is an undeniable fact that the meaning of a Citizen within the meaning of the 28 Constitution can only be changed by Amending the Constitution and if this was done, 29 the United States of America would cease to exist.

Donations. This episode is brought to you by:

Jenaya
Tad
Paul
Max
Luis
Oscar
Michael
Steven
David
Eric
Thomas
John
Joseph
M&A
Crystal
Aaron
Ivo

Burt’s Website: www.onlyfreemen.com
Dr. Tom’s website: http://www.boundaries-for-effective-ministry.org/

And regarding Sheriff Paul Schrader, please see last week’s episode: http://www.gnosticmedia.com/interview-paul-d-schrader-san-bernardino-countys-sheriff-exile-178/

Regarding the sheriff as the supreme law of the land, see episode #168: http://www.gnosticmedia.com/an-interview-with-freeman-burt-why-your-sheriff-is-the-supreme-law-of-the-land-and-your-baby-is-an-adult-under-the-law-168/

Regarding Highwaymen, please see episode #172: The Highwaymen

  11 comments for “A Conversation with Freeman Burt, Dr. Tom, and John – “Corporate Abortion” – #179

  1. steve sharp
    October 12, 2013 at 8:08 am

    Pleased at what you are researching into. It would seem that a system founded on doublespeak/doubletalk will always serve its purpose – to be able to lie/deceive and get away with it. Having a separate meaning of words in the same language for “legal” talk is the root problem in my opinion. A legal dictionary is needed but who is inputting its content revision after revision. But then -the conscious level of those effected are? IE as ones consciousness expands – they see the governing mechanisms and personally how to circumvent. It would be quite a temptation not to play the same game if one was on or moved to the other side of the fence so to speak. Just a fleeting thought :)

  2. John Cokos
    October 12, 2013 at 8:35 am

    I wasn’t going to bother with a comment on this, but it’s a subject that I’m actively involved in. When I listen to all these Freemanesque rant’s about the mythical legal concept’s, I recall a incident where i came across 25 hours of Tony Robbins tapes. After 25 hours and and listening to Freeman Burt,(and not for the first time) I pondered: JUST what the hell are you talking about ?

    The Internet is full of these fanciful legal theories, and no statistics that any of this crap works. Show me ALL the Court cases that were decided for your “client”, or any client that involves anything more serious than throw away speeding tickets. If you are naive to not question any of this, you will be well on your way to contempt of court and the Court such as it is will steam right you.

    END OF RANT…..

  3. C K
    October 12, 2013 at 5:44 pm

    I semi-agree with the previous poster. The evil bastard corrupt judges are holding back any progress with these things. I am suing an ATF agent for stealing my weapons at this time, and all the statutory law is on my side, and I have had a motion for default and motion for summary judgment on the record for over a year, and the judge has refused to rule. Meanwhile, the judge has me stalked and harrassed by the police, and has got federal agencies to come after me, while allowing the ATF agents, who is guilty of several felonies at least, to leave the country for New Zealand. This is all in addition to allowing the ATF attorney violate just about every rule in the rules of court over my objections, while libeling me on the record to the extreme and refusing to strike such filings. That is what happens when you are “in the right” with the “law on your side”. Notice how judicial corruption is NEVER IN THE MEDIA, NEVER INVESTIGATED. I will file a complain with the Judicial Conduct Commission, but what the fuck will that accomplish? The commission is 3 Judges, 3 Attorneys, and 3 Policemen. There will be no progress against tyranny and corruption until black robes are swinging from lamp posts.

  4. C K
    October 12, 2013 at 6:13 pm

    The guests are insightful and interesting, but in practical terms, these shows are amatuer hour. I have been waiting 2 decades for Americans to quit being pussies, but the only thing that has evolved out of it is “Just don’t be violent, violence is what they want!” Creed of the sissy in the home of the slave. If you think violence doesn’t solve problems, find the “logical fallacy” in the government’s use of it.

  5. C K
    October 12, 2013 at 7:13 pm

    So long as people value life over liberty, they will be denied both.

  6. C K
    October 12, 2013 at 8:53 pm

    Just came back to posit my last comment as the primary role of “religion” – to place life above liberty as a human value, when the reverse is the more intelligent and practical priority.

  7. Jeremy K
    October 13, 2013 at 5:59 pm

    What a convoluted skein of ridiculum the artificial legal world is. I understand that it is as veritable and applicable as the rules of tennis, as far as mans magic made up law goes. But the essence is (and it really is the only aspect that counts) is that ‘they’, do have the PHYSICAL FORCE and CAPACITY to affect the outcome regardless of whatever edict or statute they are supposed to uphold. These are not honest entities I assure you, not in the slightest. I appreciate that Burt has had experience with these types, but I cannot help but detect the sense that they (courts) really do have the physical upper hand, in that even if you ARE CORRECT AND RIGHT, they will still have their way. I mean, why would they have to play the game by the rules they make up?!

