This show posted CF by Mami should mean that he got to listen closely. Good! This one was right up his alley.
Judging from the lack of comments though, it seems many who may have listened this one are still reeling, if it wasn't over their pointed little heads entirely.
Deanna's Zion Crime Factory links on her newspage all go directly to Prostink's stolen site where he's been posting his own stuff and pretending it's from ZCF and also old ZCF articles mixed in as if they were written yesterday. These links are all giving extra website traffic to a swindling thief and backstabber. They all should be corrected by her webmaster and redirected to a ZCF mirror site not associated with Delaney.
This guy is a jew. The Bible is the source of Common Law? As long as we give these guys authority over us we remanin under jewisn control. Dienna please listen to who you are hosting they infiltrate everything. As soon as they bring anything jewish into the equation you have to realize that they are coming from a jewish source. You already let Rodney do that to you without realizing he was promoting the biggest source of jewish control which is the bible. We do not need the jewish book of law.
No logical, succinct statement up front of what the guest is about and Deanna didn't ask for one. Instead she gets ambushed just before the show with a pdf on withdrawing from social security.
It just burbled along till about 16.50 before guest really started getting to his point viz the Constitution has effect differently from what its plain words apper to suggest. Elaborating this, around 20.16 he said the Courts are corporations and agencies for Dept of Defense and have jurisdiction by seeing the indivual as a member of a U.S. militia; Social Security number makes you an employee of 'United States' and puts you under military law which doesn't confer trial by jury etc.
He claimed the judges in certain cases have sometimes stated 'the Constitution doesn't apply here' - but no case names or sources to illustrate. In what context?
As noted above, at 28.35 he cites the Bible as a very basic source of common law.
At 52m he said all private corporations are creations of the State and agents of the State. The former sounds true, the latter is completely unproven and Spingola didn't prompt him to elaborate on why he said that.
1.15.20 regarding redemption - guest says he has found no evidence of trust regarding birth certif / collateral for Federal Reserve notes.
Overall some marginally negative throwaways by both on Dean Clifford, David Miller.
Some of this stuff reminds of the discussions about the Organic acts notably of 1871 e.g.
Jerry from Arkansas after initial crits concludes by saying guest is basically on-track and quotes cases: 57m Helvering vs Davies (sp.?) 1937 Fleming vs Nestor (sp.?) 1960
Cases stated to have decided no actuarial connection between Social Security contributions and no concept of accrued property rights, so nothing to sue for. Contributions are just a special income tax.
Caller asserts you can revoke Social Security registration as a contract - but why is it a contract if as he said contributions have been held by SupCt to be a tax? You don't 'contract' with Government to pay taxes do you???
1.18.24 caller refers to 'personams', masks. He means persona, pl. personae. Personam is accusative singular and usually found as 'in personam' against the body/individual. Caller doesn't know this basic point of spelling this common term but claims he has valuable on-topic information.
Caller gives at 1.20.00 a reference obtained by following links at sirdavidandrew.com -- victor JACOBS page... blah blah bah
Caller quotes at 1.25.15 Dan Meador book "Institutional Lies: Tyranny". I find only this, assumed the same:
I was going to call this loon-spooning and goofery but being more realistic it just sounds like Spingola is fatigued. I think she should consider moving to a less hectic schedule if she doesn't want her good earlier work to be overshadowed by weak shows on increasingly la-la subjects where she's either not prepared or unwilling to corral the guest. She sounded a lot perkier as a guest on Ric Adams' RBN shows in 2008 or earlier. Her range of guests and subjects is too broad now for her to handle.
4 comments:
This show posted CF by Mami should mean that he got to listen closely. Good! This one was right up his alley.
Judging from the lack of comments though, it seems many who may have listened this one are still reeling, if it wasn't over their pointed little heads entirely.
Thanks Mami! This was a great show!
Deanna's Zion Crime Factory links on her newspage all go directly to Prostink's stolen site where he's been posting his own stuff and pretending it's from ZCF and also old ZCF articles mixed in as if they were written yesterday. These links are all giving extra website traffic to a swindling thief and backstabber. They all should be corrected by her webmaster and redirected to a ZCF mirror site not associated with Delaney.
This guy is a jew. The Bible is the source of Common Law? As long as we give these guys authority over us we remanin under jewisn control. Dienna please listen to who you are hosting they infiltrate everything. As soon as they bring anything jewish into the equation you have to realize that they are coming from a jewish source. You already let Rodney do that to you without realizing he was promoting the biggest source of jewish control which is the bible. We do not need the jewish book of law.
An unsatisfactory show.
No logical, succinct statement up front of what the guest is about and Deanna didn't ask for one. Instead she gets ambushed just before the show with a pdf on withdrawing from social security.
It just burbled along till about 16.50 before guest really started getting to his point viz the Constitution has effect differently from what its plain words apper to suggest. Elaborating this, around 20.16 he said the Courts are corporations and agencies for Dept of Defense and have jurisdiction by seeing the indivual as a member of a U.S. militia; Social Security number makes you an employee of 'United States' and puts you under military law which doesn't confer trial by jury etc.
He claimed the judges in certain cases have sometimes stated 'the Constitution doesn't apply here' - but no case names or sources to illustrate. In what context?
As noted above, at 28.35 he cites the Bible as a very basic source of common law.
At 52m he said all private corporations are creations of the State and agents of the State. The former sounds true, the latter is completely unproven and Spingola didn't prompt him to elaborate on why he said that.
1.15.20 regarding redemption - guest says he has found no evidence of trust regarding birth certif / collateral for Federal Reserve notes.
Overall some marginally negative throwaways by both on Dean Clifford, David Miller.
Some of this stuff reminds of the discussions about the Organic acts notably of 1871 e.g.
US is a Corporation, so some say
Callers:
Jerry from Arkansas after initial crits concludes by saying guest is basically on-track and quotes cases:
57m Helvering vs Davies (sp.?) 1937
Fleming vs Nestor (sp.?) 1960
Cases stated to have decided no actuarial connection between Social Security contributions and no concept of accrued property rights, so nothing to sue for.
Contributions are just a special income tax.
Caller asserts you can revoke Social Security registration as a contract - but why is it a contract if as he said contributions have been held by SupCt to be a tax? You don't
'contract' with Government to pay taxes do you???
1.18.24 caller refers to 'personams', masks. He means persona, pl. personae. Personam is accusative singular and usually found as 'in personam' against the body/individual. Caller doesn't know this basic point of spelling this common term but claims he has valuable on-topic information.
Caller gives at 1.20.00 a reference obtained by following links at sirdavidandrew.com -- victor JACOBS page... blah blah bah
Caller quotes at 1.25.15 Dan Meador book "Institutional Lies: Tyranny". I find only this, assumed the same:
Dan Meador
I was going to call this loon-spooning and goofery but being more realistic it just sounds like Spingola is fatigued. I think she should consider moving to a less hectic schedule if she doesn't want her good earlier work to be overshadowed by weak shows on increasingly la-la subjects where she's either not prepared or unwilling to corral the guest. She sounded a lot perkier as a guest on Ric Adams' RBN shows in 2008 or earlier. Her range of guests and subjects is too broad now for her to handle.
Post a Comment