RE: The In Power Movement (smart meters) and its flaws

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

RE: The In Power Movement (smart meters) and its flaws

Fog Top
The ES group discussed Josh del Sol's In Power Movement recently.  Here's more information about it from a person who has been trying to get a response from Josh:
Dear friends and allies far and wide,

You may have seen it but I created a page on my website with my analysis of the InPower Movement and their "Notice of Liability", created by Josh del Sol, the producer of Take Back Your Power.  It is here:

I recently sent that page to Josh and his sidekick Cal Washington and asked for Josh's comments or response to it.  He did not respond.

[hidden email]

[hidden email]

I am sending you this response from Nathan Stephenson back on July 28 (scroll down) to show you just what baloney their whole "movement" and Notice of Liability are. 

They expect American courts to get you out of the contract that is responsible for the smart electric meter on your home but not based on any sort of legal authority that American courts recognize, but based on "a higher jurisdiction".  As my web page shows their so called "higher jurisdictions" are:

The NOL quotes many documents as legal basis, including:

the Old Testament
the New Testament
the President’s Oath of Office
irrelevant Amendments of the U.S. Constitution
the Federalist papers
the Oath of the Queen of England (I am not kidding!)
“The Law Merchant”
“The Common Law”, and
the Declaration of Independence

However none of these addresses or provides legal basis for the creation / formation of a contract.

My web page describes just what constitutes a contract according to the Uniform Commercial Code, which they also cite.

People should do their own research and please do not be misled by the InPower Movement.

Best wishes


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: [InPower Movement] Re: Re: InPower Brief Update
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2018 23:31:56 +0000
From: Nathan Stephenson (InPowerMovement) [hidden email]
Reply-To: InPowerMovement [hidden email]
To: Mark [hidden email]

##- Please type your reply above this line -##

Your request (1870) has been updated. To add additional comments, reply to this email.

Nathan Ste

Nathan Stephenson (InPower Movement)

Jul 28, 4:31 PM PDT

Mark, not in your analysis.
Your comments are all based on the legal jurisdiction of the corporate courts.
We do not want to "play" in that system.
You don't want to acknowledge the possibility of a higher jurisdiction.
So what is there to talk about?
And I believe that Cal took time out to address you, which he doesn't usually do.



Jul 27, 6:58 PM PDT

Hello Josh

I believe your InPower Movement and the Notice of Liability and your analysis of the legal authority that underlies it are deeply flawed.  I sent you feedback on it months ago but it was ignored.  Are you interested in it?


InPower Movement wrote on 7/25/2018 4:10 PM:


This email is a service from InPower Movement. Delivered by Zendesk