Can I use my Real ID in the UN compound in Utah?

JEEP

The Living Force
Extremely disturbing development:
United Nations Silences Utah Journalist. Declares United Nations compound within Utah and that US Territory is outside and US constitution does not apply.

JEEP JEEP
Search
Post thread


All Utah politicians that invited them, should be tried for treasonous acts against the republic. Since when did the UN (United Nations) take over anything in the United States of America.
Interestingly enough, at this exact time, I am getting black out areas on all my Cass tabs including new opens. This is not happening to other tabs of other websites including Sott. Much too problematic to continue typing more regarding this post. Hope this 'problem' resolves by tomorrow.
 

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Could it be that the UN Compound as diplomatic status? The Diplomatic law - Wikipedia has:
Diplomatic law
is that area of international law that governs permanent and temporary diplomatic missions. A fundamental concept of diplomatic law is that of diplomatic immunity, which derives from state immunity.

Key elements of diplomatic law are the immunity of diplomatic staff, the inviolability of the diplomatic mission and its grounds, and the security of diplomatic correspondence and diplomatic bags. Famous cases involving the breaking of diplomatic laws includes the Iran hostage crisis in 1979, the shooting of a British police woman from the Libyan Embassy in London in 1984, and the discovery of a former Nigerian Minister in a diplomatic crate at Stansted airport[1] in 1984.

It is also an accepted principle of customary international law and is recognised between countries as a matter of practicality. Diplomatic law is often strictly adhered to by states because it works on reciprocity. For example, if a country expels diplomats from another country, then its diplomats would most likely be expelled from the other country.
 

Jones

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
UN operates through international private contracts and model law (see UNIDROIT and UNCITRAL). An individual has an unlimited right to contract - even if the terms and conditions of that contract removes constitutional rights. If you are entering the compound that they have contracted to use for a specific purpose, you are agreeing to their contractual terms and conditions even though they might take away/override your rights.

Best thing to do in that situation is ask for a list of terms and conditions of entering and decide whether you want to give away rights. It's basically like dealing with a business. You have the constitutional right to eat all of the Big Macs you like, but if you go into the Cheesecake shop and jump up and down about them not giving you a Big Mac, then they are just going to turn you away and maybe call security on you.
 

SevenFeathers

Jedi Master
The UN may operate through private contracts, but this meeting was at least partially funded by taxpayer money (650,000 by state legislature and 100,000 by Salt Lake City). I have not been able to verify those numbers, but if taxpayer money is involved, then that makes it a public venue. However, the rules and regulations should be studied for violations. Hopefully, those reporters are investigating this.
 

goyacobol

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
It is also an accepted principle of customary international law and is recognised between countries as a matter of practicality. Diplomatic law is often strictly adhered to by states because it works on reciprocity. For example, if a country expels diplomats from another country, then its diplomats would most likely be expelled from the other country.
@thorbiorn ,

These "laws" are often obeyed at the discretion of the parties involved I think. Take for instance the Venezuela embassy situation just recently.

You have the constitutional right to eat all of the Big Macs you like, but if you go into the Cheesecake shop and jump up and down about them not giving you a Big Mac, then they are just going to turn you away and maybe call security on you.
@Jones ,

That's not a bad analogy but then the Cheesecake shop isn't declaring UN international status while accepting Utah state funds either.
 

Jones

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
The UN may operate through private contracts, but this meeting was at least partially funded by taxpayer money (650,000 by state legislature and 100,000 by Salt Lake City). I have not been able to verify those numbers, but if taxpayer money is involved, then that makes it a public venue. However, the rules and regulations should be studied for violations. Hopefully, those reporters are investigating this.
@thorbiorn ,

These "laws" are often obeyed at the discretion of the parties involved I think. Take for instance the Venezuela embassy situation just recently.



@Jones ,

That's not a bad analogy but then the Cheesecake shop isn't declaring UN international status while accepting Utah state funds either.
It is kind of the same thing - MacDonalds and the Cheesecake shop operate on public funds too. They still get to decide their business model and agreements and can modify those at their discretion.

Theres a maxim - the contract makes the law. So contracts can override Constitutional/Bill of Rights matters. Constitutional/Bill of Rights are public matters. But UN operates through private contract, (generally through treaties or agreements entered into by Executive - Chapter II of the Constitution) - a different jurisdiction to public.

