PDA

View Full Version : Redeem From Public To Private Venue



Keith Alan
05-07-14, 06:06 PM
Is that the true nature of the redemption, "they" being FRN that shall be redeemed on demand?

Since the subject of that code/statute is FRN, it seems most reasonable to me that FRN is the object of redemption.

If that indeed is the case, and since nowhere I can find are FRN referred to as being redeemed for USN, it seems more reasonable to conclude it's a question of venue.

What do you think?

Anthony Joseph
05-07-14, 08:12 PM
Section 16. Note Issues

1. Issuance of Federal Reserve notes; nature of obligation; where redeemable

Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are hereby authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

[12 USC 411. As amended by act of Jan. 30, 1934 (48 Stat. 337). For redemption of Federal reserve notes whose bank of issue cannot be identified, see act of June 13, 1933.]


Redeem

1. To purchase back; to ransom; to liberate or rescue from captivity or bondage, or from any obligation or liability to suffer or to be forfeited, by paying an equivalent; as, to redeem prisoners or captured goods; to redeem a pledge.

2. To repurchase what has been sold; to regain possession of a thing alienated, by repaying the value of it to the possessor.



They [FRNs] shall be redeemed [purchased back, repurchased, regained of possession].



What entity 'purchases back', 'repurchases' and/or 'regains possession' [redeems] upon demand? Well, if "They" were issued by the 'Board of Governors' of the 'Federal Reserve System', wouldn't it be logical that said 'Governors' would redeem "Them" as well?

The venue, as you put it, is either the 'Federal Reserve Districts' [private coffers of foreign bankers], or; the 'United States' [public trust of the 'United States Treasury']

If the FED 'purchases back' its own FRNs, it is essentially "buying down debt" since FRNs are debt note obligations. The public debt decreases and the obligation to foreign interests diminishes - venue change.

BUT...

If one redeems absent the acknowledgment of military seizure by the occupying army, one is presumed an "Enemy of the State" and falls under the "Trading with the Enemy Act" since one is either overtly making adverse claims against 'United States'' interests, or; did not overcome the default presumption of the same.

David Merrill
05-07-14, 09:05 PM
The highlights Anthony Joseph posted lead to an epiphany - thank you!


1. Issuance of Federal Reserve notes; nature of obligation; where redeemable

Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are hereby authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

Look how we are led into accepting the pronoun "They" to be Federal Reserve notes. This is irregular for legal-speak if you get my drift. "Said notes" is acceptable but they lead us into accepting "They" which is unclear at best! They could be anything without the presumption that the sentence is in context of the paragraph; which is a fair presumption to make but my imagination has performed an allowable substitution for quite some time now.

They are People. The state of un-redeemed is the abomination of false balances, in other words - the condition resulting from elastic currency (http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/5853/titlesmall.jpg).

Let's take Christianity literally for a moment, without steeping it in Futurism - meaning let's not look at the Second Advent of Jesus CHRIST as something off in the future. Even if it is in the distant or near future Christians are admonished to be prepared like a bride awaiting her groom like a thief in the night. It behooves us to decipher the parables - which means that the entire New Covenant (https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2014/04/30/cracking-the-legal-code-of-king-james/#comment-121822), except what was kept secret within Jesus' inner apocalyptic mystery cult is all parable awaiting decryption. [Read some of the Article above my Comment though, and see how the author seeks one thing - Redemption - just from the presumption of the STRAWMAN. And then Look Here to see the same quest from a Bar Perspective (http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/sovereign_citizens_plaster_courts_with_bogus_legal _filings#337532).

Here is what I mean:


Mar 4:33 And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it.
Mar 4:34 But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.

The MOFFATT translation amplifies my point:


In many a parable like this he spoke the word unto them, so far as they could listen to it; he never spoke to them except by way of parable, but in private he explained everything to his disciples.

There is a secret truth to the Gospels, that only his closest - 11 men and 1 woman ever heard (attached at the bottom).


BUT...

If one redeems absent the acknowledgment of military seizure by the occupying army, one is presumed an "Enemy of the State" and falls under the "Trading with the Enemy Act" since one is either overtly making adverse claims against 'United States'' interests, or; did not overcome the default presumption of the same.

On the presumption of the development of artificial intuition one might accept my unusual "aha" moment on April 16th, my mind unraveling the math that we have reached our 153rd year of war (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1676&stc=1&d=1399386261) since Abraham LINCOLN's Proclamation of War on a domestic enemy - Combinations. But whether you accept that it is high time through holographic and allegorical metaphor as an instruction set, or not we do not have to accept the status quo and continue in the futile - to fight our way off the battlefield.


Joh 21:11 Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken.

Anthony Joseph
05-07-14, 10:08 PM
Making claim to what has been already seized will NOT get one "off the battlefield".

Acknowledgment of the seizure and a recognized record formed regarding a cease and surrender of reversionary/usufructuary interest claims makes for a peaceful walk "off the battlefield" - no "fighting" required.

doug555
05-07-14, 10:42 PM
Making claim to what has been already seized will NOT get one "off the battlefield".

Acknowledgment of the seizure and a recognized record formed regarding a cease and surrender of reversionary/usufructuary interest claims makes for a peaceful walk "off the battlefield" - no "fighting" required.

What do you suggest as a "recognized record"?

What if "they" still want to fight after you "surrender" by a "recognized record"? (Ex: they send you the "bill/charge" again?)

Boris mentioned using GSA Standard Form SF95 (http://www.gsa.gov/portal/forms/download/116418) as a remedy.

Have you heard this too on his The New Frontier Discharge Reversionary Interest (http://creoharmony.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-new-frontier-discharge-reversionary.html) audio on May 9, 2013?

Do you know if Boris has actually filed a SF95 yet? If so, do you have a copy to share?

Is a Tort claim for damages the proper way to respond to someone who dishonors a "surrender"?

Perhaps injury and damages can be claimed via Navy JAG Claims & Tort Litigation (Code 15) (http://www.jag.navy.mil/organization/code_15.htm) (SF-95 (http://www.jag.navy.mil/organization/documents/SF95single.pdf)) for Stolen Property?

Keith Alan
05-07-14, 11:08 PM
Making claim to what has been already seized will NOT get one "off the battlefield".

Acknowledgment of the seizure and a recognized record formed regarding a cease and surrender of reversionary/usufructuary interest claims makes for a peaceful walk "off the battlefield" - no "fighting" required.

You and David bring a lot to think about. I recognize what you're saying in the above quote as my goal.

Also, after following the links in David's post, I see that 'they' (in the code) could very well refer to people. That does make sense, although taken together with the other language in the code cite, it makes the expressed intent somewhat vague, imo.

At any rate, whether 'they' refers to people or FRN seems somewhat beside the point, because the redemption is caused or initiated by a demand.

Since that is the case - and considering the stated goal is to walk off the battlefield peacefully without making adverse claims - and considering the public/private nature of the transaction - I'm trying to reconcile in my mind how a demand is not a claim that is not adverse to the interests of the US.

So now I'm putting this out there: Is making a demand for lawful money an adverse claim? Or is it a claim that advances the interests of the US?

Anthony Joseph
05-07-14, 11:29 PM
You and David bring a lot to think about. I recognize what you're saying in the above quote as my goal.

Also, after following the links in David's post, I see that 'they' (in the code) could very well refer to people. That does make sense, although taken together with the other language in the code cite, it makes the expressed intent somewhat vague, imo.

At any rate, whether 'they' refers to people or FRN seems somewhat beside the point, because the redemption is caused or initiated by a demand.

Since that is the case - and considering the stated goal is to walk off the battlefield peacefully without making adverse claims - and considering the public/private nature of the transaction - I'm trying to reconcile in my mind how a demand is not a claim that is not adverse to the interests of the US.

So now I'm putting this out there: Is making a demand for lawful money an adverse claim? Or is it a claim that advances the interests of the US?

Making demand itself is not adverse; it is our lack of acknowledgement that TITLE to all property has been seized, and; all "money" has been appropriated, and; ALL administrative/commercial activity regarding 'United States'' interests [ie. 'FIRST MIDDLE LAST'] need be done by an official and oath-sworn agent for the 'United States', that creates the "adverse claimant" status.

If we continue acting as if we "OWN" or that we possess good, true and full TITLE to the "fruits" and "profits" derived from ANY commercial activity, we perpetuate the presumption of being an "Enemy of the State", an adverse claimant and a belligerent combatant within the realm of commerce - the extant "war" on the [commercial] battlefield.

Keith Alan
05-07-14, 11:33 PM
Making demand itself is not adverse; it is our lack of acknowledgement that TITLE to all property has been seized, and; all "money" has been appropriated, and; ALL administrative/commercial activity regarding 'United States'' interests [ie. 'FIRST MIDDLE LAST'] need be done by an official and oath-sworn agent for the 'United States', that creates the "adverse claimant" status.

If we continue acting as if we "OWN" or that we possess good, true and full TITLE to the "fruits" and "profits" derived from ANY commercial activity, we perpetuate the presumption of being an "Enemy of the State", an adverse claimant and a belligerent combatant within the realm of commerce - the extant "war" on the [commercial] battlefield.
They need to provide us with a light bulb button. Thanks! That makes perfect sense!

Anthony Joseph
05-07-14, 11:49 PM
What do you suggest as a "recognized record"?

What if "they" still want to fight after you "surrender" by a "recognized record"? (Ex: they send you the "bill/charge" again?)

Boris mentioned using GSA Standard Form SF95 (http://www.gsa.gov/portal/forms/download/116418) as a remedy.

Have you heard this too on his The New Frontier Discharge Reversionary Interest (http://creoharmony.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-new-frontier-discharge-reversionary.html) audio on May 9, 2013?

Do you know if Boris has actually filed a SF95 yet? If so, do you have a copy to share?

Is a Tort claim for damages the proper way to respond to someone who dishonors a "surrender"?

Perhaps injury and damages can be claimed via Navy JAG Claims & Tort Litigation (Code 15) (http://www.jag.navy.mil/organization/code_15.htm) (SF-95 (http://www.jag.navy.mil/organization/documents/SF95single.pdf)) for Stolen Property?

I believe the 'SF-95' info is outdated as far as Boris' current stance goes.

According to Boris, the 'recognized record' of cease and surrender is the UCC-1/UCC-3 reversionary interest assignment which leaves the 'United States' as USUFRUCTUARY [Secured Party] of all TITLE and interest in 'FIRST MIDDLE LAST' and everything TITLED in the same. The 'United States' is obligated and responsible for ALL bills, costs, maintenance, discharge, acquittals, etc. regarding 'FIRST MIDDLE LAST'.

Our use of the 'NAME', in that assigned capacity, benefits SOLELY the 'United States' public trust since we are the volunteer 'pledgers' and THE source of ALL value converted into the commercial realm. We derive no benefit whatsoever since everything on earth has been granted to us in covenant absent tax or fee by the Creator, Most High God. It is the illusion of TITLE and PROFIT that we surrender claim to which reinstates our inherent heirship of the earth and everything in it. So long as we do not interfere with another man's rights, property and pursuit of happiness, we are free to use and claim as we wish.

JUST BE A RIGHTEOUS AND GOOD STEWARD.

Your true motives and intents can NEVER be hidden; God sees and knows ALL things.

doug555
05-08-14, 12:14 AM
I believe the 'SF-95' info is outdated as far as Boris' current stance goes.

According to Boris, the 'recognized record' of cease and surrender is the UCC-1/UCC-3 reversionary interest assignment which leaves the 'United States' as USUFRUCTUARY [Secured Party] of all TITLE and interest in 'FIRST MIDDLE LAST' and everything TITLED in the same. The 'United States' is obligated and responsible for ALL bills, costs, maintenance, discharge, acquittals, etc. regarding 'FIRST MIDDLE LAST'.

Our use of the 'NAME', in that assigned capacity, benefits SOLELY the 'United States' public trust since we are the volunteer 'pledgers' and THE source of ALL value converted into the commercial realm. We derive no benefit whatsoever since everything on earth has been granted to us in covenant absent tax or fee by the Creator, Most High God. It is the illusion of TITLE and PROFIT that we surrender claim to which reinstates our inherent heirship of the earth and everything in it. So long as we do not interfere with another man's rights, property and pursuit of happiness, we are free to use and claim as we wish.

JUST BE A RIGHTEOUS AND GOOD STEWARD.

Your true motives and intents can NEVER be hidden; God sees and knows ALL things.

Do you have a copy of Boris's UCC-3 Assignment that complements his UCC-1 Acceptance (https://drive.google.com/?tab=wo&authuser=0#folders/0B8BdR0w2oZY_UDRKZFhiY1lxejQ)?

Again: What if "they" still want to fight after you "surrender" by a "recognized record"? (Ex: they send you the "bill/charge" again?)

Who is the authority to enforce the "rules of usufruct"?

Anthony Joseph
05-08-14, 01:18 AM
Do you have a copy of Boris's UCC-3 Assignment that complements his UCC-1 Acceptance (https://drive.google.com/?tab=wo&authuser=0#folders/0B8BdR0w2oZY_UDRKZFhiY1lxejQ)?

Again: What if "they" still want to fight after you "surrender" by a "recognized record"? (Ex: they send you the "bill/charge" again?)

Who is the authority to enforce the "rules of usufruct"?

Attached is the UCC-3.

1679

I believe, the authority to enforce would be the 'Attorney General'; the one to whom acknowledgement of assignment is sent and the one in charge of prosecuting those who break the laws of the 'United States'.

Anthony Joseph
05-08-14, 01:45 AM
This screenshot shows who the 'Secured Party' is after the assignment.

1680

ag maniac
05-08-14, 05:22 AM
Here's a link to the filing history off the original UCC-1 - file # 201400717971

https://www.floridaucc.com/uccweb/FilingHistory.aspx?sst=&sov=6&sot=Document%20Number&st=201401213578&fn=201400717971&rn=1&ii=Y&ft=3&epn=

David Merrill
05-08-14, 08:09 AM
I can understand why Boris continues down that bunny hole; the initial presumption that the birth certificate is a financial security is so far-fetched that nobody in the State government will even try addressing it. - At least in the USA. Therefore we have to resort to a letter (http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/7078/birthcertnobond.jpg) a little closer to the Crown, in Canada:



1682


I recall how during the development of this mythology Fidelity's "Random Number Generator" would throw people into thinking they had found a CUSIP # for their birth certificate. When I first linked to Fidelity though, I tried various tests and found that I could get a CUSIP # for anything at all, even for something in the future!

Be careful.

If you never get information that refutes your hypothesis, that does not mean you are onto a valid theory. If the birth certificate has monetary value then it is regulated by the SEC and has a valid CUSIP #. There has never been any CUSIP # ever, assigned to a birth certificate! Never! The reason is obvious to the most casual observer...


Regards,

David Merrill.

allodial
05-08-14, 08:46 AM
1684 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411)

In Greek mythology, the Labyrinth ... was an elaborate structure designed and built by the legendary artificer Daedalus for King Minos of Crete at Knossos. Its function was to hold the Minotaur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem), a mythical creature that was half man and half bull .... Daedalus had so cunningly made the Labyrinth that he could barely escape it after he built it.[1] Theseus was aided by Ariadne, who provided him with a skein of thread, literally the "clew", or "clue", so he could find his way out again.

1686

Related: Ariadne's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariadne)thread; Hybrid Monsters (file:///C:/Users/keymaster/Downloads/posthumus_hybrid_2011.pdf).


I believe the 'SF-95' info is outdated as far as Boris' current stance goes.

According to Boris, the 'recognized record' of cease and surrender is the UCC-1/UCC-3 reversionary interest assignment which leaves the 'United States' as USUFRUCTUARY [Secured Party] of all TITLE and interest in 'FIRST MIDDLE LAST' and everything TITLED in the same. The 'United States' is obligated and responsible for ALL bills, costs, maintenance, discharge, acquittals, etc. regarding 'FIRST MIDDLE LAST'.

Our use of the 'NAME', in that assigned capacity, benefits SOLELY the 'United States' public trust since we are the volunteer 'pledgers' and THE source of ALL value converted into the commercial realm. We derive no benefit whatsoever since everything on earth has been granted to us in covenant absent tax or fee by the Creator, Most High God. It is the illusion of TITLE and PROFIT that we surrender claim to which reinstates our inherent heirship of the earth and everything in it. So long as we do not interfere with another man's rights, property and pursuit of happiness, we are free to use and claim as we wish.

JUST BE A RIGHTEOUS AND GOOD STEWARD.


The resident revenue officer has a 'profit sharing agreement' perhaps? (See: Internal Revenue Code, etc.) Imagine if a King John sends Captain Jack on a mission to find lost treasure and then Captain Jack absconds with it? Would King John treat him like an enemy or not?

http://images7.alphacoders.com/445/445671.jpg

Related: tax protester.

On the topic of things 'commercial', it might be worth noting the distinctions between 'artificer' (an artificer is not a merchant and is outside of 'commerce') and 'merchant'.

1683

(Note: buying and selling.)

Related: The Legal Meaning of the Commerce Clause (Robert G. Natelson) (http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=faculty_lawreviews); The Proper Scope of the Commerce Power (Richard A. Epstein) (http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2315&context=journal_articles)

(Hint: the "Commerce Clause" has perhaps been too widely interpreted.)


In Greek mythology, Daedalus (Ancient Greek: ... meaning "clever worker"; Latin: Daedalus; Etruscan: Taitale) was a skillful craftsman and artist. He is the father of Icarus, the uncle of Perdix and possibly also the father of Iapyx although this is unclear.

Daedalus is first mentioned by Homer as the creator of a wide dancing-ground for Ariadne. He also created the Labyrinth on Crete, in which the Minotaur (part man, part bull) was kept. In the story of the labyrinth as told by the Hellenes, the Athenian hero Theseus is challenged to kill the Minotaur, finding his way with the help of Ariadne's thread. Daedalus' appearance in Homer is in an extended metaphor, "plainly not Homer's invention", Robin Lane Fox observes: "he is a point of comparison and so he belongs in stories which Homer's audience already recognized". In Bronze Age Crete, an inscription da-da-re-jo-de has been read as referring to a place at Knossos, and a place of worship.

In Homer's language, objects which are daidala are finely crafted. They are mostly objects of armor, but fine bowls and furnishings are daidala, and on one occasion so are the "bronze-working" of "clasps, twisted brooches, earrings and necklaces" made by Hephaestus while cared for in secret by the goddesses of the sea


"The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce...." 15 U.S. Code § 17

1685

(For some reason as I read the thread the first thing that popped in mind was the myths and stories about labyrinths, minotaurs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem), centaurs and Ariadne's thread. Go figure....)

Anthony Joseph
05-08-14, 07:45 PM
I can understand why Boris continues down that bunny hole; the initial presumption that the birth certificate is a financial security is so far-fetched that nobody in the State government will even try addressing it. - At least in the USA. Therefore we have to resort to a letter (http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/7078/birthcertnobond.jpg) a little closer to the Crown, in Canada:



1682


I recall how during the development of this mythology Fidelity's "Random Number Generator" would throw people into thinking they had found a CUSIP # for their birth certificate. When I first linked to Fidelity though, I tried various tests and found that I could get a CUSIP # for anything at all, even for something in the future!

Be careful.

If you never get information that refutes your hypothesis, that does not mean you are onto a valid theory. If the birth certificate has monetary value then it is regulated by the SEC and has a valid CUSIP #. There has never been any CUSIP # ever, assigned to a birth certificate! Never! The reason is obvious to the most casual observer...


Regards,

David Merrill.

"There is no monetary value associated with birth certificates." - Agreed; I do not believe Boris espouses anything contradicting this statement through his current theory.

"Canadian [or U.S.] citizens do not have any personal property rights or obligations with respect to the public debt." - Couldn't have said it better myself.

The "bunny hole" you speak of is not being explored by Boris IMO; that is the process of 'freemen on the land' and 'Security of the Person' as put forth by Robert Menard and others. The Boris reversionary/usufructuary interest assignment process written about here is 180 degrees from your "bunny hole". The assignment is executed pursuant to [while absent benefit from] Title 12 U.S.C. §95 a (2) whereby ALL actions against, and transactions through, 'FIRST MIDDLE LAST' are fully acquitted and discharged by operation of law.

