comments from XL and paladin

Re: Comment by paladin on March 27, 2011 @ 5:42 am
>My questions regarding the election are sincere and not meant to
>be used in any way to throw back in your face. I’m honestly curious.
If you are honestly curious, I will get you the answers.
>I don’t recall the announcement of a presidential election. At the
>time, I was wondering how anyone could think this would fly with the
>other 99.99999999999999999% of the American populace. Because thats
>about the percentage that didn’t vote in your elections.
This is the part when it gets confusing, and a conversation on this topic will quickly cause people’s eyes to glaze over. First, people do not “vote” under common law, they “elect”, but the end result is pretty much the same. All sovereign residents in America had the right to participate in those elections, but only those that showed up are the ones that did the actual electing. Why didn’t you hear about it? Because you were not following the news that actually did cover it, almost all MSM outlets did not carry it. Also, all persons elected so far are all “interim” positions. Once the Dejure government is established enough to take control back, elections will be held again within six months. This is not unlike the initial Presidents of America, where there were 16 “interim” Presidents prior to Washington.
>So here’s my question….why didn’t you disclose the infiltration when
>you were touting the legitimacy of the Republic when you cited the
>above referenced agencies? That would be disinfo my UP friend.
I cover this topic every single time I do a training session, so it is not something I avoid specifically. However, I do not like to air the dirty laundry out there without putting it all in the correct context first. If someone asks about it, I will respond (I have mentioned it several times here), but I do not like to highlight it, and will not bring it up at random either. The majority of the setbacks in the Republic’s progress have been due to infiltrations and sabotage, I will freely admit that. It is something we have to work around if we want to succeed, because the closer we get to putting them out of power the more aggressive they will become.
>Your refusal…and everyone else’s I know in the Republic…to discuss
>the Tim Turner issue is troubling.
What is the issue? Be specific please. There are a lot of rumours going around, but not much solid information that I have seen. If you have something solid, put it out there. If you’d prefer to not put it out here on public display, send it to me via e-mail.
>Did you not vet him before you “elected” him? If you didn’t, say so,
>correct the problem and move on. You’ll gain more credibility and
>acceptance by admitting a mistake and correcting it than you will by
>trying to cover it up or act as though it doesn’t exist.
I was not part of the Republic when he was elected, so I cannot speak from first-hand experience. I have talked to many people that WERE there though, and every single one of them swear by him. Going by the Constitution, he meets the eligibility requirements, and had almost unanimous support of the electors, so what more is there? Was he investigated prior to his election? I have no idea. But, a large portion of the people there had worked with him for many years prior, so I’m sure they knew what they were getting into. Besides, I don’t think there is anything in the original Constitution and original Bill of Rights says anything about a criminal record disqualifying him(if he even has one), that was added via the fraudulent 14th amendment.
[12:15:05 AM] hutz: Re: Comment by paladin on March 27, 2011 @ 12:23 am
>Now we’re backsliding. Your original response to my long winded
>post was that I was telling lies. I asked you about that and you
>disregarded it. Then in a follow up post, I asked you again if
>you were calling me a liar. Still no response.
Okay, here is your response: I am NOT calling you a liar. I am not calling you one simply because I am still not sure if you are one or not. To consider it lying implies that you know the truth but are not telling it. I am still not sure of that, so will give you the benefit of the doubt.
>Regards the “disinfo playbook”. Could you elaborate on that for
>me and perhaps provide a link to this so called playbook so that
>perhaps the rest of us could read it?
Here ya go:
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=%22disinformation+playbook%22
Take your pick of which one you want to use.
As to the 20+ question you asked with almost no answer… No, I won’t give you an answer, because no matter what I tell you, you will twist it around and claim that is absolute proof of it’s lack of credibility. I have investigated the details myself, and it satified my questioning on it’s lawfullness. If you want the answers to those questions, look up how elections are run under Common Law yourself, just like I did. I am not going to give you my interpretation just so you can pick it apart to prove your point.
Am I guilty of speading dis-information myself? I will freely admit that I have passed on information that is disinformation, so the answer is yes. Then again, anyone who has passed on MSM articles would be guilty of that. Yes, I do pick and choose which questions I will answer, and tend to avoid the ones that are simply trying to draw me into a trap.
Constantly asking questions that you know have no crystal-clear answers is an attempt to discredit, nothing more, nothing less, plain and simple. I, for one, refuse to participate in such attempts. If you continue asking just questions and giving no details yourself, then expect no answers. Conversations are supposed to be two-sided, both sides giving information.
>As to the infiltrations, perhaps you could elaborate on that and
>give reasons why the Feds would infiltrate a peaceful, lawful and
>legal movement that you claim others of their ilk have supported.
As anyone here can testify, there are both good and bad elements of all the agencies around the world. To answer your question on why they would infiltrate instead of just arresting us… The answers are numerous and varying. I cannot speak for their rationality, so anything I say here will be merely speculation at best. Think about this though: If you knew an organization was going to do something that will remove all the power base you had built up for 150 years and render you jobless, wouldn’t you do something about it?
>And I notice you refuse to touch the Tim Turner subject. Of course
>this relates back to the “lawful” elections you claim to have conducted.
You are incorrect, I have covered it, but not to your satisfaction. I will summarize it here again for you.
The Republic is not about Tim Turner, the states are individual Republics. It makes absolutely no difference at the state level if he stays or goes, the states will continue with their plans. That summarizes it, under Common Law the power rests with the people, not the national government, so it isn’t as big of a deal as you are making it out to be. To keep harping on that one point over and over and over again is an attempt to discredit, not a conversation.