This is how governments are getting around the Constitutional/Bill of Rights matters. The Executive Govt has veto over Congress (or Parliament as is the case in Australia) and the Judiciary when ever there is war. So while there are troops over seas, or domestic war is declared (War on Drugs for example - that's one of the loopholes they exploit!), international private contracts override Constitution/Bill of Rights. During those times, the Executive can decide on a case by case basis to allow Constitutional/Bill of Rights matters to stand at their discretion so long as it doesn't harm the private contract. If they declare war, they can override law.

That's why there is always a war on something or with someone - so business (which are arbitrated or mediated under the terms and conditions of an agreed contract) models can override humanitarian models (which are laid down in case law and judged through precedent and with a jury of peers interpreting constitutional/bill of rights matters).

Here in Australia we've got Scott Morrison who is taking public funds away from humanitarian causes in favour of business causes (as many politicians have done before him), but one of the the first things he did was declare war - his war is a 'war on waste'. On the public face of it, that's not such a bad thing - it doesn't hurt to clean up the environment and find better ways to deal with rubbish, and that's the assumption that has been made about his 'war'. But there's a can of worms there that's not declared when the legal definition of 'waste' is taken into account, though he is playing into our assumption of the meaning of the word. The legal definition of 'waste' is about the uses of trusts, estates and property! So if his govt determines that our trusts, estates and property are being 'wasted', then he can step in under the terms of war and to service international private contracts. That's how he gets around sending large sums overseas while drought affected farmers are committing suicide. He's so smug about it because he's done it all 'legally'.

In any case, my comments are not to defend what UN is doing - more to show how and why they are doing it and how that plays out in their attitude to the rest of us.
 

JEEP

The Living Force
I saved this statement as I came across this legal conundrum often in material I was reading - Mike Rivero posted it:

The Supreme Court ruled in Marbury vs Madison that laws repugnant to the Constitution are automatically null and void. This claim that the Constitution does not apply within 100 miles of a national border (which here in Hawaii means the entire state) is itself null and void.

Wiki:
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws, statutes, and some government actions that violate the Constitution of the United States. Decided in 1803, Marbury remains the single most important decision in American constitutional law.[1] The Court's landmark decision established that the U.S. Constitution is actual "law", not just a statement of political principles and ideals, and helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government.
[...]
Marshall then struck down the law, announcing that American courts have the power to invalidate laws that they find to violate the Constitution.


Since I'm not any kind of lawyer, I don't know if this actually obliterates all the NWO manipulations being imposed in the US under the guise of the UN. Of course, our controllers are masters at promulgating laws/actions that will move their agenda forward unimpeded.

Another factor is the Maritime law aspect or Naval law - as in the gold fringe bordering US flags in courtrooms, etc. A whole 'nother can of worms.
 
Last edited:

goyacobol

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Another factor is the Maritime law aspect or Naval law - as in the gold fringe bordering US flags in courtrooms, etc. A whole 'nother can of worms.
@JEEP ,

The 'gold fringe" on courtroom flags may be not quite so Maritime. The document sometimes cited to support the idea is not that clear. I commented here after reading the document cited as proof of gold fringed flags being Maritime.

That is not to say that Maritime law is not being applied inappropriately but the gold fringe flags may mostly be ceremonial/decorative.

I am sorry for presenting the "Fringe on the Flag" as being acceptance of Admiralty law and a known fact. I have accepted this theory too easily. I now suspect it is disinformation. There is no mention about the gold fringe in the Executive Order 10834 of Aug. 21, 1959. And others have seen it as a bogus claim such as _http://boards.answers.findlaw.com/topic/234623-what-does-the-gold-fringe-on-a-us-flag-mean/.
One source claiming that the gold fringe represented a docket under Maritime law cited the Executive Order 10834 as evidence when it has no mention of the gold fringe flag.
 

Jones

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
Since I'm not any kind of lawyer, I don't know if this actually obliterates all the NWO manipulations being imposed in the US under the guise of the UN. Of course, our controllers are masters at promulgating laws/actions that will move their agenda forward unimpeded.