This should interest you since you rely heavily on Title 12 U.S.C. §411 for your remedy process.

Perhaps if you didn't assume what this process is about, you might not erroneously label it as "MENARD REHASHING".

allodial
05-08-14, 09:34 PM
There is no monetary value associated with birth certificates.....
Although a birth certificate may lack "monetary value", it likely has value underlying it or associated with it. Consider that a blank check has no monetary value either. The birth certificate and the entry associated with it are highly significant. The number on the back of a social security card (called a 'control number') or a birth certificate is uniquely identifies that instance of printing on a birth certificate blank (typically on exchequer paper or bank note paper)--as in it uniquely identifies that certificate blank. Vick Beck and his old talk show guests (pre 2009) are probably the only "public legal theorists" to have gotten close to revealing what a "birth certificate" is.


"Canadian [or U.S.] citizens do not have any personal property rights or obligations with respect to the public debt."
U.S. subjects != the People. Canadian subjects != the Crown. See: odious debt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odious_debt); The Concept of Odious Debt In International Public Law (UN/UNCTAD) (http://unctad.org/en/Docs/osgdp20074_en.pdf)


State v Manuel (State v. Manuel, North Carolina, Vol. 20, Page 121 (1838)): The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people - and he who before was a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."

#1 The sovereignty transferred to the people of North Carolina;
#2 Former British subjects become subjects of the State of North Carolina but not of the United States.

(Note: the Crown and the Monarchy are not the same.)


CUSIP#s...
For reasons withheld I am convinced of lack of requirement or need for any person named on a birth certificate or on a social security card to have any CUSIP # even though the typical registered corporation might have such a requirement with respect to SEC regulations.

David Merrill
05-08-14, 09:58 PM
Nothing that simple awareness cannot clear up.

The birth certificate can bring in money through identification purposes, for one to be convinced that the full or legal name is one's true name for example. The birth certificate leads to government issued ID (driver license) that convinces the used auto retailer he can find you and affect your credit rating; ergo a loan issues in the form of a car and payments...

The "legitimate" marketplace for birth certificates as securities is the SDR Marketplace - Special Drawing Rights - or as I define it, The measure of a social conditioning to blindly endorse the private credit from the local central bank. Here we find a basket of five fictional currencies averaged together to determine an international value of money and SDR's became the replacement for gold changing that "fixed" exchange rate into the "floating" exchange rate around 1976 (http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/SeizeGold.jpg).

You imply there might be a secret marketplace - and that strikes me as about the same as secret law. If there is secret law and secret marketplaces (black markets) in operation I simply see no way to affect that except not to place any substance in that particular brick in the zigurat (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA57ix4jimc). That is to say quite literally, I have no birth certificate.

I have found it quite more effective to execute operations of law toward remedy in the light. So I say you may be right, but without a birth certificate or need to find credit I remove myself as far from those black markets as best that I can.

allodial
05-08-14, 10:07 PM
The birth certificate can bring in money through identification purposes, for one to be convinced that the full or legal name is one's true name for example. The birth certificate leads to government issued ID (driver license) that convinces the used auto retailer he can find you and affect your credit rating; ergo a loan issues in the form of a car and payments...

1687
If you consider the card that comes back from the SSA it has a habit of being 'addressed' to say JOHN K DOE 100 MAIN ST NEW YORK NY 12345 although the name on the card might be JOHN HENRY DOE. However, in any case I suspect they are sending the card to the 'person' holding/owning the card (i.e. fiduciary) resident in some "revenue district". Driver licenses and ID cards have a similar 'nuance', don't they? I suspect that they are identifying the trustee (i.e. holder of the SS card or birth certificate--which is presented to get ID --simple reverse engineering (or splitting the atom) of the ID/license application process brings much light).


The "legitimate" marketplace for birth certificates as securities is the SDR Marketplace - Special Drawing Rights - or as I define it, The measure of a social conditioning to blindly endorse the private credit from the local central bank. Here we find a basket of five fictional currencies averaged together to determine an international value of money and SDR's became the replacement for gold changing that "fixed" exchange rate into the "floating" exchange rate around 1976 (http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/SeizeGold.jpg).

Or perhaps the 'market' is in the State treasuries, the Federal treasuries, the local Treasuries, Central Banks or revenue agencies? There are those who suggest that a birth certificate represents a right in public assets.

1691
As for any secret market regarding birth certificates or SSN related persons, it seems quite clear that the banks, DMVs, revenue departments and credit card companies are quite open about constantly asking for the information. When cashing checks they want a driver license # or some "ID" which typically has a number that acts as a mask for an SSN at the least.

Illinois code (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1186&ChapterID=20) might be helpful for decoding....


"Community currency exchange" means any person, firm, association, partnership, limited liability company, or corporation, except an ambulatory currency exchange as hereinafter defined, banks incorporated under the laws of this State and National Banks organized pursuant to the laws of the United States, engaged in the business or service of, and providing facilities for, cashing checks, drafts, money orders or any other evidences of money acceptable to such community currency exchange, for a fee or service charge or other consideration, or engaged in the business of selling or issuing money orders under his or their or its name, or any other money orders (other than United States Post Office money orders, Postal Telegraph Company money orders, or Western Union Telegraph Company money orders), or engaged in both such businesses, or engaged in performing any one or more of the foregoing services.


"Ambulatory Currency Exchange" means any person, firm, association, partnership, limited liability company, or corporation, except banks organized under the laws of this State and National Banks organized pursuant to the laws of the United States, engaged in one or both of the foregoing businesses, or engaged in performing any one or more of the foregoing services, solely on the premises of the employer whose employees are being served.

The following is to clarify the meaning of 'ambulatory currency exchange':



Plaintiff is in the business of operating an ambulatory currency exchange which normally consists of transporting currency belonging to plaintiff to the premises of business establishments, usually pursuant to contract, and the cashing of payroll checks of employees on the premises of the employer. In some instances, we gather from the record, plaintiff cashes one large check for the employer and the latter pays his employees in cash. This business, as well as that of operating nonambulatory currency exchanges, is regulated and controlled by the Community Currency Exchanges Act, hereinafter referred to as the act, wherein the legislature has "found and declares" that "the number of community currency exchanges should be limited in accordance with the needs of the communities they are to serve," and that "it is in the public interest to promote and foster the community currency exchange business and to assure the financial stability thereof." Ill. Rev. Stat. 1961, chap. 16 1/2, par. 30. (Source (http://leagle.com/decision/196213424Ill2d110_1117.xml/THILLENS,%20INC.%20v.%20DEPT.,%20FINANCIAL%20INST. ))

1689
(Screenshot of software for check cashers....)

The term "community currency exchange' seems far more lucid than 'money service business' => the market is...the market (I suspect we're saying the same thing).


You imply there might be a secret marketplace - and that strikes me as about the same as secret law. If there is secret law and secret marketplaces (black markets) in operation I simply see no way to affect that except not to place any substance in that particular brick in the zigurat. That is to say quite literally, I have no birth certificate.

There is a 'secret' marketplace for trading 'bankruptcy claims (http://www.r3mlaw.com/Articles/Bankruptcy-Claims-Trading-Basic-Concepts.pdf)'--'secret' as in concealed, hidden or obscured or not widely known.


I have found it quite more effective to execute operations of law toward remedy in the light. So I say you may be right, but without a birth certificate or need to find credit I remove myself as far from those black markets as best that I can.

In their language from what I can tell "having" = "holding" = "owning" (being surety for) (and is akin to 'bearing') a "birth certificate". Having a certificate vs having a claim or an interest in any of the personae identified therein are totally different things. If a person wants to go to public school they show the birth certificate then its free. The question "Why is that?" gives much wanted answers.

1690
I have been amazed and humbled that so much is hidden in plain sight.

doug555
05-08-14, 10:22 PM
"There is no monetary value associated with birth certificates." - Agreed; I do not believe Boris espouses anything contradicting this statement through his current theory.

"Canadian [or U.S.] citizens do not have any personal property rights or obligations with respect to the public debt." - Couldn't have said it better myself.

The "bunny hole" you speak of is not being explored by Boris IMO; that is the process of 'freemen on the land' and 'Security of the Person' as put forth by Robert Menard and others. The Boris reversionary/usufructuary interest assignment process written about here is 180 degrees from your "bunny hole". The assignment is executed pursuant to [while absent benefit from] Title 12 U.S.C. §95 a (2) whereby ALL actions against, and transactions through, 'FIRST MIDDLE LAST' are fully acquitted and discharged by operation of law.

This should interest you since you rely heavily on Title 12 U.S.C. §411 for your remedy process.

Perhaps if you didn't assume what this process is about, you might not erroneously label it as "MENARD REHASHING".

Thanks Anthony for supplying documents and your insights.

I also agree about COLB value. It makes sense that the birth "certificate" (COLB) has no value, BECAUSE the value is attached to the original signed birth "application"... which we never see. Wonder if a FOIA/PA Request could get a certified copy of the application, which is the true "pledge" or transfer of property "abandoned" at "birth"?

Here is LINK to History of UCC filings by Boris (http://www.floridaucc.com/UCCWEB/FilingHistory.aspx?sst=&sov=5&sot=Filed/Lapsed%20Actual%20Debtor%20Name%20List&st=Boris+Petkoff+Inferno%2c+Corp&fn=201400717971&rn=497227&ii=Y&ft=&epn=), including UCC-3.

I also stored them HERE (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B8BdR0w2oZY_UDRKZFhiY1lxejQ&usp=sharing).

Here are my questions and concerns:

1. Are not UCC Filings only NOTICE that an event has occurred, and not the event (transfer) itself? If so, then Boris's filings are not effective, and are "frivolous" if they are not based upon a event/transfer that occurred in reality via some other documents that have been executed?

2. Such "STRAWMAN" filings have been addresses recently (April,2014) by the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) report (final-nass-report-bogus-filings-040914.pdf (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8BdR0w2oZY_QmVVMXZ3VGtGZVE/edit?usp=sharing)) located in same folder link above. Perhaps Boris's filings need to be revised to avoid earmarks defined in this report.

3. I do not understand how the UNITED STATES became the Secured Party in Boris's filings. In particular, the box #2 "current record" entries do NOT make sense. Would not box 7 first be used to change the Parties BEFORE being listed as such in the box #2 "current record"?

4. Can one legitimately make a full assignment conditional?

5. Perhaps it would be better to assign this property to "Alien Property Custodian" (APC) in accordance with 12 USC 95a and 50 USC App, section 6 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50a/usc_sec_50a_00000006----000-.html) and section 7 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50a/usc_sec_50a_00000007----000-.html) since the APC is charged with the duty of paying the bills of the "enemy"?


50 USC App 7(e):
(e) No person shall be held liable in any court for or in respect to anything done or omitted in pursuance of any order, rule, or regulation made by the President under the authority of this Act [sections 1 to 6, 7 to 39, and 41 to 44 of this Appendix].
Any payment, conveyance, transfer, assignment, or delivery of money or property made to the alien property custodian hereunder shall be a full acquittance and discharge for all purposes of the obligation of the person making the same to the extent of same. The alien property custodian and such other persons as the President may appoint shall have power to execute, acknowledge, and deliver any such instrument or instruments as may be necessary or proper to evidence upon the record or otherwise such acquittance and discharge, and shall, in case of payment to the alien property custodian of any debt or obligation owed to an enemy or ally of enemy, deliver up any notes, bonds, or other evidences of indebtedness or obligation, or any security therefor in which such enemy or ally of enemy had any right or interest that may have come into the possession of the alien property custodian, with like effect as if he or they, respectively, were duly appointed by the enemy or ally of enemy, creditor, or obligee. The President shall issue to every person so appointed a certificate of the appointment and authority of such person, and such certificate shall be received in evidence in all courts within the United States. Whenever any such certificate of authority shall be offered to any registrar, clerk, or other recording officer, Federal or otherwise, within the United States, such officer shall record the same in like manner as a power of attorney, and such record or a duly certified copy thereof shall be received in evidence in all courts of the United States or other courts within the United States.

Anthony Joseph
05-08-14, 10:38 PM
The Birth Certificate is evidence of interest in an estate created when one is born. The foreign state is born on this occupied and conquered land and is immediately "forced to pledge" via seizure of the usufructuary interests and all potential TITLE and PROFITS derived therefrom. The energy and labor of the grown baby is funneled through the vessel furnished to execute the pledge ('FIRST MIDDLE LAST'). Since the baby was not of the age of majority at the time of the "pledge", a resulting trust forms whereby the seizure [B]demands indemnity by the rules of usufruct for the one who has been seized of TITLE and PROFITS from future fruits.

The "agreement" awaits completion since there is always a chance the "baby" will return to make claim to what was originally his - reversion. Acknowledgment of the seizure and surrender of claim(s) [assignment] to what has already been seized (reversionary/usufructuary interests in 'FIRST MIDDLE LAST') is required to complete the "gift" of safe harbor and exercise the indemnification from ALL charges when using the 'NAME' which is demanded of the party who seized by International Law - Law of Belligerent Occupation.

Use of the 'NAME', in this fully assigned capacity, benefits ONLY the 'United States' public trust.

allodial
05-08-14, 10:50 PM
Typically "infancy" ends at the age of 21 years.


Are not UCC Filings only NOTICE that an event has occurred, and not the event (transfer) itself? If so, then Boris's filings are not effective, and are "frivolous" if they are not based upon a event/transfer that occurred in reality via some other documents that have been executed

It might help to consider that some States view the filing as made under pentalties of perjury and to look at the matter from in the purview of evidence that cures.

Anthony Joseph
05-08-14, 11:08 PM
Thanks Anthony for supplying documents and your insights.

I also agree about COLB value. It makes sense that the birth "certificate" (COLB) has no value, BECAUSE the value is attached to the original signed birth "application"... which we never see. Wonder if a FOIA/PA Request could get a certified copy of the application, which is the true "pledge" or transfer of property "abandoned" at "birth"?

Here is LINK to History of UCC filings by Boris (http://www.floridaucc.com/UCCWEB/FilingHistory.aspx?sst=&sov=5&sot=Filed/Lapsed%20Actual%20Debtor%20Name%20List&st=Boris+Petkoff+Inferno%2c+Corp&fn=201400717971&rn=497227&ii=Y&ft=&epn=), including UCC-3.

I also stored them HERE (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B8BdR0w2oZY_UDRKZFhiY1lxejQ&usp=sharing).

Here are my questions and concerns:

1. Are not UCC Filings only NOTICE that an event has occurred, and not the event (transfer) itself? If so, then Boris's filings are not effective, and are "frivolous" if they are not based upon a event/transfer that occurred in reality via some other documents that have been executed?

2. Such "STRAWMAN" filings have been addresses recently (April,2014) by the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) report (final-nass-report-bogus-filings-040914.pdf) located in same folder link above. Perhaps Boris's filings need to be revised to avoid earmarks defined in this report.

3. I do not understand how the UNITED STATES became the Secured Party in Boris's filings. In particular, the box #2 "current record" entries do NOT make sense. Would not box 7 first be used to change the Parties BEFORE being listed as such in the box #2 "current record"?

4. Can one legitimately make a full assignment conditional?

5. Perhaps it would be better to assign this property to "Alien Property Custodian" (APC) in accordance with 12 USC 95a and 50 USC App, section 6 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50a/usc_sec_50a_00000006----000-.html) and section 7 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50a/usc_sec_50a_00000007----000-.html) since the APC is charged with the duty of paying the bills of the "enemy"?

Thanks for the link to that UCC Report.

I find no correlation of this process to any of the three "fraudulent filing types" mentioned in the report: Harassment, Strawman or Authentication. [cf. I see no evidence that 'making demand for lawful money' is "frivolous"]

The UCC filings are a memorialization of what has already been done [a man's free will act and deed] in a format recognized and understood by the relevant party. One may have to verify, if and when the time comes, by voicing what is on paper for first hand evidence that it is true. In the realm of commerce, UCC filings are used as evidence and are accepted forms of executing liens in court - an "event" which has occurred. In this case, there is NO "lien", or any other belligerent act being committed; the assignment is done and the filing is the evidence required for the record in the commercial realm.

The "condition" is what would and should be done anyway under proper administration; the public trust is the entity that benefits from this process and the oath-sworn trustees MUST execute that "condition" regardless of our mentioning it.

allodial
05-08-14, 11:14 PM
I have found it quite more effective to execute operations of law toward remedy in the light. So I say you may be right, but without a birth certificate or need to find credit I remove myself as far from those black markets as best that I can.

If one finds oneself in a position to issue money, why would one endorse private credit? ;)


I can understand why Boris continues down that bunny hole; the initial presumption that the birth certificate is a financial security is so far-fetched that nobody in the State government will even try addressing it. - At least in the USA. Therefore we have to resort to a letter (http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/7078/birthcertnobond.jpg) a little closer to the Crown, in Canada:

I was told by a police officer that a State-issued birth certificate belongs to the State and likewise, the names thereon also do.


Cop: Well, whats the name on your birth certificate?
I was puzzled as to why he would ask me if I had/held/owned a State-issued birth certificate. My logic: why is this stranger carrying a dangerous weapon asking me if I own something that he knows belongs to the State? Since 'birth certificates' (cop's definition) belong to the State and since I'm not the State then how can any 'birth certificate' (his definition since he asked the question) be mine {re: 'your birth certificate'}?"

1694


Again: What if "they" still want to fight after you "surrender" by a "recognized record"? (Ex: they send you the "bill/charge" again?)
1700

Settling and closing accounting before exiting might be extremely important.

Related:

The Gaming Tokens of 1965 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1022-The-Gaming-Tokens-of-1965);
Casino Chips vs American Currency (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1019-Casino-Chips-vs-American-Currency);
Banks vs. Casinos (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1017-Banks-vs-Casinos);
New World Banking Order? (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?936-New-World-Banking-Order)




Who is the authority to enforce the "rules of usufruct"?

Might depend on the lex loci celebrationis (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lex%20loci%20celebrationis), lex loci contractus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_loci_contractus), situs (http://thefreedictionary.com/situs) (choice of law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_of_law)) of the relevant trust, will, deed, appointment, agreement or contract.


Re: battlefields...

AFIAK soldiers aren't sovereigns. Even a commander in chief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-star_rank) is a commissioned officer.

1696

Related: Rules of Land Warfare (US Army 1914) (http://books.google.com/books?id=NSmPAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover).


The "legitimate" marketplace for birth certificates as securities is the SDR Marketplace - Special Drawing Rights - or as I define it, The measure of a social conditioning to blindly endorse the private credit from the local central bank. Here we find a basket of five fictional currencies averaged together to determine an international value of money and SDR's became the replacement for gold changing that "fixed" exchange rate into the "floating" exchange rate around 1976.

Isn't that back around the time when they flipped the scri--I mean err ... umm .. the flag?


1698 (Deseret News Archives) Caption for the picture is: "President John F. Kennedy emerges from Air Force One as he visits Utah, Sept. 26, 1963. Note: SAM 26000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VC-137C_SAM_26000) wasn't manufactured until 1962 and had a service term from October 9, 1962 - March 24, 1998.

1697

When a community currency exchange transaction crosses borders, it seems it is to clear through the established channels which would likely require an accounting if one of the SDR currencies is involved. So in a sense, perhaps the check casher, the bank teller and the SDR system are all participating in the same market even if only in the sense they are unified by protocols.

allodial
05-09-14, 01:55 AM
The the Illinois Code definition of ambulatory currency exchange (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1186&ChapterID=20) has been added to the appropriate post (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1158-Redeem-From-Public-To-Private-Venue&p=13819&viewfull=1#post13819) along with clarifying text from a case (THILLENS, INC. v. DEPT., FINANCIAL INST. NO. 36486. 24 Ill.2d 110 (1962) 180 N.E.2d 494).