    They have the physical outcome to their favour regardless of he ballsy little pleb that wants to take them on! A while back we were stood in the forest, with foxe’s tail strapped to our waist, and hunted down by the aristocracy for a passtime, on sabred horseback for daring to challenge their godly [sic] power!

    How can you possibly get the claim money from the courts when their footmen (police) violate your rights as a free human, if there is no physical force to hold them to ransom that they will acquiesce to? They have the SWAT, military and the police to come and kick down your door if you do not pay up, but what do we all have when they start playing up?

    Towards the end of the session it is mentioned that if they have this you need a bigger that, and that is exactly the core of the matter regarding this scam legislative system. All the legislation and acts and bla bla is secondary to the physical might they have. Not just that, but that is how they got to their position in the first place. First comes the edge of the sword then the edge of the paper.

    The whole game is set up so that WE LOSE always, and the incomprehensibly complicated lawspeak is so they sound and appear all important. We are always at their mercy to have the physical disadvantage. The most important thing IS the physical advantage, after that, everything else is meaningless! It is like holding up a bank with your index finger! Who would give you the money with any amount of slick monologue and wordsmithery… no one! Take a shotgun in there, and the reaction will be very different surely (I’m speaking from vicarious experience here!)

    My point is that the only true way out of this mess forced upon us only comes down to the physical power we can acquire, and THAT is the real substance of the matter. No contract or scroll or constitution. It is the physical capacity to affect the outcome: no cards, no play in the game! The only thing that gives this legislative coagulation of Saturnalian child molesters any authority is not their word or their costumes or their elitist babble and bullshit: but that some foot soldiers are willing to do their dirty work and physically implement their will because they are: ‘just doing their job’. The capacity to have the physical outcome in your favour is the core aspect of this war over power management of the plebs.

    I recall Burt in a previous session make the comment that the whole system is to (paraphrasing) leech real wealth in exchange for illusory tokens and debt (eternal slavery). I could not agree more, and this is exactly it’s purpose.

    Take away the administrative and legislative garbage, and our people with knowledge, courage and sword’s edge will soon see the end of the pallid wigged magi. Regardless of whatever drivel they would pen on some scrap of paper. Language was invented to deceive.

    On that note, it is said that the pen, is mightier than the sword…. but, the one who stated that, obviously never brought a pen to a swordfight….

  8. David Silverstein
    October 20, 2013 at 6:05 pm

    I was not able to listen to this whole podcast, because it was just too strange, a rambling rumination on matters not understood by the ramblers. A first year law student or a smart high school student could have demystified this stuff in short order. A corporation is not only a piece of property like a chair. That is one aspect of it only. It is a being or entity that exists under the laws of the various states. It is often referred to as an “artificial person” because it has some of the legal attributes of a person. It can do business. It can sue and be sued. Its purpose is to make business investment safer for people, so theoretically the economy will work better. Basically, if I own a company outright and it goes broke,creditors can come after everything I own. But if I am a corporate officer or shareholder and not abusing the corporate form, the creditors can only come after the corporation, the artificial person doing business. A corporation does not speak in court through its lawyers. It gives evidence by the testimony of the corporate officers. And as far as standing goes, it doesn’t have to be citizen to be recognized by a court. It is enough to be an artificial person. Under various circumstances foreign nationals have standing to. This is not mysterious. It is just the legal system. And one more thing. I don’t understand why the Articles of Confederation were brought up here. They were superseded by the Constitution and they have no force or effect whatever.

    • el
      October 21, 2013 at 3:52 pm

      David i agree with you that the presentation is just coming up to speed on to basic understandings of private property and what it ISNT as apposed to what its not, but the rub is this. Men create. Men create things. do men create other “men”? NO….they create “fictions”, or “companies” or “corporate persons”. you savvy?

      so it follows that in business created by men, in with there will be known inconsistencies, will need Laws, or a “constitution” to operate by, as the cornerstone of business is the right to control said property……it makes sense that there is a separation between the natural creator of said fiction, and the fiction itself. THerefore making the creation of corporate personhood a good thing.

      May i ask if you are clear on legal meanings like “person” “corporation” “private property” ? all you are describing in your understanding is the dysfunctional status quo, and it sounds like you have made some assumptions on legal meanings that make it hard to sus out the inconsistencies leading to your frustration.

      • David Silverstein
        October 29, 2013 at 10:32 pm

        I don’t understand the distinction between what a thing isn’t and what it is not. I do understand and agree with you that men do not create other men (other than in the biological sense). They create fictions, as you say. And corporate personhood is sort of a mixed blessing. Unfortunately the supreme court recently muddied the distinction between natural people and fictitious people by ruling that corporations posessed free speech rights something like people. That is a bad thing, because corporations are not real people.

        I am relatively clear on meanings of the terms you mention. I’m a lawyer, an environmental lawyer, but I did go to law school. First year of law school was very good for demystifying the legal and political world and the nature of property. It was the best civics class ever. I felt like I finally had a handle on the structure of the human made world after that year. I remember thinking that in an ideal world everyone would take that one year.

Leave a Reply