Reader LB: "'STRAWMEN' in the military?"
Hi Hobie, you up to this one?
The first link above
offers a free e-book by Mary Croft which describes a corporate entity
operating under maritime law and doing business as the United States
dealing with fictional characters called ?strawmen?. The second link
leads to further descriptions and articles with commercial offers for
means to take control of one?s own fictional ?other?. Without a review
of these articles, the rationale for what follows has no significance.
While the claims set
forth in the above references are initially outlandish, I will mention
that it took nearly 70 years for me to become aware of the fact the the
federal reserve is a privately owned corporation. And, seeing how it is
intertwined with the so called US Govt, it follows there is a great
deal of collusion with congress. Furthermore, until I took the time to
review some of the more professional articles and opinions concerning
9-ll and the Oklahoma bombing, I would not have believed that
representatives of the US could or would resort to such tactics to gain
an advantage based upon fear. But it is all too apparent that it is a
fait accompli, as they sometimes say.
So, given what I have
learned recently, I do not dismiss out of hand the claims set forth
concerning a corporate structure for the US, and that brings up a lot
of questions. I will ask only two or three and base them on the
presumption that a corporate entity is in charge of this republic. The
questions deal with the men in the military.
OK, given that names in
capital letters refer to 'strawmen', who or what took, or is bound by
the oath of enlistment? There is an absolute need for the military to
have jurisdiction over its members. I suppose there is by some means a
transfer of jurisdiction from commercial law to the UCMJ by the process
of enlistment? That is a question.
If the president is
installed as the head of a corporation, by what authority does he
command the military? Who are those that are 'duly appointed' and by
Since it looks as though
only 'strawmen' are in the military, what is to prevent the actual
person from leaving his post without prejudice?
Of course, this is a
really big bucket of worms if true, but I?m not ruling out anything for
now. I would like to see this issue raised into awareness by a wider
group of persons with the knowledge and brainpower to produce a
reasonable discussion about this issue, hopefully leading to a
solution. Provided, of course, that it even requires a discussion
and/or solution. But, one way or the other,it really does need to be
resolved. Don't expect much from your 'duly elected politicians'.
Sooner, rather than later is to be desired considering the impending
implosion of the 'fed' and the actual control of the military by
person(s) yet to be identified - for certain. I really do hate to think
that a small group of 'bankers' might be controlling the military force
of this nation. The first solution that comes to mind in such an
instance follows the notion of: what if 'they' had a war and nobody
showed up to fight?
(hobie here. :) Thanks,
LB. :) I'm acquainted with Mary Croft's book. I think we've at least
made reference to it here a time or two in the past. A search of the
Archive should turn up those posts.
It's _said_ that
induction into the military requires at least a sign that you're being
inducted voluntarily. It's said that this happens at the moment at the
induction center when you're asked to "take one step forward", crossing
a line that's on the floor. Choose not to cross that line and you
cannot be inducted, so it's said.
One source in particular,
Team Law, says the "strawman" idea is false and misleading. Rather,
they say, one begins a relationship with the Social Security
Administration when one voluntarily does so by requesting a "Social
Security Number". According to Team Law, the SSA complies by creating a
Trust (identified by the SSN) with regard to which you are _not_ the
Beneficiary but are responsible for the "Trustee" role (which is also a
It's necessary that you
(a living man or woman) "supply capacity and consciousness" for the
Trustee role, which has no life, no capacity or consciousness, except
as supplied by you.
So the core question
becomes, "Who are you?" in any given moment and any given relationship
and any given scenario. Are you the sovereign man or woman? Or are you
there in that situation specifically serving to give capacity to the
Who is it that asks for,
applies for, a "driver's license"? Not the living man or woman - they
require no license in order to travel. So, by the act of applying for a
license, you provide a basis for the legal presumption that you are
there in the Trustee capacity - and as the living man or woman, you
have a responsibility to fulfill the Trustee role in that relationship.
In other words, asking for a license means you (really the Trustee) are
agreeing to abide by all the statutes and regulations that go along
You see the distinction?
There's no "strawman" around, and they haven't replaced you with
anything. Rather, you _asked_ for a relationship with the SSA, and this
is the result of doing so. They create a Trust with a Trustee role, and
you're contractually bound to appropriately fulfill the role wherever
applicable. (But you're still a sovereign man or woman. Who else could
fulfill that role?)
I don't quite understand
how it works, but I'm told the one elected to the office of Corp US
President is _also_ Commander in Chief over the military - which is one
reason the military has continued to go along, even if some in the
military might know the facts as I've just stated them.
What prevents the soldier
from leaving his post? Honor. Training. A contractual obligation. Plus
lots of fellows with guns who may or may not know what's going on. :)
More worth reading (especially see the History and Historical Outline links in the left column) here:
Found at: http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=157597