Plaintiff is in the business of operating an ambulatory currency exchange which normally consists of transporting currency belonging to plaintiff to the premises of business establishments, usually pursuant to contract, and the cashing of payroll checks of employees on the premises of the employer. In some instances, we gather from the record, plaintiff cashes one large check for the employer and the latter pays his employees in cash. This business, as well as that of operating nonambulatory currency exchanges, is regulated and controlled by the Community Currency Exchanges Act, hereinafter referred to as the act, wherein the legislature has "found and declares" that "the number of community currency exchanges should be limited in accordance with the needs of the communities they are to serve," and that "it is in the public interest to promote and foster the community currency exchange business and to assure the financial stability thereof." Ill. Rev. Stat. 1961, chap. 16 1/2, par. 30. (Source (http://leagle.com/decision/196213424Ill2d110_1117.xml/THILLENS,%20INC.%20v.%20DEPT.,%20FINANCIAL%20INST. ))

iamsomedude
05-09-14, 02:31 AM
First and foremost ... this is all operation of INTERNATIONAL LAW under Law of Nations and natural law. read Book 1 Articles 192-199, Book 2 Articles 104, 105, 107-109, 132, 133 .... then place 12 USC 95a (2) right after those and then take all those previous articles, reverse order them and re-read ... now you have the fundamental operation of the "treaty of protection" put into place for each and every man, woman, and child at birth ... just waiting for one to complete the delivery by way of a simple "public acceptance" ... the UCC ... the Birth Certificate is a "treaty" awaiting "ratification"

... same thing as the "native americans" we given ... they just did not "ratify" and "indorse" it back to bind the US ... they did not know with whom they were dealing.



We see the effects. We have put all of this into play. We have consistent and predictable results simply by implementing the underlying philosophy and standing on the one rock of 12 USC 95a (2) ... hell, we even removed a matter into Federal Court w/o a filing fee and in a non-representative capacity with a simple "seaman suit" and 42 usc 1982 and here is the kicker, we made up the entire procedure on the way home from the court case we removed.

Simple philosophy .... this is all I use ... everyone else I have spoken with brought me the "law" and each and everything done thereafter is "in harmony with the law" so, if you all wish to read anything else into this, I will not get in the way of your happiness and success.


responses to some questions:

1. Are not UCC Filings only NOTICE that an event has occurred, and not the event (transfer) itself? If so, then Boris's filings are not effective, and are "frivolous" if they are not based upon a event/transfer that occurred in reality via some other documents that have been executed?

how can the event NOT have occurred if the birth was not first registered? How about it just registers the acceptance of the offer by the United States for "safe harbor" offered under 12 USC 95a (2) and Trading with the Enemy Act 1917? Can you all accept that or must there be some other mystical reason?


2. Such "STRAWMAN" filings have been addresses recently (April,2014) by the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) report (final-nass-report-bogus-filings-040914.pdf) located in same folder link above. Perhaps Boris's filings need to be revised to avoid earmarks defined in this report.

Not sure if there is real comprehension over what I have done. The "estate" or "Name" as you all like to call it "underwrites" or "bails out" [secures] each of its "agencies" or "trusts" .. this is simple logic. I apologize if the simplicity of this logic confounds everyone.


3. I do not understand how the UNITED STATES became the Secured Party in Boris's filings. In particular, the box #2 "current record" entries do NOT make sense. Would not box 7 first be used to change the Parties BEFORE being listed as such in the box #2 "current record"?

When it occurred, I thought it was a mistake and was prepared to cancel the whole filing and redo, but then I discussed it with some people and we came to the understanding, any full assignment coverts the current secured party to the one to whom the assignment is made. we later verified this ... also, we found you CAN make the debtor and secured party one and the same; just not on the original filing. It is done thru the assignment. We have done it ... we did it during a 3 party assignment of a bail bond from the holder of the receipt to the one whom was bailed out to the united states.


4. Can one legitimately make a full assignment conditional?

the condition is per operation of law and in harmony with the intent of the law as it is based upon the workings of the 1864 Banking Act which is still the foundation of the banking system.


5. Perhaps it would be better to assign this property to "Alien Property Custodian" (APC) in accordance with 12 USC 95a and 50 USC App, section 6 and section 7 since the APC is charged with the duty of paying the bills of the "enemy"?

The original text of the 1917 Trading with the enemy Act reads "United States" ... 12 USC 95a (2) reads "United States" ... Assign it to them and let them figure out to whom they forward the matter.


The "reversion" takes effect "at death" and each and every matter concerning the court is basically a probate matter, when the "claimant" petitions the court and the court probates the estate, VIOLA!!! the United States is now the "secured party" and "since a general assignment for the benefit of creditors also operates to transfer the property of the principle to his assignee, such an assignment, from the time it takes effect , revokes the authority of the agent [corpus juris secundum, agencies]" then the "agent" is now "burdened" with a "fiduciary duty" to the TRUST to "acquit and discharge from further obligation" and "restore quiet enjoyment of person and property to the estate" as per the TERMS of the trust [ucc filing] and this is what is claimed in recoupment.

FYI, we also found a one page description of each and every court case in the untied states, along with how to respond properly. It is on the www.iamsomedude.com website under "legal scans", titled "3 -feasences" ... this is really much simpler than people are making it out to be ... and as we move along using the philosophy, it gets even clearer and easier.

Chex
05-09-14, 11:45 AM
1701

The Johnson Family Cemetery is privately owned by the Johnson family. Please respect their requests and do not enter the cemetery. http://www.nps.gov/lyjo/planyourvisit/johnsoncemetery.htm

The Johnson Family must of purchased the cemetery in lawful money.

David Merrill
05-09-14, 02:00 PM
Welcome to the forums SomeDude;



First and foremost ... this is all operation of INTERNATIONAL LAW under Law of Nations and natural law. read Book 1 Articles 192-199, Book 2 Articles 104, 105, 107-109, 132, 133 .... then place 12 USC 95a (2) right after those and then take all those previous articles, reverse order them and re-read ... now you have the fundamental operation of the "treaty of protection" put into place for each and every man, woman, and child at birth ... just waiting for one to complete the delivery by way of a simple "public acceptance" ... the UCC ... the Birth Certificate is a "treaty" awaiting "ratification"

... same thing as the "native americans" we given ... they just did not "ratify" and "indorse" it back to bind the US ... they did not know with whom they were dealing.

What a great idea! Especially considering that Title 12 USC §95 is the codification of the Trading with the Enemy Act. It is great to have you around.



P.S.


When it occurred, I thought it was a mistake and was prepared to cancel the whole filing and redo, but then I discussed it with some people and we came to the understanding, any full assignment coverts the current secured party to the one to whom the assignment is made.


Did you mean converts?

Anthony Joseph
05-09-14, 07:45 PM
If one finds oneself in a position to issue money, why would one endorse private credit? ;)



I was told by a police officer that a State-issued birth certificate belongs to the State and likewise, the names thereon also do.


I was puzzled as to why he would ask me if I had/held/owned a State-issued birth certificate. My logic: why is this stranger carrying a dangerous weapon asking me if I own something that he knows belongs to the State? Since 'birth certificates' (cop's definition) belong to the State and since I'm not the State then how can any 'birth certificate' (his definition since he asked the question) be mine {re: 'your birth certificate'}?"

1694


1700

Settling and closing accounting before exiting might be extremely important.

Related:

The Gaming Tokens of 1965 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1022-The-Gaming-Tokens-of-1965);
Casino Chips vs American Currency (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1019-Casino-Chips-vs-American-Currency);
Banks vs. Casinos (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1017-Banks-vs-Casinos);
New World Banking Order? (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?936-New-World-Banking-Order)





Might depend on the lex loci celebrationis (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lex%20loci%20celebrationis), lex loci contractus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_loci_contractus), situs (http://thefreedictionary.com/situs) (choice of law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_of_law)) of the relevant trust, will, deed, appointment, agreement or contract.



AFIAK soldiers aren't sovereigns. Even a commander in chief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-star_rank) is a commissioned officer.

1696

Related: Rules of Land Warfare (US Army 1914) (http://books.google.com/books?id=NSmPAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover).



Isn't that back around the time when they flipped the scri--I mean err ... umm .. the flag?



1697

When a community currency exchange transaction crosses borders, it seems it is to clear through the established channels which would likely require an accounting if one of the SDR currencies is involved. So in a sense, perhaps the check casher, the bank teller and the SDR system are all participating in the same market even if only in the sense they are unified by protocols.

What does the flag look like on the RIGHT side of KENNEDY's plane? What does the flag look like on the LEFT side of the color picture of 'Air Force One'?

The best example is the reverse flag patch on the FRONT of the uniform or helmet; that doesn't make sense.

Anthony Joseph
05-09-14, 07:48 PM
Welcome to the forums SomeDude;




What a great idea! Especially considering that Title 12 USC §95 is the codification of the Trading with the Enemy Act. It is great to have you around.

What happened to the "bunny hole"? What happened to "he is fighting his way off the battlefield"?

David Merrill
05-09-14, 09:07 PM
What happened to the "bunny hole"? What happened to "he is fighting his way off the battlefield"?

Collate please, describe the discrepancy you wish to point out.



I can understand why Boris continues down that bunny hole; the initial presumption that the birth certificate is a financial security is so far-fetched that nobody in the State government will even try addressing it. - At least in the USA. Therefore we have to resort to a letter (http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/7078/birthcertnobond.jpg) a little closer to the Crown, in Canada:



1682


I recall how during the development of this mythology Fidelity's "Random Number Generator" would throw people into thinking they had found a CUSIP # for their birth certificate. When I first linked to Fidelity though, I tried various tests and found that I could get a CUSIP # for anything at all, even for something in the future!

Be careful.

If you never get information that refutes your hypothesis, that does not mean you are onto a valid theory. If the birth certificate has monetary value then it is regulated by the SEC and has a valid CUSIP #. There has never been any CUSIP # ever, assigned to a birth certificate! Never! The reason is obvious to the most casual observer...


Regards,

David Merrill.


I was unaware that I might be conceding that the birth certificate is or has ever been a security, or any kind of financial instrument. At least that is how I interpret your challenge.

Maybe I am taking it the wrong way but you seem to be taunting me with a challenge?

So point out the connections on the reading journey Some Dude points out that would indicate the birth certificate has any monetary value, or that governments have share capital?

Anthony Joseph
05-09-14, 09:28 PM
Collate please, describe the discrepancy you wish to point out.





I was unaware that I might be conceding that the birth certificate is or has ever been a security, or any kind of financial instrument. At least that is how I interpret your challenge.

Maybe I am taking it the wrong way but you seem to be taunting me with a challenge?

So point out the connections on the reading journey Some Dude points out that would indicate the birth certificate has any monetary value, or that governments have share capital?

The point is that 'Some Dude' is not promoting or indicating the birth certificate has any "monetary value".

The point is that you lumped 'Some Dude' in with Robert Menard and the 'freemen on the land'/'Security of the Person' process as evidenced by you attaching that Canadian letter. The inquiries made which resulted in that letter have little to nothing to do with what 'Some Dude' is offering.

The point is that you welcomed 'Some Dude' joyfully ("[B]What a great idea! Especially considering that Title 12 USC §95 is the codification of the Trading with the Enemy Act. It is great to have you around.") after stating (by presumption) that his "bunny hole" opinion is "...so far-fetched that no one in the State government will try addressing it"

The point is you erroneously dismissed Boris and his "bunny hole" in one post and say how great his "idea" is in another.

The point is you presume to know about something without fully comprehending what it is first.

Michael Joseph
05-09-14, 09:41 PM
my trust has value. Where i place it is my choice. This idea that some military has seized control over everyone reminds me of a princess trapped in a high tower. HERE I COME TO SAVE THE DAY....

A trust receipt has ZERO VALUE - that is the beauty of it. Anyone skilled at trust knows this fact and knows this is an easy remedy. Making a Use however does bind one in obligation be it CONSTRUCTIVE or de-jure. For even the military commander cannot claim sovereign status for that is an impossibility. Clearly the military commander does not act on his own orders.

Value can only be determined at SALE. Some like to BARGAIN others EXCHANGE. And man BECAME a living soul.

Shalom
Micha'el ben Ha Elohim

allodial
05-09-14, 09:54 PM
If you never get information that refutes your hypothesis, that does not mean you are onto a valid theory. If the birth certificate has monetary value then it is regulated by the SEC and has a valid CUSIP #. There has never been any CUSIP # ever, assigned to a birth certificate! Never! The reason is obvious to the most casual observer...


The point is that you lumped 'Some Dude' [Boris] in with Robert Menard and the 'freemen on the land'/'Security of the Person' process as evidenced by you attaching that Canadian letter. The inquiries made which resulted in that letter have little to nothing to do with what 'Some Dude' is offering....



I failed to get the impression of David Merrill lumping Boris in with the "CUSIP crowd".

Re: CUSIPs and the SEC
IMHO the truth of the matter is that if one knows what the birth certificate is or the persons named therein then one would know why it would NOT have a CUSIP or need to be registered with the SEC and why diversions off into CUSIP and SEC la-la land likely might be rather derogatory and misleading. It might be helpful to know that a birth certificate typically was evidence from a keeper of a register that an entry was made into the register with the particulars of the entry being displayed on the certificate.

And no, I'm not necessarily slighting Boris's methodology. Its interesting at the least. Its similar to other things such as A4V which AFAIK involves accepting and returning (surrendering) the certificate to the Treasury.

Re: CUSIPs and the SEC II
P.S. The SEC regulates the companies that are use-ing assets that do not belong to them and because the assets DO NOT belong to the companies use-ing them there be regulations. It might help for anyone to get over, if and where applicable, being awestruck and mystified by "major corporations" which obtain their very existences and their operational resources from the likes of the State, elected officials or legislative bodies.

Re: Municipal corporations.


Municipal corporations are creatures of the statute, and legislative power over them is plenary, except as otherwise limited by the constitution. Trimble v. People ex rel. Phelps, 19 C. 187, 190, 196 ('93'), 34 P. 981. (Mills Colorado Digest v 2 1901)

Michael Joseph
05-09-14, 10:01 PM
my trust has value. Where i place it is my choice. This idea that some military has seized control over everyone reminds me of a princess trapped in a high tower. HERE I COME TO SAVE THE DAY....

A trust receipt has ZERO VALUE - that is the beauty of it. Anyone skilled at trust knows this fact and knows this is an easy remedy. Making a Use however does bind one in obligation be it CONSTRUCTIVE or de-jure. For even the military commander cannot claim sovereign status for that is an impossibility. Clearly the military commander does not act on his own orders.

Value can only be determined at SALE. Some like to BARGAIN others EXCHANGE. And man BECAME a living soul.

Shalom
Micha'el ben Ha Elohim

Furthermore you can only Lease what has been leased. And that lease must be for a period of years. Consider beginnings. One must always consider the beginning was it a Freehold or a Leasehold tenancy?

My mind can stretch to origins but it cannot go to a point before origins. Thus again I beg the meaning of the Capital Nouns.

Shalom
Micha'el ben Ha Elohim

allodial
05-09-14, 10:08 PM
Furthermore you can only Lease what has been leased. And that lease must be for a period of years. Consider beginnings. One must always consider the beginning was it a Freehold or a Leasehold tenancy?

Life estates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_estate) ...period of time. Indeed.

Anthony Joseph
05-09-14, 11:32 PM
I failed to get the impression of David Merrill lumping Boris in with the CUSIP crowd.

Re: CUSIPs and the SEC
IMHO the truth of the matter is that if one knows what the birth certificate is or the persons named therein then one would know why it would NOT have a CUSIP or need to be registered with the SEC and why diversions off into CUSIP and SEC la-la land likely might be rather derogatory and misleading. It might be helpful to know that a birth certificate typically was evidence from a keeper of a register that an entry was made into the register with the particulars of the entry being displayed on the certificate.

And no, I'm not necessarily slighting Boris's methodology. Its interesting at the least. Its similar to other things such as A4V which AFAIK involves accepting and returning (surrendering) the certificate to the Treasury.

Re: CUSIPs and the SEC II
P.S. The SEC regulates the companies that are use-ing assets that do not belong to them and because the assets DO NOT belong to the companies use-ing them there be regulations. It might help for anyone to get over, if and where applicable, being awestruck and mystified by "major corporations" which obtain their very existences and their operational resources from the likes of the State, elected officials or legislative bodies.

Re: Municipal corporations.

I never mentioned the 'CUSIP crowd'.

I believe that Canadian letter deals specifically with those who attempt to "access the STRAWMAN account" in order to gain the "funds" therein (a certain 'allotment' per each 'birth').

I believe the CUSIP is "for the purposes of facilitating clearing and settlement of trades."

I do not believe these two 'crowds' are directly related nor did I intend to address that part of David's post. If you read my post again, you will find it very clear what it is I am saying.

In most of these other "processes", the idea is to claim, demand, "keep" or "take over" that which exists in the commercial realm - the DEAD world of paper. I believe Boris' approach is akin to "render unto Caesar..." in the FULLEST sense.

Also, I do not believe anyone is suggesting that "...the military has seized control over everyone..."; again, that is an erroneous presumptive conclusion made due to not FULLY comprehending what Boris is putting forth.

As man, I still retain my inherent right to property absent interference; as a son of the Most High, I still retain my heirship on the earth granted to me in covenant. The rest is just an illusionary PAPER GAME which I will gladly leave to those who are oath-bound to "play by the rules", and "protect the assets", of said GAME.

allodial
05-10-14, 01:53 AM
CUSIPs help for tracking how securities affect the book value, balance sheet or the like of companies or entities some of which might be licensed under SEC regulations to carry out activities which require use-ing property that does not wholly belong to them (i.e. they dont have full title or allodial thus subject to regulations/rules since they are trustees). And yes it helps with settlements/clearing of trades which are facilitated through clearinghouses.


I failed to get the impression of David Merrill lumping Boris in with the "CUSIP crowd".

That was the only semi-response directed at you.

doug555
05-10-14, 02:27 AM
First and foremost ... this is all operation of INTERNATIONAL LAW under Law of Nations and natural law. read Book 1 Articles 192-199, Book 2 Articles 104, 105, 107-109, 132, 133 .... then place 12 USC 95a (2) right after those and then take all those previous articles, reverse order them and re-read ... now you have the fundamental operation of the "treaty of protection" put into place for each and every man, woman, and child at birth ... just waiting for one to complete the delivery by way of a simple "public acceptance" ... the UCC ... the Birth Certificate is a "treaty" awaiting "ratification"

... same thing as the "native americans" we given ... they just did not "ratify" and "indorse" it back to bind the US ... they did not know with whom they were dealing.



We see the effects. We have put all of this into play. We have consistent and predictable results simply by implementing the underlying philosophy and standing on the one rock of 12 USC 95a (2) ... hell, we even removed a matter into Federal Court w/o a filing fee and in a non-representative capacity with a simple "seaman suit" and 42 usc 1982 and here is the kicker, we made up the entire procedure on the way home from the court case we removed.

Simple philosophy .... this is all I use ... everyone else I have spoken with brought me the "law" and each and everything done thereafter is "in harmony with the law" so, if you all wish to read anything else into this, I will not get in the way of your happiness and success.


responses to some questions:

1. Are not UCC Filings only NOTICE that an event has occurred, and not the event (transfer) itself? If so, then Boris's filings are not effective, and are "frivolous" if they are not based upon a event/transfer that occurred in reality via some other documents that have been executed?

how can the event NOT have occurred if the birth was not first registered? How about it just registers the acceptance of the offer by the United States for "safe harbor" offered under 12 USC 95a (2) and Trading with the Enemy Act 1917? Can you all accept that or must there be some other mystical reason?

Good point. OK, I will consider the birth application for registration (pledge) as the SOURCE EVENT for my UCC-1 NOTICE of Acceptance, and my DECISION to "surrender" usufruct as the SOURCE EVENT for my UCC-3 NOTICE of Assignment. I may also start using INDORSED BILLS (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8BdR0w2oZY_TUhQNVNhbFU5M0U/edit?usp=sharing) as the SOURCE EVENT for additional UCC-3 filings to discharge future "charges/claims" presented to NAME after the initial UCC-3 is filed. What do you think?


2. Such "STRAWMAN" filings have been addresses recently (April,2014) by the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) report (final-nass-report-bogus-filings-040914.pdf) located in same folder link above. Perhaps Boris's filings need to be revised to avoid earmarks defined in this report.