Another factor is the Maritime law aspect or Naval law - as in the gold fringe bordering US flags in courtrooms, etc. A whole 'nother can of worms.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I've taken a lot of interest in reading law over the past few years. One thing I learned is not to assume the meaning of any word - check it out in a legal dictionary, because what we think the law is saying can be very different to the legal interpretation. For example, the definition of perception from Blacks Law 4th Edition is "Taking into possession. Thus, perception of crops or of profits is reducing them to possession. Used of money, it means the counting out and payment of a debt. Also used for food due to soldiers."!!!!

I don't think it obliterates the NWO manipulations because even despite the Supreme Courts acknowledging that Constitutional Law is the supreme law, people still have trouble getting remedy through it where they try to rely on it. If you think in terms of contracts it makes sense that they don't.

Say for example you buy a house and land. You decide that you want to do something with your land and there's nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights preventing you from doing that so you go ahead with your plans. Next minute, you have a county officer turn up and say, 'hey, you can't do that, it's against [insert the applicable Act that he's quoting] so pull it down now.' So you decide to challenge that and take it to court. In court they look at the Act and award to the county, so now you have to pay the counties court costs too. In that case, they are arbitrating or mediating a contract, not looking at precedent in case law in regards to Constitution or Bill of Rights.

So, the first thing that comes up is 'I didn't agree to any contract'. Well, you did because when you purchased the land you registered the title in your name and you received a certificate of title. Thing is, certificate of title is not a title deed. Back in the day when you bought property you got the deed and that was proof of ownership. The bearer of the deed owned the land described therein. So govt introduces the titles office and instead of you exchanging your money for the property deed, the govt holds on to the deeds and issues a certificate of title or extract. Now the govt holds the deeds - they are the bearers of the deeds - so they own the property and they can make the rules about what you can and can't do with it. You didn't technically gain ownership of the property, you just purchased the use of it and the proof of that is that you pay tax/rates for it (or rent) to the owner (govt). When you then leave the property to someone in your will, it's the right to use the property that is transferred, not the ownership. If you sell it, you sell the right to use the property, not the ownership - the govt hangs on to ownership.

If you think of every single piece of paper or card that you've got from the govt, it's agencies or subsidiaries that has your name and a number on it (licences, permits, registrations, taxes, social security etc) a similar thing has happened with those. You've traded either property or a right/liberty for something from the govt - you've traded ownership for use. And that trade agreement is a private contract that you, or an agent for you, signed or expressed agreement with through actions. Under constitutional law you have unlimited right to enter contracts - even if those contracts take away your Constitution/Bill of Rights. In court that means that the first thing they look at is if there's a contract before they decide whether they allow access to Constitutional/Bill of Rights justice. If there's a contract, then they adjudicate/mediate the case based on the terms and conditions of the contract. If there's no contract, then you are more likely to be able to access Constitution/Bill of Rights judgements but they can only be granted in the Supreme/High Court. If the matter is being heard in local magistrates court with just attorneys and the judge then it's pretty much dealt with as arbitration of a contractual agreement with the fault falling on the one who didn't hold up their end of the terms and conditions.

The 'well, I didn't know' argument often doesn't work in and of itself in court because there are plenty of legal maxims that say something along the lines of 'too bad, not our problem', eg: equity does not assist a volunteer, the contract makes the law, let the purchaser beware etc. And then there's 'everyone has equal access to the law'. Many assume that means that they will be treated fairly in court under Constitution/Bill of Rights, but what it actually means when you look up the legal definition of the term 'access' is that everyone has the right to read the law - access to all current and historical constitutional law, Acts, Statutes, By-laws, local codes, Supreme Court Judgement etc. documents!

The next thing is that if there is a contract involved through a govt agency/subsidiary and your govt has signed up to UNIDROIT/UNCITRAL then the contract is under the jurisdiction of International Private Law. Not the public law of the Constitution/Bill of Rights. Australia signed UNIDROIT/UNCITRAL in the 70's during the Whitlam years. But signing that wasn't enough for him, he also bought in the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973 which basically declares all land that's up to 12 nautical miles (23kms) landward from any waters edge - coast, dams, lakes, rivers, creeks either natural or man made - to be underwater and that created an 'Exclusive Economic Zone' in alignment with UN international law! There were moves towards this goal implemented before the '70's though.

With a few variations, the above pretty much works the same way in any country that's a part of the UN.
 

