Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The One Peoples Public Trust

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 18:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The One Peoples Public Trust

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page is a huge essay about the author's stance on the US government. Existing sources on the page primarily shore up the author's point, rather than establishing notability. Googling the page name comes up with a large amount of Wordpress blogs (that are basically just backlinks), but I wasn't readily able to find anything I'd call a reliable source. InShaneee (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. InShaneee (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

could you be more specific about what "point" you are reading? Everything I have posted there is discussed on the talk page as its being researched. Every single word is copied from the basis documents. Also, in good faith, I am presenting factual documentation and the easier way to resolve your matter is to edit the article rather than delete it. That would be constructive. For an article only "alive" for one day, just my opinion but maybe you should give people some time to pitch in. The word you use is "author", however, I am only another editor. Are you showing some sort of bias there towards me? Just curious. ImthatIm (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is almost entirely about the organization's legal beliefs regarding the "corporation" of the United States. It has very little about the organization itself, particularly anything that would pass the Wikipedia notability standard for organizations. This discussion is not about the beliefs and/or stance of the organization, just the organization itself and whether it can prove notability through reliable, verifiable sources, and not just original research. And no, I don't have a 'bias' towards you. InShaneee (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability for the group per WP:ORG; no significant coverage of the group online from WP:Reliable sources; currently just a collection of WP:Original research and an essay on the author's political opinions per WP:NOTOPINION. Altered Walter (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I think I am starting to understand what you mean, but, this is not an article about an organization. That's probably the problem. This is an article about a Trust. This is not a Trust Fund. Its a legal Trust. The "organization" includes every human being that lives on the North American Continent north of the Mexican Border and South of the Canadian Border. The "entity" is "We the People" that is written notably on what is commonly known as the US Constitution. The trustees are just 3 attorneys that did the work on reclaiming the defaulted former corporation which is listed as a subsidiary of the The Ethiopian World Federation, Incorporated. You can see that on the documentation as they are the creditor for the various entities named. I realize this might be news to you, but according to the filings, the older corporation was notified nearly a year ago already. If you think deleting this now is okay, and you would rather watch the news on TV in a few months simply because you refuse to believe cold hard facts, thats fine too, I suppose. You might notice that the documentation site about the trust has no commerce, is not selling anything, and is not advertising anything either. Its intent appears to be wholly educational/documentary to me. The web site itself though, because it has no notability as a web site, I figured it should stay as an external link. It is not actually a party to the organization as its principal. The organization is comprised of some 300+ million people. The reason I started the article is because I saw some blogs about it and I went to check it out here on Wikipedia and to my surprise there was absolutely nothing here, so, it just made sense to put it in then dig up the facts. 10 years ago, here on Wikipedia, that was pretty much how things were done. People would pitch in and help try and see what was up until an article had been worked on enough to start picking on the grammar, etc. It was called "good faith collaborative" editing. Like I said before, its been quite awhile. ImthatIm (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing, just to reply about reliable sources. They are in the references. They are Uniform Commercial Code Filings direct from Washinton and you can find out more about their credibility at UCC. ImthatIm (talk) 10:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One final thing, just to be crystal clear, the part in the middle of the article that says that the last lawful President was Lincoln was filed by the former government ( the corporation you refer to as the US Government ). You might notice that among that groups entities is US Congress, but not the CIA, the GSA, but not the FBI, the DHS, but not the US Army, strange but true. Also the parts about being in default of various treaties, selling body parts, etc. etc. these were all filed by that organization as well. These were not filed by the three attorneys acting on behalf of "We the People" in the Public Trust. Keep in mind that there are plenty of presidents in the USA. There are presidents of Banks, there are presidents of Untilities, and this group is just another corporation and has a president, too. I think its obvious that the attorneys are acting "ethically" on behalf of the people of the North American territories, but if you think that word is opinionated and original research rather than obvious, I would certainly understand. Also you might want to read the documentation site a bit, just for yourselves if you happen to live in these areas because they do require that every single person eventually determine whether they are of "We the People" in trust as a group or if a person is by their own free will and accord in collusion with the former corporation, acting on its behalf. From what i understand, each seperate act after being notified of the matter counts as a seperate felony. Hope this helps. ImthatIm (talk) 10:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As further evidence in all fairness of the "The One People's Trust 1776" as a Trust, I went to the UCC filings and looked up what was the filing for UNITED STATES in the following manner and it is is listed there on the top of the filing:

Access UCC records: https://fortress.wa.gov/dol/ucc/

Search Records

Search name of a debtor that is an organization

Organization Name: UNITED STATES

Continue

2011-362-9411-4 The United States of America Initial 12/28/2011 12/28/2016

https://fortress.wa.gov/dol/ucc/filingDetail.aspx?id=EpquHkUu7pf7ZKvYm9bFDg==

Read the document

Charles C: Miller

The People's Public Trust 1776 c/o Charles C:

Miller, Trustee

1402 Auburn Way N #416/417

Auburn WA USA 98002

Date of Filing : 12/28/2011

Time of Filing : 12:57:00 PM

File Number : 2011-362-9411-4

Lapse Date : 12/28/2016

DEBTOR: UNITED STATES

DEBTOR: Rothschild Trust (Schneiz) A.G., et al

SECURED PARTY: The United States of America

ADDITIONAL DEBTORS:

UNITED STATES TREASURY

FEDERAL RESERVE

BANK OF INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS

STATEMENT:

A. The United States of America 1781, Executive Order April 27, 1861, last lawfully

elected President, President Lincoln’s Order to Commanding General of the Army of

the United States, Winfield Scott, suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus, a resulting

trust administering an act in direct contravention of Article 1 § 9 1791 Constitution, a

private act by usurping office, never authorized by Original Contact Constitution

1791, The United States of America under military rule through Executive Order,

from April 21, 1861 to date, still in place to date; a surety to principal The One People

1776, Creditors

ImthatIm (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia isn't a debate forum for you to argue your point. It's an encyclopedia that is meant to document established facts about the world. This article is arguing for some way-out-there theory about the government. It is not written like a normal encyclopedia article and is essentially impossible to understand. There is no sense of context and no relation to the average reader's point of view. How can this article be said to be informing anyone of anything when it starts off in a way that is completely incomprehensible to anyone who isn't suffering from the same mental illness as the author? I have no idea what this article is about and user ImthatIm is less interested in explaining what it is and more interested in trying to argue / advocate for some extremely paranoid conspiracy theory.Bilbobagginsesprecious (talk) 09:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.