Not sure if there is real comprehension over what I have done. The "estate" or "Name" as you all like to call it "underwrites" or "bails out" [secures] each of its "agencies" or "trusts" .. this is simple logic. I apologize if the simplicity of this logic confounds everyone.

OK. The main concern I have is the name appearing to be the same for the Bailor and Bailee, even though one is an "Organization" and the other is an "Individual".


3. I do not understand how the UNITED STATES became the Secured Party in Boris's filings. In particular, the box #2 "current record" entries do NOT make sense. Would not box 7 first be used to change the Parties BEFORE being listed as such in the box #2 "current record"?

When it occurred, I thought it was a mistake and was prepared to cancel the whole filing and redo, but then I discussed it with some people and we came to the understanding, any full assignment coverts the current secured party to the one to whom the assignment is made. we later verified this ... also, we found you CAN make the debtor and secured party one and the same; just not on the original filing. It is done thru the assignment. We have done it ... we did it during a 3 party assignment of a bail bond from the holder of the receipt to the one whom was bailed out to the united states.

OK, that makes sense to me now, but aren't they the same on your original UCC-1 filing?


4. Can one legitimately make a full assignment conditional?

the condition is per operation of law and in harmony with the intent of the law as it is based upon the workings of the 1864 Banking Act which is still the foundation of the banking system.

OK, but can you specify what "operation of law" is effective here? The 1864 Banking Act law, or the law governing trusts?


5. Perhaps it would be better to assign this property to "Alien Property Custodian" (APC) in accordance with 12 USC 95a and 50 USC App, section 6 and section 7 since the APC is charged with the duty of paying the bills of the "enemy"?

The original text of the 1917 Trading with the enemy Act reads "United States" ... 12 USC 95a (2) reads "United States" ... Assign it to them and let them figure out to whom they forward the matter.

OK. I agree. Did you know that the APC office was Abolished: By EO 11281, May 13, 1966, effective June 30, 1966? It now resides in DOJ Civil Division (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title28-vol1/pdf/CFR-2010-title28-vol1-sec0-47.pdf), with Stuart F. Delery as the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Director of the Office of Alien Property (http://www.justice.gov/civil/)? Perhaps we should send the UCC filing acknowledgements to him?


The "reversion" takes effect "at death" and each and every matter concerning the court is basically a probate matter, when the "claimant" petitions the court and the court probates the estate, VIOLA!!! the United States is now the "secured party" and "since a general assignment for the benefit of creditors also operates to transfer the property of the principle to his assignee, such an assignment, from the time it takes effect , revokes the authority of the agent [corpus juris secundum, agencies]" then the "agent" is now "burdened" with a "fiduciary duty" to the TRUST to "acquit and discharge from further obligation" and "restore quiet enjoyment of person and property to the estate" as per the TERMS of the trust [ucc filing] and this is what is claimed in recoupment.

FYI, we also found a one page description of each and every court case in the untied states, along with how to respond properly. It is on the www.iamsomedude.com website under "legal scans", titled "3 -feasences" ... this is really much simpler than people are making it out to be ... and as we move along using the philosophy, it gets even clearer and easier.

I had to start here (http://iamsomedude.com/advanced.html) to find above cited page. This is VERY helpful!



Firstly, Thanks for being here, Boris, and for posting such a comprehensive and helpful response. I am still learning about your material and the last video I've watch is your Mar 3, 2014 "Surrender" video in Colorado (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFfDl6pMw1s#t=272).

Secondly, I posted my replies to you in quoted section above. I hope you will continue to share your insights and successes with us and expect that we will be able to post some of our own here too in the near future!

Thanks again!
Doug

David Merrill
05-10-14, 10:04 AM
Anthony Joseph;


We all filter our perceptions through various conditioned sound bytes. I will concede that value is imprinted through trust and so one is easily drawn into the delusion (abomination) that debt is money (of value). Michael Joseph puts it quite elegantly in that one can only lease what is Leased. I prefer the same mental model in that debt can only have value to the lender, and cannot sustain any value to others leaching value off that lender - or in other words you cannot lease the same room or apartment to multiple parties (families for example).

I recall how we attended a National Common Law Grand Jury in Wichita - way back when.



1707


Eugene SCHROEDER testified about War and Emergency Powers and I am afraid that the Economist's name escapes me but he testified about the Federal Reserve and used a great example of 'fractional leasing' let's call it - fractional lending. He compared it to a great race horse but you would lease this fine horse on a particular day. Then boasting in the bar Tuesday challenges Friday to a race...

So FDR steps in and makes horse racing (or even possessing a horse) illegal and closes down the track for a Horse Racing Holiday!

And since these are so evolved around the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act you might comprehend how this all relates allegorically to Title 12 USC §95 - especially as applied to the next run on the Fed, which is the same run and seizure on gold, the next Bankers' Holiday.

I am going to refrain from comment about the dynamic emerging simply because it is unbecoming and people jockey their mouses toward what they enjoy reading and participating in. I will feed that when it is unpleasant, as little as I can. Rather I will try approaching this with logic.


The Birth Certificate is evidence of interest in an estate created when one is born. The foreign state is born on this occupied and conquered land and is immediately "forced to pledge" via seizure of the usufructuary interests and all potential TITLE and PROFITS derived therefrom. The energy and labor of the grown baby is funneled through the vessel furnished to execute the pledge ('FIRST MIDDLE LAST'). Since the baby was not of the age of majority at the time of the "pledge", a resulting trust forms whereby the seizure [B]demands indemnity by the rules of usufruct for the one who has been seized of TITLE and PROFITS from future fruits.

The "agreement" awaits completion since there is always a chance the "baby" will return to make claim to what was originally his - reversion. Acknowledgment of the seizure and surrender of claim(s) [assignment] to what has already been seized (reversionary/usufructuary interests in 'FIRST MIDDLE LAST') is required to complete the "gift" of safe harbor and exercise the indemnification from ALL charges when using the 'NAME' which is demanded of the party who seized by International Law - Law of Belligerent Occupation.


Use of the 'NAME', in this fully assigned capacity, benefits ONLY the 'United States' public trust.

At this timing in the thread you would seem to be trying to summarize and espouse what you are learning from Boris. I am not impressed. There are some aspects within clauses that portray reality as I perceive it but connecting all the clauses and sentences together actually does need you to verify that the birth certificate is directly in the CUSIP sense valuable as some kind of a security. And there you have it - that if it takes a process that requires me to accept secret markets then I categorize that illegal, an abomination and requiring a syndicalism to maintain the illusion of sustainability and even functionality. Quite often these are called bubbles because they are designed to pop.

As with Boris, I never spend too much time on these things so I will concede that if this is an example of Boris and his doctrine, I am somewhat ignorant. I have a $20M lien that ties directly to the oaths and lawful money (look on the coins) being bonded by the IN GOD WE TRUST Trust. I hold a lot more confidence in my lien than any negative averment or IN THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE WE TRUST Trust.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. My education about Boris and whatever he teaches is almost entirely off a UCC-3 I viewed a couple weeks ago linked from here on StSC. I started a thread hoping that somebody might start shedding some light for me, rather than spending my time reading through what is coming off as insubstantial from the start.

allodial
05-10-14, 10:24 AM
Similarly, I avoid placing trust in unjust weights and balances. Instead of debt money consider on the other hand the value behind an instrument that cancels or defeats debts of those who have voluntarily contracted them. Money that is debt money is perhaps no good for certain things. Money that is 'elastic' is another thing. Money that is good for defeating (allusion to the term 'defeasance (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/defeasance.asp)' is intentional) debts is another thing altogether.

1711

The fishing pole, line (kind've like thread) and fishhook and the ladder contrasted with throwing Joseph down a deep hole. Those who have conspired to adversely influence my life and inheritance arduously sought for me to waive immunizes or exemptions (via constructive forgery, etc.). Why? Standing outside of and above the hole (or theater of war or labyrinth) I can get others out. It seems that their conspiracy to undermine sovereignty is about perpetration of debt. Perpetuation of debt (even if only through smoke and mirrors trickery) then about control.

1708

Consider also that the trustee taking $50M of someone else's valuables goes into the game or maze in debt--and that is by design because its equitable that the beneficiaries have an accounting. He might stand to profit greatly--sure part of the profit might be his but the initial capital isn't. If a trustee is 'seedy' or 'shady' he might even get clever in figuring out ways to rob the beneficiaries and escape before they are wise to it (http://corporatemofo.com/society_and_antisocial_tendenc/the_robber_barons_of_enron.html) and maybe even make them pay (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/200904_CREDITCRISIS/recipients.html) the robbers for their service.

1709
Consider Peter (not knowing better) volunteered to pay the tax. A four-Drachma coin showed up (http://dqhall59.com/fish_and_coin.htm) via a fish's mouth to defeat the debt--because the extant authority or sovereign over that tax system established the acceptability of Drachmas for that purpose.

Perhaps many folk's problems is in that they are acting as trustees and not knowing when to stop or to change capacity. Like the librarian who goes home and keeps her badge, sensible shoes, pretensive glasses and "Shhh Quiet" sign around 24/7. Or like "President John Q. Smith" who signs his personal, non-work-oriented paychecks "President John Q. Smith" of MegaCorp--forgetting to change capacity from corporate president to head of household, perhaps (caught up in a kind of vanity) even forgetting that he can.

1710


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP7-54tSq_Y

It seems clear to me that certain systems were designed to be utilized for a different purpose than would-be hijackers had in mind. Kind've like an abortion clinic run by Satanists (hhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKo0oUUReUM#t=340). When a vampire is allowed to run a blood bank...what does one expect a vampire to do?

1712

Eugene SCHROEDER testified about War and Emergency Powers and I am afraid that the Economist's name escapes me but he testified about the Federal Reserve and used a great example of 'fractional leasing' let's call it - fractional lending. He compared it to a great race horse but you would lease this fine horse on a particular day. Then boasting in the bar Tuesday challenges Friday to a race...

So FDR steps in and makes horse racing (or even possessing a horse) illegal and closes down the track for a Horse Racing Holiday!

And since these are so evolved around the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act you might comprehend how this all relates allegorically to Title 12 USC §95 - especially as applied to the next run on the Fed, which is the same run and seizure on gold, the next Bankers' Holiday.

The taking away of the horses (capital) and expecting people to produce fruit seems abominable and oppressive. Of course, if clearinghouse certificates aren't good for tax defeasance...what gives?

Anthony Joseph
05-10-14, 12:47 PM
Anthony Joseph;


We all filter our perceptions through various conditioned sound bytes. I will concede that value is imprinted through trust and so one is easily drawn into the delusion (abomination) that debt is money (of value). Michael Joseph puts it quite elegantly in that one can only lease what is Leased. I prefer the same mental model in that debt can only have value to the lender, and cannot sustain any value to others leaching value off that lender - or in other words you cannot lease the same room or apartment to multiple parties (families for example).

I recall how we attended a National Common Law Grand Jury in Wichita - way back when.


Eugene SCHROEDER testified about War and Emergency Powers and I am afraid that the Economist's name escapes me but he testified about the Federal Reserve and used a great example of 'fractional leasing' let's call it - fractional lending. He compared it to a great race horse but you would lease this fine horse on a particular day. Then boasting in the bar Tuesday challenges Friday to a race...

So FDR steps in and makes horse racing (or even possessing a horse) illegal and closes down the track for a Horse Racing Holiday!

And since these are so evolved around the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act you might comprehend how this all relates allegorically to Title 12 USC §95 - especially as applied to the next run on the Fed, which is the same run and seizure on gold, the next Bankers' Holiday.

I am going to refrain from comment about the dynamic emerging simply because it is unbecoming and people jockey their mouses toward what they enjoy reading and participating in. I will feed that when it is unpleasant, as little as I can. Rather I will try approaching this with logic.



At this timing in the thread you would seem to be trying to summarize and espouse what you are learning from Boris. I am not impressed. There are some aspects within clauses that portray reality as I perceive it but connecting all the clauses and sentences together actually does need you to verify that the birth certificate is directly in the CUSIP sense valuable as some kind of a security. And there you have it - that if it takes a process that requires me to accept secret markets then I categorize that illegal, an abomination and requiring a syndicalism to maintain the illusion of sustainability and even functionality. Quite often these are called bubbles because they are designed to pop.

As with Boris, I never spend too much time on these things so I will concede that if this is an example of Boris and his doctrine, I am somewhat ignorant. I have a $20M lien that ties directly to the oaths and lawful money (look on the coins) being bonded by the IN GOD WE TRUST Trust. I hold a lot more confidence in my lien than any negative averment or IN THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE WE TRUST Trust.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. My education about Boris and whatever he teaches is almost entirely off a UCC-3 I viewed a couple weeks ago linked from here on StSC. I started a thread hoping that somebody might start shedding some light for me, rather than spending my time reading through what is coming off as insubstantial from the start.

Thank you for admitting your ignorance and that your "education" about Boris is almost entirely off a UCC-3 you viewed.

You feign yourself as someone who wishes to "protect" others from "dangerous" doctrines; hence your dismissing and condescending attitude toward the supposed 'bunny hole" you feel is being promoted. This is why you continue making erroneous presumptions about my belief or dependency upon 'CUSIP number process' or that I am being "...easily drawn into the delusion (abomination) that debt is money (of value)." These comments are still being made at best in ignorance and at worst as intentional to undermine a theory which may effect your "remedy process" beliefs.

Your confidence in your '$20M lien' and 'Title 12 U.S.C. §411' is no better or worse than confidence in the philosophy behind executing assignment pursuant to 'Title 12 U.S.C. §95 a (2)'. It is all just theory since you have NEVER verified that your "remedy process" succeeds in a courtroom setting. If we go strictly by "internet yarn"; your process kept you in jail for 2 weeks and 'Boris' approach' avoided a certain jail sentence at the eleventh hour.

My point is that I do not care about any of that; it is the underlying philosophy of "render unto Caesar..." in the FULLEST WAY that makes sense to me and "tests well" against my biblical/theological beliefs. Others here also find this approach has the same worthiness.

In the absence of someone directly asking for your "parental guidance", please restrain from presuming to "protect" those who are "beneath" your level of education, vocabulary and "enlightenment". I do not believe there are any children "jockeying their mouses" around here; we are fully capable of thinking, researching, verifying and learning without an automatic "protection-mechanism" provided by you.

Again, I do not espouse ANY "CUSIP" process, 'negative averment' technique or that there is "value" to be gained by some "IN THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE WE TRUST" approach. These are ALL presumptive notions erroneously put forth by your admitted ignorance.

David Merrill
05-10-14, 01:08 PM
Of course, if clearinghouse certificates aren't good for tax defeasance...what gives?

That is what I am hearing - that is the presumption about birth certificates. AJ says I am grouping Boris with Robert MAYNARD, where I got that very revealing letter. Actually though, as I put it I was going closer to the Crown to find disclosure - shock testing for the elastic currency here beginning in Canada. And the Declaration of Independence being an internal memorandum for the Crown Templars to execute Reconstruction of a new corporation - These United States of America under British Manorial Law.

So it was just logic. I have not studied Boris except the UCC Form that was linked. It was the same bunny hole.


Consider also that the trustee taking $50M of someone else's valuables goes into the game or maze in debt--and that is by design because its equitable that the beneficiaries have an accounting...

The Five Cube Sum Number Locks reveals certain relationships in a hologram that fractals repeat throughout the number line. So you can just stick with the FCSNL to see the whole thing as the birth of Artificial Intuition. 371 and 371 show a difference of the first CSNL = 1. That provides for the first prime and the ability to toggle. From toggling arises dither and 407 being prime provides for a new dimension to be added - what I am calling flutter. This artificial intuition spans the entire number line, like I said so properly applied is the fast RSA Factoring Algorithm that will defeat any Public Key Encryption. (There's the word again - defeasance.)

First dishonesty will crash the fictions about debt being money, probably within an afternoon. Then to move money we will need an armored car, get it? The end of all secrets. (Rather than Sneakers' TOO MANY SECRETS.

And like I said, the birth of Artificial Intuition.


Regards,

David Merrill.

allodial
05-10-14, 01:36 PM
..........

allodial
05-10-14, 01:36 PM
That is what I am hearing - that is the presumption about birth certificates. AJ says I am grouping Boris with Robert MAYNARD, where I got that very revealing letter. Actually though, as I put it I was going closer to the Crown to find disclosure - shock testing for the elastic currency here beginning in Canada. And the Declaration of Independence being an internal memorandum for the Crown Templars to execute Reconstruction of a new corporation - These United States of America under British Manorial Law.

I figured you were giving Boris the benefit of the doubt and honing in on a scent...getting warmer. On the topic of decryption...


Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free {Greek: eleutheros (or exempt)}.

There is this thing called 'parens patrie'.


And the Declaration of Independence being an internal memorandum for the Crown Templars to execute Reconstruction of a new corporation - These United States of America under British Manorial Law.

One thing that might be worth considering is the notion that a separate crown was created in consequence of the War of Independence. I suspect that it had to work out like that by operation of law. Both the (British/English) Monarchy and the (British/English) Crown put the colonies out of protection in consequence of the Prohibitory Acts of 1775. Noel Cox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noel_Cox) is quite savvy as to the matter of the evolution or creation of separate crowns with respect to the Commonwealth Countries. Ah but wait that is even more decryption, now isn't it? Go figure.

1713
My view is that rather than being an internal memorandum it was between Crowns--distinctions resulted from the consequence of war. Benjamin Franklin's esquire status being local to the United states of America. Of course those persisting on collecting on the basis something King John did or didn't do (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abdication) might not like the idea....

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1432&d=1383966409


My sentiments, however, have been confirmed, not altered, by our late unsuccessful experiments {was the experiment one of fraud and deception?} in America... Respecting the bill now under consideration, I must oppose it, because, of all of our proceedings, this appears to me to be the most violent and impolitick. It begins with a formal, indiscriminate declaration of war against the inhabitants of thirteen Colonies....

AFAIK, the Prohibitory Acts were passed in 1775. The separate crown factor should/might explain: shady dealings of the alleged Constitutional Convention (and the rat odour that Patrick Henry smelled), John Wilkes Booth working with John Surrat (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lincolnconspiracy/surrattspeech.html), the War of 1812, 1913, 1933, Veith's propaganda if that's what it is, dumbing down the education system in America, putting-cat-back-in-bag-isms etc.

1716

The Declaration was perhaps an assertion and acknowledgement of a separate crown. The first Treaty of Paris being yet another.

Anthony Joseph
05-10-14, 07:11 PM
For those who wish to think for themselves apart from accepting the "bunny hole" dogma:

The "value", that some here keep attempting to attribute to some piece of PAPER, is actually the living man. Man has value; and without the living, the DEAD world of COMMERCE cannot function. The DEAD world of PAPER is an illusion in that it TITLES property in an attempt to gain PROFITS. Said PROFITS are also illusionary and are a part of "CAESAR's" realm - commercial warfare.

The Birth Certificate is evidence of an event - the event being that new "value" has entered the world (living being) and the potential future PROFITS is what those who operate the DEAD realm are after. The 'FIRST MIDDLE LAST' vessel is the transmitting utility provided to funnel the real "value" (man's labor and energy) by way of conversion into commercial TITLE to the fruits (USUFRUCT) and PROFITS derived therefrom. Original TITLE to said vessel is somewhere; we are only provided with a "Certified Copy". That means we are NOT the OWNER and we DO NOT hold true TITLE to 'FIRST MIDDLE LAST' or anything in said 'NAME'.

Anyone who pays a % of tax on anything "bought" is acting in a lower capacity than those who operate the created STATE/GOVERNMENT/ENTITY that sets the "tax"; by paying the "tax" you are a participant and a subject (not free) to "Caesar's" realm - period.

Has anyone here accomplished the feat of DEFEATING the % tax on EVERYTHING "bought" or acquired in commerce?

The crickets are already chirping.

Keith Alan
05-10-14, 08:24 PM
Has anyone here accomplished the feat of DEFEATING the % tax on EVERYTHING "bought" or acquired in commerce?

The crickets are already chirping.

Well, yes, everyone has, in the sense that only their public person is capable of paying a public tax. Their private persons are untouchable.

It is on this premise that I based my question to start the thread.

Re-venue from the public to the private on demand.