JEEP

The Living Force
Of course, our controllers are masters at promulgating laws/actions that will move their agenda forward unimpeded.
Thanks Jones for that excellent explanation as to how things really work! Freedom - and all those war deaths fighting for it - is just a devious illusion. I've been reading for years that on some date, the US officially became a corporation and that's why all our legal documents have our names in capital letters.

George W. Bush: 'I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief.' ... 'Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,' ... 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper!'

Truer than I thought.
 

SevenFeathers

Jedi Master
The Constitution was SUPPOSED to be the supreme law of the land, and anything that infringed on the Constitution was void. That has been violated for years. The government doesn't care. Courts don't care. Corporations don't care and for sure, the UN has no concern for our rights. I do understand contract law and always make sure what the terms are before I complain about something, but it has been really discouraging for me. I started out as a young person who wanted to share news about asserting Rights. Then I found out our Rights have been abrogated. I still do what I can to study and live as a free person, as best I can.

In the case of the UN story, it seems that there were numerous reporters around with cameras, but that one person was stopped because she was talking about some of the UN policies which were not so good. If there WAS a rule about not filming inside, it was applied to her due to her negative comments about the UN.
 

SevenFeathers

Jedi Master
I just heard yesterday about a family named Nickerson who was being ejected from the family property in Idaho. This has been fermenting for 10 years and yesterday they were ejected. Not because they did not pay their mortgage, etc. They followed the "rules and regulations", but the problem started when Chase Bank took over their mortgage. They have a website which describes their ordeal: ithappenedtous.com Yesterday, the sheriff called them and asked them to come to his office to discuss the case. He told them, there's no problem, just need to go over some things with you. When they got there, he told them that the property was now surrounded by law officers and they could not go back in. They could not get anything from inside, including a freezer full of food that had recently been filled from their harvest. They were told if they went back they would be shot.

I know that we do not really "own" property. But this family had followed all the "rules". They are asking for the story to be told far and wide to help protect them from harm.
 

Jones

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
I know that we do not really "own" property. But this family had followed all the "rules". They are asking for the story to be told far and wide to help protect them from harm.
Something similar started happening to farmers here back around 2010. It was reading one of their stories and the battles they went through when I started following the research they were sharing a few years back. I think the whole reason the current govt isn't sending farmers any drought relief is because they don't want independent farmers on the land anymore. Perhaps they are trying to open the way for multinationals.

The basic story was that the govt made changes to laws that changed farming practices - in particular if they left a field go fallow for a year they lost the right to crop it in the following year. A bunch of farmers jacked up about that and challenged the new law in various ways and some had their properties taken from them.

In any case, you might find this interesting:

 
Last edited:

SevenFeathers

Jedi Master
Something similar started happening to farmers here back around 2010. It was reading one of their stories and the battles they went through when I started following the research they were sharing a few years back. I think the whole reason the current govt isn't sending farmers any drought relief is because they don't want independent farmers on the land anymore. Perhaps they are trying to open the way for multinationals.

The basic story was that the govt made changes to laws that changed farming practices - in particular if they left a field go fallow for a year they lost the right to crop it in the following year. A bunch of farmers jacked up about that and challenged the new law in various ways and some had their properties taken from them.

In any case, you might find this interesting:


Yes, I saw that story as well. It is happening all over the place. In addition, the government is stealing from people using asset forfeiture laws. They take cash or other property under maritime laws, then the owner has the prove the cash or property is "innocent"!
 

SevenFeathers

Jedi Master
Update on the Nickerson story: Mrs. Nickerson sent her story far and wide with a plea for help. The plea reached the ears of the infamous Bundy family in Nevada. Ammon Bundy did some initial research, then traveled to Idaho, where he had meetings with the Nickerson family about this situation. His video below (about 16 minutes) describes his findings. It appears that Mrs. Nickerson was not completely honest when she sent out her plea for help. I was prone to believe her due my bias against government and banks, as well as experience (personally and with friends) of having property stolen by government. And although the bank did some shady things with the Nickersons, Bundy concludes that the sheriff's actions were legal.

I don't know what Donna Nickerson hoped to accomplish in this case, unless she was being used somehow to discredit people who have legitimate gripes about abuse of rights.

Here's Ammon's report.

 
Top Bottom