But, I know that is not going to satisfy your hunger for an answer that you approve of… So, yes, there has been a LOT of information and rumours about him going around. Some of it has a possibility of being true, but the vast majority of it does not. I have yet to hear anything substantial from you yet on his lack of credibility, so far all I’ve heard is that he was a car salesman and a janitor, and a heck of a lot of innuendos (again with no details). Does a past profession as a car salesman or a janitor make anyone unqualified? Not in my book. Dig up my history (if you haven’t already), you’ll find that at one point I was involved in a multi-level-marketing company and later I did door-to-door vaccuum sales. By your rationalization I am now 100% uncreditable and anything I say should be totally ignored, so ignore me if you want, as I am uncreditable.
Should he stay in office? Maybe, maybe not… This IS being investigated, and the appropriate action will be taken. Will I go into more details? No, because any details I give you will simply tear apart to suit your own goals. I have not met him personally, so I cannot give you anything other than second-hand impressions. Guess what though? Every single person I have talked to that has met him supports him, that says an awful lot right there.
Does any of this mean that the elections were unlawful? Absolutely not. Throw out all the information you consider as “requirements” for that position, and go back to the original consititution as the basis for eligibility. He met the requirements and was elected, it is as simple as that.
[12:15:49 AM] hutz: XL
Now we’re backsliding. Your original response to my long winded post was that I was telling lies. I asked you about that and you disregarded it. Then in a follow up post, I asked you again if you were calling me a liar. Still no response.
Then this:
“Thank you, I was considering ignoring your last post because it was straight out of the dis-information playbook.”
Regards the “disinfo playbook”. Could you elaborate on that for me and perhaps provide a link to this so called playbook so that perhaps the rest of us could read it?
Although I don’t think you would know disinformation if it slapped you in the face, these claims of law enforcement, particularly Fed law enforcement, condoning or giving a clean bill of health to the Republic IS disinformation. A common ploy offered by con men to “legitimize” or give “credibility” to their latest con. Usually when you peel it back and run it down there’s nothing there but hot air. If you can’t provide proof of this claim then why publicize it? THAT is disinformation.
So I’d be interested to speak with these Feds you claim haven given the Republic the AOK. If you can’t provide that, then YOU are the purveyor of disinformation, plain and simple.
And as to the 20+ questions I posed for the “elections”, you’ve provided the same vague, general and nonresponsive answers I always get when I ask questions about the Republic. I provided you an opportunity to display to all how the Republic elections work and function and you took a complete dive, glossing it over with assurances it was done “lawfully”. This sounds like a Timmy Turner response. I give you the floor to elaborate on one of our most basic, fundamental and cherished rights….voting….and you shrug it off as if its no big deal. The standard de facto answer of “Don’t worry about it, its all good”.
As to the infiltrations, perhaps you could elaborate on that and give reasons why the Feds would infiltrate a peaceful, lawful and legal movement that you claim others of their ilk have supported.
And I notice you refuse to touch the Tim Turner subject. Of course this relates back to the “lawful” elections you claim to have conducted.
When you call someone like me a liar, you better be able to back it up with facts and documentation….so far you’ve ignored the issue.
A poor reflection on you and everything you’re trying to accomplish with your Republic.
P—
[12:16:30 AM] hutz: Re: Comment by paladin on March 26, 2011 @ 4:56 am
>Maybe we should just do this. We’ll expose the bad guys…
>and continue to expose them until they’re put in jail.
Thank you, I was considering ignoring your last post because it was straight out of the dis-information playbook. But I’ll see what I can do about getting you some people to talk to, although they might also be hesitant to talk to you because of the extreme skepticism level. I make no promises other than that I will try. We have an awful lot of really good folks in the Republic, despite the few that have made a bad impression on you guys.
>As far as elected positions are concerned, they can be filled
>as openings are created. If you guys can accomplish that without
>violence, in a peaceful manner and according to the letter of the
>laws of the Constitution, we’ll be sitting on the sidelines (or
>shadows) cheering you on.
As for the elections, yes they were held, yes they were recorded, and everything was done lawfully. But, they are a bit different than what we been brought up to expect in the defacto world, they were done in a Constitutional/Common Law manner, so most of the questions you asked are non-applicable. There is a possibility we can merge the two governments, but as long as they stay up and running there will be little of that for now. Eventually, the defacto will go away and it won’t be an issue.
>However, we’ll still be there to expose corruption and bribery and
>blackmail and any other crimes perpetrated on the people. We are not
>concerned who fills the offices, only that they are eligible and that
>they uphold the Constitution. So be very careful who is in your camp.
I expect nothing less, and if someone is corrupt, please expose them, but stay away from rumour mongering. We have had way too much corruption over the last centuries, and it needs to end. That goes for anyone in any elected position, no-one should be above the law.
>I know personally that you’ve been inflitrated in one state and most
>likely in others. This is not the time to be haphazard about
>transparency and credibitlity and integrity.
>Nor is it time to relax standards for morals and ethics.
We are quite aware of the infiltrations, they have happened in several states now and have set back the processes significantly. Procedures have been changed, awareness has been increased, and we are working to counter these efforts as much as possible. I should take that as a good sign though, that they are concerned with the Republic enough to go through that amount of effort to sabotage us.
>And please, be mindful of the Patriot Act. They could make such an
>issue of it that it would set us back 50 years. A resulting police
>state we couldn’t imagine in our worst nightmares.
We are, which is why we are stressing respecting the law (both the original law and corporate law) and maintaining a peaceful status, giving them as little of a reason as possible. This can be accomplished if we do it right, it has already grown enough that there is no stopping it at this point.