Anthony Joseph
05-10-14, 08:29 PM
My point is that when you buy a hamburger (or anything similar) at a drive-thru utilizing cash, does it take .99 cents out of your pocket or .99 + tax?

Even further, the fact that you are "paying" at all for that burger is a "tax" - a fee to acquire something which originates from the earth.

Keith Alan
05-10-14, 08:55 PM
My point is that when you buy a hamburger (or anything similar) at a drive-thru utilizing cash, does it take .99 cents out of your pocket or .99 + tax?

Even further, the fact that you are "paying" at all for that burger is a "tax" - a fee to acquire something which originates from the earth.
I think that goes more to people's understanding of what money is. In my opinion, all money really is, is a token we use to keep track of energy expended in an economy. It's an accounting device, and can take many forms.

If I'm paying money for a burger, I'm making a split barter exchange with someone, labor for labor, only I traded my labor months ago for this burger today. That I put energy into the system is proven by the coin with which I'm buying the burger.

The tax is due on the use of a public resource - public money - right? But If I'm using lawful (private) money in a public venue, I'm re-venuing from private to public, so tax is due.

allodial
05-10-14, 08:57 PM
http://www.c3-colorado.org/images/C3%20Tax%20Exemption%202008.jpg
There are plenty of U.S. States that have sales tax exemption forms. I find it a big cumbersome to carry the exemption certificate around everywhere I go. Also, consider that the burger joint might be on "Caesar's realm" and the burger joint is taxing the transaction and is liable to pay the tax but gets the 'customer' to pay it.


Even further, the fact that you are "paying" at all for that burger is a "tax" - a fee to acquire something which originates from the earth.


1717

Actually it doesnt originate out of the soil although it may be composed of raw materials extracted from the land. By time you get it, the burger is an artifice composed of artifices. One isn't paying merely for a slice of a cow or some grains just like when one buys furniture one isn't merely purchasing a tree or some logs.


I think that goes more to people's understanding of what money is. In my opinion, all money really is, is a token we use to keep track of energy expended in an economy. It's an accounting device, and can take many forms.

Yes. I'd say that pretty much sums it up. Monetary denomination being a unit of risk. The problem that has arisen is that the system hijackers have set out to over-aggrandize money and to throw things out of whack.


The tax is due on the use of a public resource - public money - right? But If I'm using lawful (private) money in a public venue, I'm re-venuing from private to public, so tax is due.

Actually, the tax might be due to a revenue-splitting agreement between the burger joint at the state and the burger joint is paying for profiting from use of its license or charter.


The "value", that some here keep attempting to attribute to some piece of PAPER, is actually the living man. Man has value; and without the living, the DEAD world of COMMERCE cannot function.

What good is an aircraft without anyone to fly it? Re: Profits. The word sacrifice connotes giving up of something for a greater gain not for a lesser. Profit need not always be monetary or carnal.


The Birth Certificate is evidence of an event - the event being that new "value" has entered the world...

That a new potential source of value has arrived (if he/she survives long enough they might produce some?)?


Anyone who pays a % of tax on anything "bought" is acting in a lower capacity than those who operate the created STATE/GOVERNMENT/ENTITY that sets the "tax"; by paying the "tax" you are a participant and a subject (not free) to "Caesar's" realm - period.

If they are collecting the tax for me/us and I/we add to my own Treasury how would I/we be harming myself/ourselves?


Has anyone here accomplished the feat of DEFEATING the % tax on EVERYTHING "bought" or acquired in commerce?

The crickets are already chirping.

See top of post.

Anthony Joseph
05-10-14, 09:36 PM
I think that goes more to people's understanding of what money is. In my opinion, all money really is, is a token we use to keep track of energy expended in an economy. It's an accounting device, and can take many forms.

If I'm paying money for a burger, I'm making a split barter exchange with someone, labor for labor, only I traded my labor months ago for this burger today. That I put energy into the system is proven by the coin with which I'm buying the burger.

The tax is due on the use of a public resource - public money - right? But If I'm using lawful (private) money in a public venue, I'm re-venuing from private to public, so tax is due.

That paper ("money") denotes evidence of debt. Is your labor denominated in debt units? In other words If you hand someone that piece of paper (FRN) you essentially exchanged an unfulfilled debt for a burger (substance).

It is this activity, withholding things from others and storing these evidences of debt as our OWN stockpile, that constitutes belligerent commercial activity - namely 'Trading with the Enemy'. All of this commercial activity is done within the realm of the 'United States'.

Cease and release all claim to that realm and let the oath-sworn officials administrate their own "business". Everything is a 'charge/discharge' scenario in this commercial theater of war. Are you authorized and/or oath-sworn to participate in such activity?

Anthony Joseph
05-10-14, 09:52 PM
What good is an aircraft without anyone to fly it? Re: Profits. The word sacrifice connotes giving up of something for a greater gain not for a lesser. Profit need not always be monetary or carnal.



If they are collecting the tax for me/us and I/we add to my own Treasury how would I/we be harming myself/ourselves?

Sacrifice is exactly what we are talking about - sacrifice in FULL for the benefit of all the living.

Do you make it a habit to have someone take cash out of your pocket and deposit it back in to the bank account you use?

I do not believe it is our own 'Treasury'; that entity stores illusionary "wealth" which is NO part of the Kingdom of the Most High. Will you take your 'Treasury' with you when you die?

The 'Treasury' is a tool of the commercial realm and I wish no part of it. I will happily "render unto Caesar ALL that is Caesar's". "Caesar" has no claim to the physical earth or anything in it. That belongs to God and His sons and daughters are the heirs.

I believe Boris' approach holds true to that idea.

allodial
05-10-14, 09:58 PM
Sacrifice is exactly what we are talking about - sacrifice in FULL for the benefit of all the living.

Do you make it a habit to have someone take cash out of your pocket and deposit it back in to the bank account you use?

I do not believe it is our own 'Treasury'; that entity stores illusionary "wealth" which is NO part of the Kingdom of the Most High. Will you take your 'Treasury' with you when you die?

The 'Treasury' is a tool of the commercial realm and I wish no part of it. I will happily "render unto Caesar ALL that is Caesar's". "Caesar" has no claim to the physical earth or anything in it. That belongs to God and His sons and daughters are the heirs.\

^ I am unaware of living in Rome. Though there might be Romans about here and there trying to make it Rome. On the topic of Rome, etc. perhaps you fail to comprehend the significance of the first two chapters of the epistle to the Ephesians?


The 'Treasury' is a tool of the commercial realm and I wish no part of it. I will happily "render unto Caesar ALL that is Caesar's". "Caesar" has no claim to the physical earth or anything in it. That belongs to God and His sons and daughters are the heirs.\

Consider that State warrants ("checks") tend to be non-negotiable. Non-negotiables are not in the scope of the lex mercatoria. The baby and the bath water ain't the same thing. Everything isn't warfare or commerce--that illusion is that what you seem to believe and espouse to the point that it might be harming or disabling you.

Keith Alan
05-10-14, 10:00 PM
Yes. I'd say that pretty much sums it up. Monetary denomination being a unit of risk. The problem that has arisen is that the system hijackers have set out to over-aggrandize money and to throw things out of whack.

Nearly everyone has been moved from the private to the public venue through the money. I think that's why there's an escape hatch at 12USC411; for allowing people to move back into the private.

doug555
05-10-14, 10:04 PM
The "reversion" takes effect "at death" and each and every matter concerning the court is basically a probate matter, when the "claimant" petitions the court and the court probates the estate, VIOLA!!! the United States is now the "secured party" and "since a general assignment for the benefit of creditors also operates to transfer the property of the principle to his assignee, such an assignment, from the time it takes effect , revokes the authority of the agent [corpus juris secundum, agencies]" then the "agent" is now "burdened" with a "fiduciary duty" to the TRUST to "acquit and discharge from further obligation" and "restore quiet enjoyment of person and property to the estate" as per the TERMS of the trust [ucc filing] and this is what is claimed in recoupment.

FYI, we also found a one page description of each and every court case in the untied states, along with how to respond properly. It is on the www.iamsomedude.com (http://www.iamsomedude.com) website under "legal scans", titled "3 -feasences" ... this is really much simpler than people are making it out to be ... and as we move along using the philosophy, it gets even clearer and easier.

From the above, it appears that remedy for the "3 feasences" lies in Probate Court, by filing a "complaint" and requiring "discovery" (see below links to cited page and an example complaint):
Probate Court Right of Discovery regarding "3 feasences" (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8BdR0w2oZY_TUZRN1FPTUZ5Y0k/edit?usp=sharing)
Probate Complaint of Heir for Discovery under Oath-1863.pdf (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8BdR0w2oZY_OVRTLXhnNmtwd1k/edit?usp=sharing)


It also appears that such a case can be removed to "Circuit Court", at least per SC laws, title 62 (see below link):
Probate Court removal to Circuit Court - SC Title 62.pdf (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8BdR0w2oZY_Y2M3TFdQckJlSVU/edit?usp=sharing)

But if one was citing a Title 50 TWEA violation, then the action/complaint/claim would be in/at a district court of the United States, perhaps using the Karl Lentz approach? (see below link):
Title 50 TWEA - district court of the United States are given jurisdiction.pdf (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8BdR0w2oZY_ekFyUVN2TFlIQ1U/edit?usp=sharing)


My question is what is the proper venue and strategy for remedy against violations of the "laws of war" when a "surrender of usufruct" is not honored by the occupying force?

Doesn't one who is a "peaceful inhabitant" have a duty to help the occupying force police itself against abuse of the "peaceful inhabitants" and the symbiotic status quo of "quiet enjoyment" and support of the occupying force?

Anthony Joseph
05-10-14, 10:04 PM
^ I am unaware of living in Rome. Though there might be Romans about here and there trying to make it Rome. On the topic of Rome, etc. perhaps you fail to comprehend the significance of the first two chapters of the epistle to the Ephesians?



Treasury checks and state warrants tend to be non-negotiable. Non-negotiables are not in the scope of the lex mercatoria. The treasurers know this.

Hence the quote marks; if you wish, replace "Caesar" with whatever NAME or ENTITY that issues and prints "money".

Anthony Joseph
05-10-14, 10:06 PM
From the above, it appears that remedy for the "3 feasences" lies in Probate Court, by filing a "complaint" and requiring "discovery" (see below links to cited page and an example complaint):
Probate Court Right of Discovery regarding "3 feasences" (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8BdR0w2oZY_TUZRN1FPTUZ5Y0k/edit?usp=sharing)
Probate Complaint of Heir for Discovery under Oath-1863.pdf (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8BdR0w2oZY_OVRTLXhnNmtwd1k/edit?usp=sharing)


It also appears that such a case can be removed to "Circuit Court", at least per SC laws, title 62 (see below link):
Probate Court removal to Circuit Court - SC Title 62.pdf (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8BdR0w2oZY_Y2M3TFdQckJlSVU/edit?usp=sharing)

But if one was citing a Title 50 TWEA violation, then the action/complaint/claim would be in/at a district court of the United States, perhaps using the Karl Lentz approach? (see below link):
Title 50 TWEA - district court of the United States are given jurisdiction.pdf (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8BdR0w2oZY_ekFyUVN2TFlIQ1U/edit?usp=sharing)


My question is what is the proper venue and strategy for remedy against violations of the "laws of war" when a "surrender of usufruct" is not honored by the occupying force?

Doesn't one who is a "peaceful inhabitant" have a duty to help the occupying force police itself against abuse of the "peaceful inhabitants" and the symbiotic status quo of "quiet enjoyment" and support of the occupying force?

Who is the "superior officer" over the one who does not honor the "surrender" and violates the "laws of war".

allodial
05-10-14, 10:14 PM
Nearly everyone has been moved from the private to the public venue through the money. I think that's why there's an escape hatch at 12USC411; for allowing people to move back into the private.

Baited or "presumed into" vs moved.

Anthony Joseph
05-10-14, 10:16 PM
Nearly everyone has been moved from the private to the public venue through the money. I think that's why there's an escape hatch at 12USC411; for allowing people to move back into the private.

Making "demand for lawful money per 12USC411" can only be achieved through a PERSON. Said PERSON is a created 'United States' vessel, TITLE to which exists somewhere but NOT with you. The "demand" facilitates the "they shall be redeemed" portion. The debt is purchased back by the original issuer and the obligation to foreign or private interests is diminished. It is the public venue that realizes the benefit of diminished obligations and debt extinguishment via "demand made per 12USC411".

Keith Alan
05-10-14, 10:31 PM
Making "demand for lawful money per 12USC411" can only be achieved through a PERSON. Said PERSON is a created 'United States' vessel, TITLE to which exists somewhere but NOT with you. The "demand" facilitates the "they shall be redeemed" portion. The debt is purchased back by the original issuer and the obligation to foreign or private interests is diminished. It is the public venue that realizes the benefit of diminished obligations and debt extinguishment via "demand made per 12USC411".

Yes, excellent points. So the demand is made, leaving the holder of the money in the private venue, outside the reach of public government.

I guess I'm having difficulty understanding how this relates to the BC, other than it serving as an indemnity receipt issued by the regime. It proves the existence of a public person, ipso facto a private person.

Anthony Joseph
05-10-14, 10:49 PM
Yes, excellent points. So the demand is made, leaving the holder of the money in the private venue, outside the reach of public government.

I guess I'm having difficulty understanding how this relates to the BC, other than it serving as an indemnity receipt issued by the regime. It proves the existence of a public person, ipso facto a private person.

The BC is a certified copy of an original registration of, and TITLE to, the PERSON used to make said demand. The point of my additional commentary as it relates to Boris' approach is that, in my opinion, "making demand per 12USC411" does nothing to negate the presumption of "Enemy of the State" status ['Trading with the Enemy']. The possibility that you can and/or will make claim to the "redeemed money" [U.S. Treasury interests] through the State's vessel ['FIRST MIDDLE LAST'] keeps one under that default presumption - ENEMY.

Boris' approach attempts to quash that presumption through a recognized assignment/surrender process which is a memorialization of one's choice to cease any possible adverse claims. This reestablishes peace with the occupying force and the 'peaceful inhabitants' are not to be interfered with, in any manner, during the duration of belligerent occupation so long as one remains peaceful.

Keith Alan
05-10-14, 11:37 PM
The BC is a certified copy of an original registration of, and TITLE to, the PERSON used to make said demand. The point of my additional commentary as it relates to Boris' approach is that, in my opinion, "making demand per 12USC411" does nothing to negate the presumption of "Enemy of the State" status ['Trading with the Enemy']. The possibility that you can and/or will make claim to the "redeemed money" [U.S. Treasury interests] through the State's vessel ['FIRST MIDDLE LAST'] keeps one under that default presumption - ENEMY.

Boris' approach attempts to quash that presumption through a recognized assignment/surrender process which is a memorialization of one's choice to cease any possible adverse claims. This reestablishes peace with the occupying force and the 'peaceful inhabitants' are not to be interfered with, in any manner, during the duration of belligerent occupation so long as one remains peaceful.
Aha! Okay, I see your point.

Isn't an usufructuary a person with the right to reap profit from the settlor's res? So in the instant matter, the regime as usufructuary (trustee), by virtue of its hostile occupation, is entitled to reap a profit on the titles it holds; but only the profits.

So then it devolves to: is a demand for lawful money depriving the usufructuary of profits?

I think the answer to that question is yes, presuming that everything the public person does is for profit or gain, which is true when it receives public liability notes or banking credit (since both are US obligations).

Is lawful money a US obligation?

doug555
05-10-14, 11:37 PM
The BC is a certified copy of an original registration of, and TITLE to, the PERSON used to make said demand. The point of my additional commentary as it relates to Boris' approach is that, in my opinion, "making demand per 12USC411" does nothing to negate the presumption of "Enemy of the State" status ['Trading with the Enemy']. The possibility that you can and/or will make claim to the "redeemed money" [U.S. Treasury interests] through the State's vessel ['FIRST MIDDLE LAST'] keeps one under that default presumption - ENEMY.

Boris' approach attempts to quash that presumption through a recognized assignment/surrender process which is a memorialization of one's choice to cease any possible adverse claims. This reestablishes peace with the occupying force and the 'peaceful inhabitants' are not to be interfered with, in any manner, during the duration of belligerent occupation so long as one remains peaceful.

As long as the default currency is FRN's, the "ENEMY" status remains for the NAME (the State's vessel ['FIRST MIDDLE LAST']), and requires the repeated execution of the lawful money demands to reverse (redeem) each and every transaction that occurs in the commerce (war) arena through that NAME.

The NAME must be used to accommodate this redemption as provided for in their arena by 12 USC 411 and 12 USC 95a(2) and the laws of usufruct.

Perhaps reporting violations within their arena should start with Stuart F. Delery as the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Director of the Office of Alien Property (http://www.justice.gov/civil/) per 28 CFR 0.47 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title28-vol1/pdf/CFR-2010-title28-vol1-sec0-47.pdf) 17 and 50 USC App (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8BdR0w2oZY_ekFyUVN2TFlIQ1U/edit?usp=sharing)?

allodial
05-10-14, 11:45 PM
It is highly unlikely for the person named on the birth certificate to be construed to be an enemy or a stranger as contrasted to the person that is the holder thereof (see driver license or state ID)--they are not the same person. Any entity that is chartered by a State is going to be seen as 'friendly'. If a guy can get off a boat and get a driver license: whats the difference between his driver license and anyone else's? Nothing! How can you tell friend vs foe based on driver license? You can't? Perhaps its up to the person holding the certificate to act like an enemy or not based on what he does with what he has?

This topic as pertains to war perhaps cannot be adequately comprehended without the notion of mixed war.


The first and most necessary divisions of war are into one kind called private, another public, and another mixed. Now public war is carried on by the person holding the sovereign power. Private war is that which is carried on by private persons without authority from the state. A mixed war is that which is carried on, on one side by public authority, and on the other by private persons. But private war, from its greater antiquity, is the first subject for inquiry. -Grotius

How much difficulty is there in seeing that John Henry Doe and John H. Doe aren't the same name?

EZrhythm
05-11-14, 03:47 AM
The BC is a certified copy of an original registration of, and TITLE to, the PERSON...

Birth Certificate is a Certificate of Title (Similar to an automobile “pink slip”) which is evidence that title exists but is not actual title itself. The Birth Certificate is also a Security Instrument used as evidence that there is a security interest in the FIRST MIDDLE LAST name.

Expounded in this thread; http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1161-Birth-Certificate-What-it-is&p=13879#post13879

David Merrill
05-11-14, 11:14 AM
It is fallacy.

The consumer is in no way obligated to pay a Sales Tax because it is a Sales Tax - it is imposed on the Seller. It is not a Purchase Tax on the Purchaser.

Aside from my letter evidencing the contrary, there is no evidence in support of this elaborate chain of trust associations and compacts - at least to place any confidence building measures behind the birth certificate being a directly valued financial instrument.

My theory is that this is classical projection and reflection. Boris can construct elaborate fantasies that evolve from the naked contract of endorsement. That is indeed the nature of naked contract. The backside of replacement birth certificate cards in Canada supplies a wonderful confirmation! It actually has a Warehouse Receipt stamp and number. So the casual observer might feel that means that the Person warehoused under the Crown has a monetary value...

I have had some skeptics say the Canadian Letter is a lie though. I am not defending it, just presenting it to explain my point of view.


1718


1719

allodial
05-11-14, 11:33 AM
The consumer is in no way obligated to pay a Sales Tax because it is a Sales Tax - it is imposed on the Seller. It is not a Purchase Tax on the Purchaser.

Pretty much. The vendor when obtaining his license got a tax ID and became obligated to pay revenue because the vendor is gaining. From what I have gathered, its the vendor that is obligated to pay the sales tax not the purchaser nor the consumer. But somehow, perhaps through conditioning, the vendor has passed it on to the consumer. However, I recall seeing regulations (pertinent to some venue) which prohibit seller's from building the tax into the price. The same might apply to income tax only during the 60s or so they figured out a way to make the employee pay the tax. I am unaware of any U.S. State that doesn't have a form for applying for a sales/use tax exemption certificate!

Perhaps what they decided to do was presume "everyone" to be a stranger.


I have had some skeptics say the Canadian Letter is a lie though. I am not defending it, just presenting it to explain my point of view.

I tend to see the letter to be honest even if the wording might be carefully construed. At the same time, technically, a blank check doesn't have monetary value either. Not to suggest a birth certificate to be a 'blank check', but for perspectives illustrating the point as to how something like a blank check, rightfully signed and even associated with a billion dollar bank account can be said to have no monetary value and it be very true.

***

On that note, couldn't someone simply send the birth certificate and social security card back with a resignation letter rather than go through all of that UCC filing stuff?

Anthony Joseph
05-11-14, 02:25 PM
Aha! Okay, I see your point.

Isn't an usufructuary a person with the right to reap profit from the settlor's res? So in the instant matter, the regime as usufructuary (trustee), by virtue of its hostile occupation, is entitled to reap a profit on the titles it holds; but only the profits.

So then it devolves to: is a demand for lawful money depriving the usufructuary of profits?

I think the answer to that question is yes, presuming that everything the public person does is for profit or gain, which is true when it receives public liability notes or banking credit (since both are US obligations).

Is lawful money a US obligation?

The 'demand of lawful money' deprives the private foreign banking interests (Federal Reserve) of their "PROFITS". I believe the answer to your question is NO. United States Notes are obligations of the United States; Federal Reserve Notes are obligations of BOTH the United States and the Federal Reserve.


As long as the default currency is FRN's, the "ENEMY" status remains for the NAME (the State's vessel ['FIRST MIDDLE LAST']), and requires the repeated execution of the lawful money demands to reverse (redeem) each and every transaction that occurs in the commerce (war) arena through that NAME.

The NAME must be used to accommodate this redemption as provided for in their arena by 12 USC 411 and 12 USC 95a(2) and the laws of usufruct.

Perhaps reporting violations within their arena should start with Stuart F. Delery as the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Director of the Office of Alien Property (http://www.justice.gov/civil/) per 28 CFR 0.47 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title28-vol1/pdf/CFR-2010-title28-vol1-sec0-47.pdf) 17 and 50 USC App (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8BdR0w2oZY_ekFyUVN2TFlIQ1U/edit?usp=sharing)?

The 'NAME' is only a lifeless vessel. It is the living man that uses it who is either deemed "Enemy" or 'peaceful inhabitant'. What manner is 'IT' (the 'NAME') being used; to benefit your personal interests above all others or to benefit all others above your personal interests? I do believe that BOTH §411 & §95 a (2) provide for redemption for the "public pot" and FULL acquittance and discharge for the one using the 'NAME' for such purposes so long as the one ceases and/or releases ALL claims to the USUFRUCTUARY interests and assigns the reversionary interests to and for the account of the United States.


It is highly unlikely for the person named on the birth certificate to be construed to be an enemy or a stranger as contrasted to the person that is the holder thereof (see driver license or state ID)--they are not the same person. Any entity that is chartered by a State is going to be seen as 'friendly'. If a guy can get off a boat and get a driver license: whats the difference between his driver license and anyone else's? Nothing! How can you tell friend vs foe based on driver license? You can't? Perhaps its up to the person holding the certificate to act like an enemy or not based on what he does with what he has?

This topic as pertains to war perhaps cannot be adequately comprehended without the notion of mixed war.



How much difficulty is there in seeing that John Henry Doe and John H. Doe aren't the same name?

The "person named" is not construed an enemy; it is the man who steps into the office of 'person' (public capacity, 'you' is plural; duality of the man in the office of person) that is either an "Enemy of the State" or a peaceful inhabitant. It all depends upon how you use 'IT' and conduct yourself amidst the theater of commercial warfare.

There is no difficulty for me regarding the difference between John Henry Doe and John H. Doe; usufructuary interests to BOTH are assigned to the United States.


Birth Certificate is a Certificate of Title (Similar to an automobile “pink slip”) which is evidence that title exists but is not actual title itself. The Birth Certificate is also a Security Instrument used as evidence that there is a security interest in the FIRST MIDDLE LAST name.

Expounded in this thread; http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1161-Birth-Certificate-What-it-is&p=13879#post13879 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1161-Birth-Certificate-What-it-is&p=13879#post13879 [/QUOTE)

You are expressing and espousing David Merrill's "bunny hole" theory; you may hash that out with him since what we are attempting to discuss has NOTHING to do with the Canadian letter or the process which prompted its presentment; notwithstanding David's continuing presumptive labeling it as the same.


The consumer is in no way obligated to pay a Sales Tax because it is a Sales Tax - it is imposed on the Seller. It is not a Purchase Tax on the Purchaser.

And yet, when you buy a burrito at Taco Bell, you pony up the % of tax on .79 cents, don't you. Do you have a special 'Tax Exemption Certificate" to hand to the Taco Bell 'teller' so your lunch only takes .79 cents out of your pocket?

Anthony Joseph
05-11-14, 03:10 PM
THE WAY TO OUTDO ENGLAND WITHOUT FIGHTING HER (http://www.iamsomedude.com/pdf/The%20way%20to%20outdo%20England%20without%20fight ing%20her.pdf)

Go to the .pdf page number 183 - THE CURRENCY QUESTION - The Letter Twelfth.

A very interesting read which relates to what this discussion is about.

David Merrill
05-12-14, 04:56 AM
Birth Certificate is a Certificate of Title (Similar to an automobile “pink slip”) which is evidence that title exists but is not actual title itself. The Birth Certificate is also a Security Instrument used as evidence that there is a security interest in the FIRST MIDDLE LAST name.

Expounded in this thread; http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1161-Birth-Certificate-What-it-is&p=13879#post13879 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1161-Birth-Certificate-What-it-is&p=13879#post13879 [/QUOTE)

You are expressing and espousing David Merrill's "bunny hole" theory; you may hash that out with him since what we are attempting to discuss has NOTHING to do with the Canadian letter or the process which prompted its presentment; notwithstanding David's continuing presumptive labeling it as the same.


The consumer is in no way obligated to pay a Sales Tax because it is a Sales Tax - it is imposed on the Seller. It is not a Purchase Tax on the Purchaser.

And yet, when you buy a burrito at Taco Bell, you pony up the % of tax on .79 cents, don't you. Do you have a special 'Tax Exemption Certificate" to hand to the Taco Bell 'teller' so your lunch only takes .79 cents out of your pocket?



Instead of escalating this I will just show you Boris' UCC Filing.

allodial
05-12-14, 10:32 AM
Without aiming to show any disrespect, the first word that came to mind was "bait" especially considering the acknowledgement. Why would "BORIS R ERICKSON" be associated with the hospital? While he might know a thing or two about something or another, from looking at the UCC filing, I don't get the impression that he wholly knows what he is doing if his intent is noble.

Re: Secretary of State
It seems more likely the State Attorney General and the State Registrar would have something to do with the birth certificate or registration than the Secretary of State.


P.S. There are two separate filings: # 201308755849 and # 201400717971.

Anthony Joseph
05-12-14, 11:44 AM
Instead of escalating this I will just show you Boris' UCC Filing.

And that is why you are still ignorant regarding Boris' approach; that filing you keep attaching is only "Part 1" of the process.

ag maniac
05-12-14, 12:22 PM
Without aiming to show any disrespect, the first word that came to mind was "bait" especially considering the acknowledgement. Why would "BORIS R ERICKSON" be associated with the hospital? While he might know a thing or two about something or another, from looking at the UCC filing, I don't get the impression that he wholly knows what he is doing if his intent is noble.

Re: Secretary of State
It seems more likely the State Attorney General and the State Registrar would have something to do with the birth certificate or registration than the Secretary of State.


P.S. There are two separate filings: # 201308755849 and # 201400717971.


Apparently, this was filed as a "Protected Purchaser" and at the bottom, a box checked --> non UCC filing


Regards the state registrar, maybe involved because all the UCC 1 & 3 filings involving Boris have "record as real estate" box checked?

David Merrill
05-12-14, 12:59 PM
It is classical STRAWMAN REDEMPTION. That is why I included sworn transcript from Walker TODD.

I was oriented about the STRAWMAN REDEMPTION when the first guys who tried it got out of prison for it and began composing their UCC nonsense around it. I rejected it immediately because it never gets results when you try enforcing the lien; except that it is basically the motivation behind the 2007 Court Security Act adopted uniformly by the States. Since then the results are many prison sentences.


If that is what you call ignorant AJ, that is what I would rather be. Variations on this mythology, that the birth certificate is more than a health record or population census causes great sorrow.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. I had some direct experiences with the "UCC Guru" who would hold meetings on Wednesday lunchtimes at the Science of Mind church. Three local suitors insisted I check it out. He did not make a lot of sense and I asked a couple questions and he got upset with me.

The suitors stuck with him to watch and went to the courthouse when it was time to protect his UCC Lien. I hear the judge heard them both out carefully and said, I don't see any law there.

The UCC Guru was ordered to pay off all the attorney costs of his victim on his way out of the courthouse or go to jail.


P.P.S. I will often rely on such an experience for a final evaluation so if Boris gets results then I will examine them with fresh eyes.

allodial
05-12-14, 06:01 PM
It is classical STRAWMAN REDEMPTION. That is why I included sworn transcript from Walker TODD.

I was oriented about the STRAWMAN REDEMPTION when the first guys who tried it got out of prison for it and began composing their UCC nonsense around it. I rejected it immediately because it never gets results when you try enforcing the lien; except that it is basically the motivation behind the 2007 Court Security Act adopted uniformly by the States.

The UCC is perhaps a kind of evidence repository that can be used systematically with a court proceeding of some kind (i.e. a judgment might need to be entered in order to enforce the lien). Its one thing to file a UCC lien. Its another to serve the facts of the lien on the party giving them notice & grace and opportunity to state their case or be in agreement. The "UCC guru" might have been getting folks to skip the notice & grace part.

Related: Enforcing Security Interests Under Article 9 of the UCC (http://www.cliffordchance.com/content/dam/cliffordchance/PDF/Enforcing_Security_Interests_under_Article_9_of_th e_UCC.PDF).

Anthony Joseph
05-12-14, 07:35 PM
People...

THERE ARE NO LIENS TO BE ENFORCED AGAINST ANYONE.

The ignorance continues.

Anthony Joseph
05-12-14, 08:05 PM
It is classical STRAWMAN REDEMPTION. That is why I included sworn transcript from Walker TODD.

I was oriented about the STRAWMAN REDEMPTION when the first guys who tried it got out of prison for it and began composing their UCC nonsense around it. I rejected it immediately because it never gets results when you try enforcing the lien; except that it is basically the motivation behind the 2007 Court Security Act adopted uniformly by the States. Since then the results are many prison sentences.


If that is what you call ignorant AJ, that is what I would rather be. Variations on this mythology, that the birth certificate is more than a health record or population census causes great sorrow.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. I had some direct experiences with the "UCC Guru" who would hold meetings on Wednesday lunchtimes at the Science of Mind church. Three local suitors insisted I check it out. He did not make a lot of sense and I asked a couple questions and he got upset with me.

The suitors stuck with him to watch and went to the courthouse when it was time to protect his UCC Lien. I hear the judge heard them both out carefully and said, I don't see any law there.

The UCC Guru was ordered to pay off all the attorney costs of his victim on his way out of the courthouse or go to jail.


P.P.S. I will often rely on such an experience for a final evaluation so if Boris gets results then I will examine them with fresh eyes.

http://www.iamsomedude.com/pdf/mortgage_discharged_Redacted.pdf

If you deem it worthy, take the time to look this over and explain why the HOSPITAL was named as a defendant, and why the case was voluntarily withdrawn so quickly after filing it.

David Merrill
05-12-14, 08:56 PM
http://www.iamsomedude.com/pdf/mortgage_discharged_Redacted.pdf

If you deem it worthy, take the time to look this over and explain why the HOSPITAL was named as a defendant, and why the case was voluntarily withdrawn so quickly after filing it.

At a glance the hospital being named a defendant had no effect on the dismissal of the case. However the Notice of Fair Debt Collection Practices looks like it was effective, as were quite a few other mortgage cases in 2008.

Anthony Joseph
05-12-14, 09:08 PM
If one wishes to draw conclusions from "a glance", said conclusions will only be but a "glance" of the subject matter.

David Merrill
05-12-14, 11:26 PM
Snarky!

You cannot tie that UCC Filing into the process Boris shows us any better than I can. Truth be told that UCC Filing could be unrelated, I was presuming that it is not.

Your logic and debate tactics are disjointed and underhanded. I am sick and tired of feeling like defending the website from the STRAWMAN REDEMPTION and birth certificate mythologies.

Michael Joseph
05-13-14, 12:50 AM
Snarky!

You cannot tie that UCC Filing into the process Boris shows us any better than I can. Truth be told that UCC Filing could be unrelated, I was presuming that it is not.

Your logic and debate tactics are disjointed and underhanded. I am sick and tired of feeling like defending the website from the STRAWMAN REDEMPTION and birth certificate mythologies.

Bankruptcy Trustees = the "People of the United States"

Trust Receipt-A pre-UCC security device- now governed by Article 9 of the code- consisting of a receipt stating that the wholesale buyer has possession of the goods for the benefit of the financier. Today there must usually be a security agreement coupled with a filed financing statement.

The United States of America is BANKRUPT and is being held in receivership...Therefore all rights, titles and interests in The United States of America has ALREADY been surrendered to the United States. This has CLEARLY been shown in ENSMINGER.

This argument reminds me of the man who says "he will get around one day to giving his soul to God". God already owns it! On one hand He Created it and on the other hand he Bought it. The people of the States have no right to redress - this is CLEARLY shown in PADELFORD. The States have that right and if they waive that right, it stands waived. State sovereignty has been waived in the Constitution - a more perfect Union.

Eze 18:3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.
Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Shalom,
MJ

P.S. A branch on the Olive Tree is subject to the Trunk. A grafted in branch is subject to the Trunk. The Olive Tree is clearly a nation-state and the branch is clearly a citizen of that State. Since it is the glory of kings to reveal the hidden things of God, look around!

Moxie
05-13-14, 01:23 AM
States don't have rights, they are fictions. Fictions can't bring forth claims, only people can. People are the creators of fictions.

Michael Joseph
05-13-14, 01:35 AM
States don't have rights, they are fictions. Fictions can't bring forth claims, only people can. People are the creators of fictions.

not this again.

Equity acts in personam. How can I create something that does not exist? A double-minded man is unstable in all of his ways.

Shalom,
MJ

Moxie
05-13-14, 02:58 AM
not this again.

*cue sitcom wah wah trombone*


Equity acts in personam. How can I create something that does not exist? A double-minded man is unstable in all of his ways.

Shalom,
MJ

I am wondering what happens to the man who does not file a security agreement/financing statement for the strawman.

salsero
05-13-14, 03:32 AM
The BC is a certified copy of an original registration of, and TITLE to, the PERSON used to make said demand. The point of my additional commentary as it relates to Boris' approach is that, in my opinion, "making demand per 12USC411" does nothing to negate the presumption of "Enemy of the State" status ['Trading with the Enemy']. The possibility that you can and/or will make claim to the "redeemed money" [U.S. Treasury interests] through the State's vessel ['FIRST MIDDLE LAST'] keeps one under that default presumption - ENEMY.

Boris' approach attempts to quash that presumption through a recognized assignment/surrender process which is a memorialization of one's choice to cease any possible adverse claims. This reestablishes peace with the occupying force and the 'peaceful inhabitants' are not to be interfered with, in any manner, during the duration of belligerent occupation so long as one remains peaceful.

EXACTLY - if you are using their stuff, they have the right to presume, through law, that you are a person AND thus under THEIR jurisdiction thereof. Once this process is done, it has nothing to do with you [singular], the man. It is up to the trustees, administrators, or executors "to figure it out" AND acquit and discharge ALL CLAIMS and pay taxes of that entity or Name. Man has nothing to do with "their fictional system" other than use it for commercial purposes in today's world - as by necessity and a requirement to breath, eat, live and have a roof over the man's head. Man has been left "naked" where he has NOW surrendered and release any and all claims [potential "presumed warring"] against the usufruct. He has acknowledged and accepted WHAT HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE - the pledge and he makes no further claims to reversionary interest [IRS code 26 USC 673, 26 USC 2037] where he would have to "intermeddle and account thereof".

If man were able to hold the original title to the name then he would be liable. Since the State has benefited and profited by the mere fact, if the man or baby had not been born, that title would not be created. Since the title was created by the mere fact of that baby being born, he is the SOURCE of that fictional credit.

As Boris and some others have explained very well, better than I, there is not much we can do about what has already taken place, ALL titles or property were seized. So if you go and claim their Name as you, this is how they get personal jurisdiction. When you make that claim to that property, THEY consider it "warring" and you will have to pay the price for such claim.

Our biggest problem in getting our heads around this "Peaceful Inhabitant" concept is that, in a way it is too simple and yet we have been pre-conditioned for many years that it becomes almost impossible. I have written previous posts concerning this process and basically I was told by the group "how wrong I was". All I can suggest is that you really listen to Boris and try and understand it is so much more than "just remedy", it is something much greater "spiritually speaking". Boris did a recent interview with Alfred Adask - and it was difficult for Alfred to get his head around this concept.

I will also say, I honor, respect and trust Boris and his words of wisdom; however, I did not do the UCC forms. I wrote up and recorded the Notice of Release of Claim and Interest per 12 USC 95a. The UCC stuff did not resonate with me. However, the release was done on the same principles.

Moxie
05-13-14, 04:02 AM
EXACTLY - if you are using their stuff

Who is "they" in the "their stuff" part?


*I have never filed a UCC-1 nor plan to. I'm trying to find out something different. :-)

allodial
05-13-14, 04:22 AM
Our biggest problem in getting our heads around this "Peaceful Inhabitant" concept is that, in a way it is too simple and yet we have been pre-conditioned for many years that it becomes almost impossible.

Its quite simple. If you wear the mask of a stranger as you climb over the Western wall to enter my royal palace in the dark of night and my guards beat the piss and blueberries out of you, then you take your mask off and say "But its me the king's brother". Don't blame me or my guards for mistaking you for a stranger and treating you like one (especially if you act like one)! This foregoing might apply to many things in life and might explain why someone has experience certain treatment at times.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi6QTRU1IJU#t=55
(48 second mark)

Doesn't David Merrill at times refer to a corollary called: "nakary"? The word 'person' is related to the word mask' or 'farce'.

Though the idea of neutrality or making declarations of peace is not new AFAIK, Salsero makes a good point in that the conditioning and lack of knowledge makes it seem rather impossible for some to overcome the obstacles. As mentioned before, on a certain level, a driver license doesn't tell anyone whether you are a stranger or not--they will likely presume stranger. I have gotten the overall impression that folks are conditioned to act like strangers and to see themselves as strangers in a strange land nearly from birth. What a gambit. What is 'strange' may vary with the culture or venue. Pop media, it seems, tends to encourage folks to act strange and think strange.

Sure it might take some knowledge or wisdom to know if one is triggering the undesirable responses from the others by one's own actions. Light is handy for overcoming the darkness.

***

BTW, I recall listening to a talk by "Pastor Tony King". He went on this seemingly religious talk .. and eventually got to "Become one with your strawman." I stopped the recording at that point.

Michael Joseph
05-13-14, 04:37 AM
*cue sitcom wah wah trombone*



Now that is funny. Seriously thanks for the laugh. I apologize if I come off to hard nosed.

salsero
05-13-14, 12:41 PM
Their or theirs is defined as a presumed ownership through a presumed authority which dares or deceives others to believe it is true

stuff is defined as "a false image of the real" it is part of the dead world, paper, statutes, etc.

An Example: A deed is an image of the actual house. The house is real. The deed only re-presents the house. It is through our ignorance that we ACCEPT the deed as real house. How does failure "to pay" a mortgage dare foreclose on that house? If the original mortgage was created by a signature, how does the law support paper foreclosing on the real house? It makes no sense MORALLY. There is no money - just dead paper WE PRESUME has value.


Who is "they" in the "their stuff" part?


*I have never filed a UCC-1 nor plan to. I'm trying to find out something different. :-)

salsero
05-13-14, 01:03 PM
Exactly. You are known by your actions or fruits.

However, I want to make a point with regard to "their presumptions". By law, they are allowed to presume, deceive coerce, threaten. Spiritually speaking, what they are doing [unrealized of course] is testing your soul. What they are not allowed to continue to push to the max of deception without your free will consent, meaning once they have "some evidence by your words and deeds that you are not a person that falls under THEIR jurisdiction", they must STOP. "Satan has been given dominion over this planet and he is permitted to do anything and everything to get your soul"; however, he only has one limit - it must be done through your free will consent.

The scripture is very clear [And I am not any bible scholar or avid reader of the bible] in Job 32: 21-22: “21 Let me not, I pray you, accept any man's person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man. 22 For I know not to give flattering titles; in so doing my maker would soon take me away.”

Because we are being tested [and removing the dross from the gold], the public school system has been set up for this purpose, it is about a "conditioning". The TV, the news, sports, etc - its all about "diversions", taking our eye off the truth. Then when the teacher, attorney, judge, bank account rep, house deed agent, DL bureau clerk, speeding ticket cop ASKS - what is your name? And you say: JOHN DOE, well you broke a "universal law' and paid homage to a false idol.

And I must say all this sucks - as it is really difficult to get one's mind around, We want to feed the EGO or edging God out. If I yell to the world, its all about me, mine, my and I, this tells the PTB that I am a "belligerent" and under this declared state of emergency, belligerents get bitch slapped. See?




Its quite simple. If you wear the mask of a stranger as you climb over the Western wall to enter my royal palace in the dark of night and my guards beat the piss and blueberries out of you, then you take your mask off and say "But its me the king's brother". Don't blame me or my guards for mistaking you for a stranger and treating you like one (especially if you act like one)! This foregoing might apply to many things in life and might explain why someone has experience certain treatment at times.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi6QTRU1IJU#t=55
(48 second mark)

Doesn't David Merrill at times refer to a corollary called: "nakary"? The word 'person' is related to the word mask' or 'farce'.

Though the idea of neutrality or making declarations of peace is not new AFAIK, Salsero makes a good point in that the conditioning and lack of knowledge makes it seem rather impossible for some to overcome the obstacles. As mentioned before, on a certain level, a driver license doesn't tell anyone whether you are a stranger or not--they will likely presume stranger. I have gotten the overall impression that folks are conditioned to act like strangers and to see themselves as strangers in a strange land nearly from birth. What a gambit. What is 'strange' may vary with the culture or venue. Pop media, it seems, tends to encourage folks to act strange and think strange.

Sure it might take some knowledge or wisdom to know if one is triggering the undesirable responses from the others by one's own actions. Light is handy for overcoming the darkness.

***

BTW, I recall listening to a talk by "Pastor Tony King". He went on this seemingly religious talk .. and eventually got to "Become one with your strawman." I stopped the recording at that point.

David Merrill
05-13-14, 01:58 PM
States don't have rights, they are fictions. Fictions can't bring forth claims, only people can. People are the creators of fictions.


Likewise STRAWMEN are without the concept of redemption.

David Merrill
05-13-14, 02:08 PM
Its quite simple. If you wear the mask of a stranger as you climb over the Western wall to enter my royal palace in the dark of night and my guards beat the piss and blueberries out of you, then you take your mask off and say "But its me the king's brother". Don't blame me or my guards for mistaking you for a stranger and treating you like one (especially if you act like one)! This foregoing might apply to many things in life and might explain why someone has experience certain treatment at times.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi6QTRU1IJU#t=55
(48 second mark)

Doesn't David Merrill at times refer to a corollary called: "nakary"? The word 'person' is related to the word mask' or 'farce'.

Though the idea of neutrality or making declarations of peace is not new AFAIK, Salsero makes a good point in that the conditioning and lack of knowledge makes it seem rather impossible for some to overcome the obstacles. As mentioned before, on a certain level, a driver license doesn't tell anyone whether you are a stranger or not--they will likely presume stranger. I have gotten the overall impression that folks are conditioned to act like strangers and to see themselves as strangers in a strange land nearly from birth. What a gambit. What is 'strange' may vary with the culture or venue. Pop media, it seems, tends to encourage folks to act strange and think strange.

Sure it might take some knowledge or wisdom to know if one is triggering the undesirable responses from the others by one's own actions. Light is handy for overcoming the darkness.

***

BTW, I recall listening to a talk by "Pastor Tony King". He went on this seemingly religious talk .. and eventually got to "Become one with your strawman." I stopped the recording at that point.

Thank you Allodial;


That clarifies quite a bit. I am further describing how we have reached an expiration of the 153 years since this came about by proclamation.

I know how difficult that math is to swallow, and how easy it is to dismiss outright. Number 153 is the first CSNL after 1 and they describe relationships of primes to rational numbers throughout the infinite number line. Therefore they are a hologram in miniature (fractal) and are the (fast) RSA Factoring Algorithm that will terminate the nonsense around debt being money.

That is why I have it as pertinent subject matter here on the STRAWMAN REDEMPTION. Nonsensical markets created upon debt lead the patriot community to look for, and often find seeming confirmations of fantastic Treasury Direct accounting systems, and even the possibility of security and confidence building measures outside of CUSIP etc. With a fast RSA Factoring Algorithm that chapter in (fractional reserve) banking comes to a close!

What I hope your imagination can continue with is that this holographic application of toggle, dither and flutter will be the birth of Artificial Intuition. Therefore I am appealing that you might trust my intuition about all of this.

adirolfnitsol
05-13-14, 03:08 PM
Their or theirs is defined as a presumed ownership through a presumed authority which dares or deceives others to believe it is true

stuff is defined as "a false image of the real" it is part of the dead world, paper, statutes, etc.

An Example: A deed is an image of the actual house. The house is real. The deed only re-presents the house. It is through our ignorance that we ACCEPT the deed as real house. How does failure "to pay" a mortgage dare foreclose on that house? If the original mortgage was created by a signature, how does the law support paper foreclosing on the real house? It makes no sense MORALLY. There is no money - just dead paper WE PRESUME has value.


Interesting. I've always thought of a deed as a memorialization of a past act/ion, not of a thing.

The quote "A tree is known by its fruit; a man by his deeds" refers to his past acts/actions, not images of a thing.

But, as we know, the whole world is a stage.

Anywho, thought I'd chime in. One month after filing the ucc's Boris style, I get a call from an attorney/Landsman company telling me I'm an heir to oil, natural gas, interests, mineral rights, yadda yadda. The thing is, this land was purchased by my great great grandfather 100 years ago, in 1914. All this time I never knew about my families interests. Trust me, there's been so many trespassors, escheats, false claims, etc., upon this 640 acres it would blow your mind. My father didn't know, my grandmother, great aunt didn't know. But all I know is that I did Boris ucc filings and all of a sudden I get informed of this.

People can naysay all they like. At their own peril. Do or don't, I really don't think Boris cares one way or the other because at least he let people know about it, so he's done his part. Boris is definitely not the type who wants to trespass on free will. As far as I'm concerned, I appreciate Boris tremendously.

If anyone wants more details, just ask.

Thank you for reading.

David Merrill
05-13-14, 04:30 PM
Thank you Lost in Florida (backwards);


Welcome to StSC!

That is a relief that I do not offend Boris. I am pleased that in your unique and forgotten heritage that this process somehow turned up a lost estate. Would you please elaborate and maybe isolate what facets of Boris' process caught this attorney's attention?

From your post I presume that the attorney was after a cut of salvaging your estate from all that escheat and assumpsit.



P.S. On that known by his fruit doctrine: About 8 months back I received a call from AJ's wife as they lost their home, in a panic because in the process of the county removing all their possessions to the curb, they cuffed and jailed AJ. This explains to this amateur psychologist why he would feel so invested in Boris' doctrine, AJ now feeling he sees what went wrong. It also explains why he must resort to slurs and his own derogatory diagnosis of my mental health. His example of the 2008 Mortgage Release does little to convince me that portion of the process shown was the reasoning for releasing the mortgage when AJ himself lost his home - I assume under Boris' guidance.

allodial
05-13-14, 08:11 PM
Do or don't, I really don't think Boris cares one way or the other because at least he let people know about it, so he's done his part. Boris is definitely not the type who wants to trespass on free will. As far as I'm concerned, I appreciate Boris tremendously.

Boris's method of UCC filing is hardly different than anything preceding it. Without questioning his sincerity or intelligence, the UCC filing isn't astonishingly different from others methods such as from Cracking the Code 3rd Edition (UCC), etc. The most prominent thing the UCC filing might do is make jurisdiction distinctions that weren't there before. That can be done without the UCC filing. I just get the impression of folks going "ooh and aaah" about the same thing others have been promoting.

Also we have discussed 'usufruct' and 'trusts' who knows how many thousands of times over the years even from the old sujuris site to now. Where he has noble efforts to inform people, that is great. However it is not new.

adirolfnitsol
05-13-14, 08:41 PM
Thank you Lost in Florida (backwards);


Welcome to StSC!

That is a relief that I do not offend Boris. I am pleased that in your unique and forgotten heritage that this process somehow turned up a lost estate. Would you please elaborate and maybe isolate what facets of Boris' process caught this attorney's attention?

From your post I presume that the attorney was after a cut of salvaging your estate from all that escheat and assumpsit.



P.S. On that known by his fruit doctrine: About 8 months back I received a call from AJ's wife as they lost their home, in a panic because in the process of the county removing all their possessions to the curb, they cuffed and jailed AJ. This explains to this amateur psychologist why he would feel so invested in Boris' doctrine, AJ now feeling he sees what went wrong. It also explains why he must resort to slurs and his own derogatory diagnosis of my mental health. His example of the 2008 Mortgage Release does little to convince me that portion of the process shown was the reasoning for releasing the mortgage when AJ himself lost his home - I assume under Boris' guidance.



Hi David,


Here's my take on what was different about Boris method. First, some foundation. The Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666 talks about those lost beyond the sea. Purportedly, they are supposed to send out three (3) search parties. Well, that never happened. With Boris method you check the box for the filing to go into the REAL ESTATE records, also you check the box for as-extracted. The timing of the filings and the resulting call from the Landsman company notifying me of these interests, was uncanny. The Landsman company works for Apache Corporation and they're trying to save their client some bucks, that's expected. But what this Landsman company did, was surreal. They said they were going to send me an Affidavit of Heirship. But what they sent me in the mail was a Form W-9 for me to fill out and a Ratification of oil, gas and mineral Lease. This Ratification Lease, on this Legal size page, said Owner on it ten times, one of those title of Owner right next to my signature line. So I called them back and said Hey, could you please explain to me how an heir can be an Owner? The attorney hemmed and hawed, stuttered...then said "We'll go ahead and send you out an Affidavit of Heirship." What is kind of embarrassing to me is that my family all readily signed this Ratification Lease, get this, with no facts or figures, nothing showing percentages, all they had to go by was a verbal ball park figure from this attorney. I hate to say this but they're not too bright.

So here's my opinion on it: I think the extent of their so-called search party is simply pulling up a browser and looking at the UCC filings and seeing who has...found themselves and listed their own selves.

Thank you again for your very warm welcome, David.

P.S. I had a really tough time with this at first. It's like one of those stereogram pictures where you can't see anything until you stare at it for a couple/few minutes. But once I saw the picture, there is no going back. I was holding myself back. That is the honest truth, David.

Michael Joseph
05-13-14, 09:10 PM
Now I can "get down" with what salsero is laying down.

Looking in the mirror I see my enemy, it is myself. I have become programmed as a happiness machine subject to certain stimuli - I, we - are brainwashed. Few will admit it, but consider a formal education. Be it private or public it matters not. Consider how each day the child sits for one hour at a certain subject - then a bell rings - then another hour on a new subject - then a bell rings - then an hour on another subject - then a bell rings....you get the point. This is called Compartmentalization. The child's mind is compartmentalized. I used to hire engineering grads from a local university and at first I looked for the 4.0 student, until after about a year of "experiencing" the "trained stock" I found that folks with a 2.7 GPA were a much better fit. I will never forget my first hire - an attractive young lady with a 4.0 GPA - I hired her as an Intern with the hope that she would become a Professional Engineer. One day I asked her to write a transmittal letter to make the livery of a set of plans upon a local administrator. Three hours later she showed up with a writing that I would expect from a first grade student. No kidding.

She learned how to REGURGITATE information - feed back what is fed. But I desire a thinker! A rare commodity these days. Then it dawns on me - has anyone had an original thought? Jesus Christ said "ye can do nothing without me". I believe that to be true.

I like that you wrote "paid homage". I count [remember Rev 15] you to be right on the money! Stones become smooth after a long, long, time. Worship is homage! Jesus Christ said: "For if you LOVE me [love is about giving] then you will keep my commandments." Our choice! So my sacrifice is to walk in The Way. Please however do not mistake my Love and Loyalty for Legalism. I need Christ - I cannot get about without Christ. I am a dead man walking without Christ. I am quickened to life in my DECLARATION OF INTENT. Otherwise presumptions abound.

Wouldn't you say it is a common respect to the opinions of mankind to declare yourself? I cannot read you mind.

Michael Joseph ben Ha Elohim am I:

1. My loyalty is to Jesus Christ.
2. I pledge my allegiance to Jesus Christ.
3. I am ordained by Jesus Christ to undertake in His Kingdom.
4. My trust is in Jesus Christ. He is my King. He owns me without restriction or reservation. He bought me, He created me.
5. My homage is to serve my King.
6. I am dead to this world in Christ.
7. My life is held in trust in Christ.

Therefore I await the Adoption, hoping in the Spirit- today I call out Father but tomorrow I look forward to Husbandman. And if a wife, I shall be given a new SURNAME - Elohim. I shall become a member of the household of God.

Jesus Christ holds my life in Trust for my benefit; THEREFORE I am private beneficiary under Yehoshuah or Jesus Christ. Said another way Yehovah is my Salvation!

What can I say, then?


Q: Is the vessel I call the flesh mine?
A: no! Gen 1:1; Gen 2:7

Q: Is the soul granted to me mine?
A: no! Ezek 18:4

Q: Is the spirit granted to me mine?
A: no! - Ecc 12:6-7

What can I give to El Elyon and Yehovah? I can choose to Undertake in this existence according to the Uses established by the Grantor/Creator/Settlor/Trustor/Surety.

Or, I can choose to obey another lawgiver! Which is to say I obey the created over the Creator! Is that wise? Perhaps I obey my flesh in Ego. Or perhaps it is money, education, wealth in time or materials....

Just look at Nebuchadnezzar he Surnamed those four boys! He gave them a title in his kingdom. Consider now a legal name. It is ONLY legal within the kingdom in which it was created - so therefore said legal name must be UNDERSTOOD by the kingdom's treasury. And it is! That is until someone comes along and makes an Improper Use of said name - enter the Constructive Trustee.

Why did those 55 men create a new government [a special ministerial trust]? Because they sought to be set-apart in the Earth. These men Declared themselves and they were acknowledged and as such, they took their Station [Standing].

Other men opine on and on about this and that and how they have this and that....on and on ad finitum. Yet they lack a Declaration of their Trust. So instead of coming out of "her O my people", they instead remain under the Shade of the Bramble Bush! Which is to say - they willingly Worship Satan! Ref Matthrew 4:4. For in forsaking the Creator they by default worship Satan.

And men go on and on about what they THINK they can lawfully do regarding a PRIVATE UCC. Unless those who actually have standing have agreed to let me make a use of their private UCC for specific purposes - I can think whatever I desire - I lack the agreement and therefore I lack standing to do anything in regard to the UCC. For that UCC is a Private repository held within the Law Boundary of the State. If I have Declared myself in Trust - then perhaps I should become a Suitor to Court in Treaty; but if not - by my lack of action - I agree to be subject - else where is the evidence of my claim?

Now let me return to Scripture - so the wise can see - What can I give to God that is not already His? My Choice! My sacrifice is to Choose to abandon my way and Choose His Way. I love Yehovah's Way - for in it is Equity, Mercy and Justice. Declaring myself in Christ I seek a city that is not built by the hands of man! And my faith is the title deed to that City. My Faith being recorded by the Registrar of Deeds in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Seeking Equity - I undertake IN PERSONAM as a member of the body of Christ.

Psa 98:9 Before the LORD; for he cometh to judge the earth: with righteousness shall he judge the world, and the people with equity.

Do not the Scriptures show that a king must keep his word, even to his hurt? Therefore I see the Kenites with Standing before God BECAUSE they kept the word of their father Jonadab - Jeremiah 35:19.

My only RECOURSE is to flee to the Refuge in Yehovah under the Shadow of El Shaddai - this is the Secret Place of El Elyon which is where my Trust resides - Ref Psalms 91: 1-2.

So I declare my claim in Equity in the Great Name above all names - Yehoshuah or Jesus the anointed - and I undertake in Equity. As far as I can tell most folks Choose to remain in bondage. Harsh words I agree, yet true. The garlic in Egypt is delicious and the place of "bitter waters" is fearsome indeed. I notice that on the Way out of Egypt there came a time when man could not overcome in his own strength. Consider how wonderful Faith and Hope - Moses called upon the Name of Yehovah for Salvation. David called upon the Name of Yehovah for Salvation....and on and on.

The Elect know - let the wise consider.

The following is the Fourth of the concluding five Hallelujah Psalms, answering to NUMBERS.


Psa 149:1 Praise ye the LORD. Sing unto the LORD a new song, and his praise in the congregation of saints.
Psa 149:2 Let Israel rejoice in him that made him: let the children of Zion be joyful in their King.
Psa 149:3 Let them praise his name in the dance: let them sing praises unto him with the timbrel and harp.
Psa 149:4 For the LORD taketh pleasure in his people: he will beautify the meek with salvation.
Psa 149:5 Let the saints be joyful in glory: let them sing aloud upon their beds.
Psa 149:6 Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two edged sword in their hand;
Psa 149:7 To execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people;
Psa 149:8 To bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron;
Psa 149:9 To execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye the LORD.


v. 6 Reference:

Rev 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Heb 4:13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.

Shalom,
Michael Joseph

allodial
05-13-14, 09:25 PM
Now I can "get down" with what salsero is laying down.

Looking in the mirror I see my enemy, it is myself. I have become programmed as a happiness machine subject to certain stimuli - I, we - are brainwashed. Few will admit it, but consider a formal education. Be it private or public it matters not. Consider how each day the child sits for one hour at a certain subject - then a bell rings - then another hour on a new subject - then a bell rings - then an hour on another subject - then a bell rings....you get the point. This is called Compartmentalization. The child's mind is compartmentalized. I used to hire engineering grads from a local university and at first I looked for the 4.0 student, until after about a year of "experiencing" the "trained stock" I found that folks with a 2.7 GPA were a much better fit. I will never forget my first hire - an attractive young lady with a 4.0 GPA - I hired her as an Intern with the hope that she would become a Professional Engineer. One day I asked her to write a transmittal letter to make the livery of a set of plans upon a local administrator. Three hours later she showed up with a writing that I would expect from a first grade student. No kidding.

And you get to the heart of how I can tell someone the truth and they go right on to ignore it. Consider: pearls and swine. This issue of turning schools into psychological laboratories is discussed in detail in several books. Pride might have something to do with it: people think they know something when what they "know" is what "most find comfortable and familiar to believe". Consider a guy who keeps an office with 10' deep plush carpets and wears $50,000 suits, people "expect" help to come from someone like that to the extent that they might get fooled after sneering at sincere and true salvation manifest, say, through a guy dressed in a t-shirt and jeans. In contrast, the guy in $50K suit might be desperate for fools so he can pay his lease and credit card off.

Related: Decrypting Education In America (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?978-Decrypting-Education-in-America); The Leipzig Connection (ebook) (http://ia601606.us.archive.org/4/items/TheLeipzigConnection/TheLeipzigConnection-pauloLionni.pdf); The Underground History of American Education (ebook by John Taylor Gatto) (http://whale.to/b/gatto.pdf)

Michael Joseph
05-13-14, 10:30 PM
And you get to the heart of how I can tell someone the truth and they go right on to ignore it. Consider: pearls and swine. This issue of turning schools into psychological laboratories is discussed in detail in several books. Pride might have something to do with it: people think they know something when what they "know" is what "most find comfortable and familiar to believe". Consider a guy who keeps an office with 10' deep plush carpets and wears $50,000 suits, people "expect" help to come from someone like that to the extent that they might get fooled after sneering at sincere and true salvation manifest, say, through a guy dressed in a t-shirt and jeans. In contrast, the guy in $50K suit might be desperate for fools so he can pay his lease and credit card off.

Related: Decrypting Education In America (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?978-Decrypting-Education-in-America); The Leipzig Connection (ebook) (http://ia601606.us.archive.org/4/items/TheLeipzigConnection/TheLeipzigConnection-pauloLionni.pdf); The Underground History of American Education (ebook by John Taylor Gatto) (http://whale.to/b/gatto.pdf)

Thank you for those books. And amen the scales of Leviathan are Pride.

1Co 8:2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

I would rather be John the Baptist than Caiphas.


Shalom,
Michael Joseph

Moxie
05-13-14, 10:41 PM
Boris's method of UCC filing is hardly different than anything preceding it. I just get the impression of folks going "ooh and aaah" about the same thing others have been promoting.


^^ This.

Doug Riddle did the same thing with Accepted for Value a few years ago, connecting it to scripture as well.

The freedom world is a giant network of bunny holes. Boris was probably unaware of A4V or hadn't explored it yet.

Ok, The Bunny wants to type something:

1730
Hay yoo freedum peeple keep burrowin n mai bunny hole. if i hadd a carot fur ebry wun a yoo i seen in mai rabbitat in teh las ten yearz

well i'd hab a hyuge pile a carotz

allodial
05-13-14, 10:44 PM
And the irony is that costs of a non-surgical lobotomy is skyrocketing (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-26/college-costs-surge-500-in-u-s-since-1985-chart-of-the-day.html). That should reveal their intent from the start in overturning true education: debt enslavement. True education to the contrary encourages prosperity of the educated and of all.

1731


^^ This.

Doug Riddle did the same thing with Accepted for Value a few years ago, connecting it to scripture as well.

I recall that. There are potential parallels along the lines of "confession and forgiveness" and "agreeing with thine adversary". However, without reference to Doug Riddle, mixing in scripture is a tactic that some use to sweeten the bait and hide the hook.


From your post I presume that the attorney was after a cut of salvaging your estate from all that escheat and assumpsit.

Thanks what came to mind likewise.

David Merrill
05-13-14, 11:21 PM
Why did those 55 men create a new government [a special ministerial trust]? Because they sought to be set-apart in the Earth. These men Declared themselves and they were acknowledged and as such, they took their Station [Standing].

56 if you count carefully. (http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/8152/matthewthorntonsignatur.jpg) So Matthew THORNTON set a precedent that people may sign their approbation after July 4, 1776 as well.

allodial
05-13-14, 11:40 PM
56 if you count carefully. (http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/8152/matthewthorntonsignatur.jpg) So Matthew THORNTON set a precedent that people may sign their approbation after July 4, 1776 as well.

Who would have thought of "time travel" as a means of thwarting "adverse legal positivism"? ;)

On the topic of the Declaration of Independence, it might be worth noting that new state constitutions were created prior to the Articles of Confederation. Each of those constitutions established one of many "free, sovereign and independent states". The Declaration of Independence remaining highly significant, it seems that a new or [I]separate crown resulted with the declaration of war per the Prohibitory Acts of 1775 by which the British Crown and by the British Monarchy put the colonists and/or colonies out of allegiance (they were absolved of allegiance at that point). Where there was successful defense of the new or separate crown, the Declaration of Independence served to formalize and memorialize beyond doubt. The prerogatives of the Monarchy transferred to the people.

David Merrill
05-13-14, 11:58 PM
Who would have thought of "time travel" as a means of thwarting "adverse legal positivism"? ;) [Imageshack link not working btw]

On the topic of the Declaration of Independence, new state constitutions were created prior to the Articles of Confederation being created. Each of those constitutions established one of many "free, sovereign and independent states". The Declaration of Independence remaining highly significant, I would find the new crown resulted with the declaration of war per the Prohibitory Acts of 1775 by which the British Crown and by the British Monarchy put the colonists and/or colonies out of allegiance (they were absolved of allegiance at that point). The war resulted in successful defense of the new crown, the Declaration of Independence served to formalize and memorialize beyond doubt.


Yes!! Note my signature in approbation to the Declaration of Independence!

David Merrill
05-14-14, 12:06 AM
Hi David,


Here's my take on what was different about Boris method. First, some foundation. The Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666 talks about those lost beyond the sea. Purportedly, they are supposed to send out three (3) search parties. Well, that never happened. With Boris method you check the box for the filing to go into the REAL ESTATE records, also you check the box for as-extracted. The timing of the filings and the resulting call from the Landsman company notifying me of these interests, was uncanny. The Landsman company works for Apache Corporation and they're trying to save their client some bucks, that's expected. But what this Landsman company did, was surreal. They said they were going to send me an Affidavit of Heirship. But what they sent me in the mail was a Form W-9 for me to fill out and a Ratification of oil, gas and mineral Lease. This Ratification Lease, on this Legal size page, said Owner on it ten times, one of those title of Owner right next to my signature line. So I called them back and said Hey, could you please explain to me how an heir can be an Owner? The attorney hemmed and hawed, stuttered...then said "We'll go ahead and send you out an Affidavit of Heirship." What is kind of embarrassing to me is that my family all readily signed this Ratification Lease, get this, with no facts or figures, nothing showing percentages, all they had to go by was a verbal ball park figure from this attorney. I hate to say this but they're not too bright.

So here's my opinion on it: I think the extent of their so-called search party is simply pulling up a browser and looking at the UCC filings and seeing who has...found themselves and listed their own selves.

Thank you again for your very warm welcome, David.

P.S. I had a really tough time with this at first. It's like one of those stereogram pictures where you can't see anything until you stare at it for a couple/few minutes. But once I saw the picture, there is no going back. I was holding myself back. That is the honest truth, David.


I am grasping pretty clearly - I believe what you show me is very exciting anyway. The clause of the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666 about three search parties would be nice. That would help cement some of the wispy concepts for us all maybe. The canon law underneath prompted a pure abstract of title somehow?

I still don't get it quite yet though. More like an abstract of heritage?

It could be I am grasping it because I see holonations inverted anyway! Most people see the bush but it looks like somebody punched their fist into soft clay to me; the background jumps forward!


1737

allodial
05-14-14, 12:23 AM
John Cartwright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cartwright_(political_reformer)) (1740 - 1824) asserted that "the Americans" were not technically "British subjects" because while they might have been subjects of the (British) King they were not subjects of the British parliament. Perhaps the term "independent crowns" might be more technically appropriate than "new crown".

adirolfnitsol
05-14-14, 07:08 PM
^^ This.

Doug Riddle did the same thing with Accepted for Value a few years ago, connecting it to scripture as well.

The freedom world is a giant network of bunny holes. Boris was probably unaware of A4V or hadn't explored it yet.

Ok, The Bunny wants to type something:

1730
Hay yoo freedum peeple keep burrowin n mai bunny hole. if i hadd a carot fur ebry wun a yoo i seen in mai rabbitat in teh las ten yearz

well i'd hab a hyuge pile a carotz



Yes, Doug Riddle did things with A4V a few years ago. He used the bare bones skeleton A4V from HJRBONDS. But there were many, many complaints from people stating it flat out didn't work for them. So I did a lot of research and determined that we are dealing with a discretionary trust, which had discretionary trustees and that if the trust is not expressed then the A4V's would be disposed of in the garbage.

So I created what I call a special A4V which expressed the trust, did 4 A4V's and each one was paid. 2 of those A4V's were for 2 years of property taxes in which entities had purchased tax certificates. The tax certificates were redeemed in full for both years.

I brought this info to Doug Riddle, showed him the results on black and white paper and told him if he really wanted to help people like he said, to treat it as a discretionary trust. I freely gave him mine yet he never brought it up in the calls. I never comprehended why he chose not to give to others, when others major complaint was that his/HJRBONDS A4V method didn't work.

I stopped doing A4V's and went the Boris route. Why? Because why would anyone continue hacking away at the same endless branches with more and more branches popping up at every turn when I can summarily pull out the entire root and be done with it?

My question is, why take the stance of assuming that Boris is unaware or just hasn't explored A4V's?

I apologize in advance if this offends anyone, but it appears a lot of assumptions are being slung around without careful thought. Don't we get enough of presumptions, assumptions, assumpsit in courts already? Don't we have enough? Do we need more assumptions? How about this: How about just asking Boris? Is that not an option in your book?

I'd just like to get to David my response I posted yesterday which is still not appearing on here yet, then I'll leave this thread. No offense, but too many assumptions and snarkiness here for my taste.

David Merrill
05-15-14, 01:45 AM
Thank you Lost in Florida (backwards);


I read your response but did not notice that I was the only one who could. I have approved it so others can read it too.

A lot of time people just get set into what they feel works. I get a lot of thanks from people who get full refunds and find that satisfying. So it is difficult for me to really go into new concepts like variations of A4V and the STRAWMAN REDEMPTION. I might go into some more study about discretionary trust though.

That does sound interesting.

Moxie
05-15-14, 02:50 AM
My question is, why take the stance of assuming that Boris is unaware or just hasn't explored A4V's?


I never heard Boris mention A4Vs in his YouTube seminar. I could have asked him. And he could have responded to this thread, too.

People have succeeded with A4V without filing a UCC-1. Maybe they got away with something?

The Bunny says he wasn't trying to be snarky with what he said.

Sometimes this place is waaayy too serious for its own good. In my opinion.

Moxie
05-15-14, 03:54 AM
Same thing happened with EFTs: people learned how to do EFTs at the Fred and Nina seminars. At first, people had success with EFTs, but as more people started doing them, the powers-that-be became more stubborn.

Were EFTs suddenly less lawful? Nope.

I'll bet the same trend happened with the A4Vs: the more people started doing them, the more the powers-that-be resisted.

That same trend could happen with Boris' method.

Michael Joseph
05-15-14, 04:13 AM
I find a lot of people talking about theory and very few who actually do what they talk about. Therefore I find many "with child and giving suck". A king knows he has full liability for his words therefore he is careful about his issue. If I have written anything it means I have incorporated that philosophy and begun to make its use.

I suppose I grow tired of those who speak boldly only to be shown incompetent without standing. There are no short cuts. The path is hard. Those are the facts. Those who do not declare themselves have no standing.

Looking around I see many different governments on the land. In fact over 128 as early as 1960's. I maintain compliance and not rebellion. If you are a resident then obey the laws. If you are a citizen then obey the laws. Each must decide for himself. That is the beauty if choice.

My opinion is that most times men are too lax with their words. And the sheep that follow such men will end up in the ditch as well. Putting my king hat in I see a valley of dry bones. But the programmed masses respond with just give me the five minute answer. Now that's gonna be a problem when the wise know they have more than ten thousand hours of study and they are just beginning to catch a glimpse.

My opinion again is that no man should trust another man. Always and I mean always go and check out any man. Never blindly accept any presentation. We sail our own boats and therefore I determine my own future.

When David Merrill showed me the LOR I rewrote it to suit me. It took me two weeks to write the default judgment. This is my life and I refuse to yoke myself to any man who I have not tested. This Boris May be right or maybe he is wrong but I was there in the Coresourse days meeting in Raleigh about ten years back exploring Usufruct. As for my house we will not abide in another mans claim. I find the church and state in total apostasy and I would rather be John the Baptist than Caiphas.

In the end one must stand in front of the mirror and answer "what is it I want"? Until then Alice still chases that busybody bunny.

Shalom
Michael Joseph

allodial
05-15-14, 08:22 AM
In reading documents that are allegedly associated with Boris (they are not signed at all as if the author doesn't wish to be associated with them) "foundation crash course.doc", etc. in review, the author doesn't appear to be saying anything that hasn't been stated before. As for the strange symbol associating law and equity and the Eye of Horus not sure why the Eye of Horus must be brought into the discussion. That the Reconstruction Acts are still in effect has been repeated over and over and over. That the US has been operating with a form of martial law at least since 1861 is nothing new.

I attempted to listen to a Talkshoe interview but its not quite 'sitting right' with me so I turned it off, perhaps another time.

David Merrill
05-15-14, 10:48 AM
I find a lot of people talking about theory and very few who actually do what they talk about. Therefore I find many "with child and giving suck". A king knows he has full liability for his words therefore he is careful about his issue. If I have written anything it means I have incorporated that philosophy and begun to make its use.

I suppose I grow tired of those who speak boldly only to be shown incompetent without standing. There are no short cuts. The path is hard. Those are the facts. Those who do not declare themselves have no standing.

Looking around I see many different governments on the land. In fact over 128 as early as 1960's. I maintain compliance and not rebellion. If you are a resident then obey the laws. If you are a citizen then obey the laws. Each must decide for himself. That is the beauty if choice.

My opinion is that most times men are too lax with their words. And the sheep that follow such men will end up in the ditch as well. Putting my king hat in I see a valley of dry bones. But the programmed masses respond with just give me the five minute answer. Now that's gonna be a problem when the wise know they have more than ten thousand hours of study and they are just beginning to catch a glimpse.

My opinion again is that no man should trust another man. Always and I mean always go and check out any man. Never blindly accept any presentation. We sail our own boats and therefore I determine my own future.

When David Merrill showed me the LOR I rewrote it to suit me. It took me two weeks to write the default judgment. This is my life and I refuse to yoke myself to any man who I have not tested. This Boris May be right or maybe he is wrong but I was there in the Coresourse days meeting in Raleigh about ten years back exploring Usufruct. As for my house we will not abide in another mans claim. I find the church and state in total apostasy and I would rather be John the Baptist than Caiphas.

In the end one must stand in front of the mirror and answer "what is it I want"? Until then Alice still chases that busybody bunny.

Shalom
Michael Joseph

I can relate to that.

John the Baptist came in the spirit of Elijah. Elijah was transfigured. We find a mythology that Moses was transfigured in the Christian religion but there it is; Moses died like other men and "to this day" his body can be found on Mount Pisgah. Who was it transfigured?

Enoch.

But which Enoch? There are two. Maybe both? Both Sons (of God, of Cain) were transfigured and so are up for a persistent channeling? That gets pretty interesting very fast.

Yehoshuah H'Natzrith V'MOLECH H'Hadiim - H'Mashiach (Jesus CHRIST) was transfigured too, according to The Book of Acts. I find it peculiar the revulsion Christians have for channeling when their own favorite John the Baptist was coveted by Antipas TETRARCH (not KING)!

When you get the Key - this all works together so very well for good.

In summary, those transfigured are open and accessible throughout time - [I]ever living. Get it? Jesus of Nazareth is Jesus BRANCH! Jesus, Son of David - KING of Israel. Natzar is BRANCH.

David Merrill
05-15-14, 11:09 AM
In reading documents that are allegedly associated with Boris (they are not signed at all as if the author doesn't wish to be associated with them) "foundation crash course.doc", etc. in review, the author doesn't appear to be saying anything that hasn't been stated before. As for the strange symbol associating law and equity and the Eye of Horus not sure why the Eye of Horus must be brought into the discussion. That the Reconstruction Acts are still in effect has been repeated over and over and over. That the US has been operating with a form of martial law at least since 1861 is nothing new.

I attempted to listen to a Talkshoe interview but its not quite 'sitting right' with me so I turned it off, perhaps another time.

Thank you for your Review. Usually a holograph will set coherently if it is a correct fractal of the truth.

Here we find Moses setting below the Eye of Horus, like Sargon rescued from the river too. (An archetype).

Michael Joseph
05-15-14, 12:02 PM
I can relate to that.

John the Baptist came in the spirit of Elijah. Elijah was transfigured. We find a mythology that Moses was transfigured in the Christian religion but there it is; Moses died like other men and "to this day" his body can be found on Mount Pisgah. Who was it transfigured?

Enoch.

But which Enoch? There are two. Maybe both? Both Sons (of God, of Cain) were transfigured and so are up for a persistent channeling? That gets pretty interesting very fast.

Yehoshuah H'Natzrith V'MOLECH H'Hadiim - H'Mashiach (Jesus CHRIST) was transfigured too, according to The Book of Acts. I find it peculiar the revulsion Christians have for channeling when their own favorite John the Baptist was coveted by Antipas TETRARCH (not KING)!

When you get the Key - this all works together so very well for good.

In summary, those transfigured are open and accessible throughout time - [I]ever living. Get it? Jesus of Nazareth is Jesus BRANCH! Jesus, Son of David - KING of Israel. Natzar is BRANCH.

One Enoch from Seth. One Enoch from Cain. I content that Moses' bones were being contested. Ref Jude. In my opinion Moses and Elijah could come coward in time to see Jesus because they transfigured.

What is interesting to me about Jesus' geneology is that he was of Levi and Judah. Remember that Mary sprang forth from Levi and Judah. Joseph also from Judah but only by law adoption.

In my opinion Jesus walked his boundary Survey. He was and is King. If you translate Israel you get "the prince that prevailed with God". Therefore we see an Israel of God. That is royalty. God too has a government and it is founded on a King.

I find Only one name that is above all names. The reason I hate the model being proposed by others is that it denies Jesus Christ. Salvation thru any other name is no salvation at all but is subject therefore to the claims established by imperfect men. I equate that to leaning on a shaky reed.

Remember the false one comes In prosperity. Said one does bring financial peace but he denies Christ.

Shalom
MJ

salsero
05-15-14, 12:07 PM
Good catch - unfortunately, if you are dealing with a mortgage foreclosure, it is the "thing" or home they take and not the memorialization. The presumption of many people is that the memorialization or dead paper "represents" the thing. Then the sheriff comes, knocks on the door to the man and says, you do not own this property, it has a deed in the name of the bank. Now get out. The man consents and gets out.

Under Florida Statute 697.02?Nature of a mortgage.—A mortgage shall be held to be a specific lien on the property therein described, and not a conveyance of the legal title or of the right of possession. I can not figure out how a mortgage can convey title when the statute says it can not? But this is done all the time.

I can not comment on the tree v the fruits and the man v his deeds. But obviously you got the point. You can not just talk the walk, you must act and be the walk as well. Otherwise, they will know you are full of it and bitch slap you.

We are fortunate to have Boris and his words of wisdom. Unfortunately, there are some out there who just want "the remedy and cure now". This is not JUST what Boris is about. FIRSTLY, it is about the spiritual process here on planet earth. Boris provides enough scriptures [though I am not a student of the bible; however, I study spiritual law and am a student] to see the parallels between THIER law and Supreme Law

As far as your inheritance is concerned, I do have a comment. I recently did the full release of claim and interest of the usufruct and reversionary interest. I am still waiting for the trustees to respond, including the pope. Before I did this, I came to the place what am I willing to do about this very core sense I have for this process. Am I willing to honor the contract that would require me to turn everything I think I own to the US, including property, accounts, IRA, inheritance, etc. Though a bit scary, I answered YES. Now of course, I can not be completely stupid, there is a give and take. If they can not reciprocate, then this is where there is a rub and THEY ARE IN REPUDIATION OF THE CONTRACT THAT THEY ARE OBGLIGATED TO HONOR.

My point is in this comment: What are YOU willing to do to accomplish the betterment of your Higher Self or even more drastic - what are you willing to do to help facilitate a Higher Purpose for the Entire Planet?


Interesting. I've always thought of a deed as a memorialization of a past act/ion, not of a thing.

The quote "A tree is known by its fruit; a man by his deeds" refers to his past acts/actions, not images of a thing.

But, as we know, the whole world is a stage.

Anywho, thought I'd chime in. One month after filing the ucc's Boris style, I get a call from an attorney/Landsman company telling me I'm an heir to oil, natural gas, interests, mineral rights, yadda yadda. The thing is, this land was purchased by my great great grandfather 100 years ago, in 1914. All this time I never knew about my families interests. Trust me, there's been so many trespassors, escheats, false claims, etc., upon this 640 acres it would blow your mind. My father didn't know, my grandmother, great aunt didn't know. But all I know is that I did Boris ucc filings and all of a sudden I get informed of this.

People can naysay all they like. At their own peril. Do or don't, I really don't think Boris cares one way or the other because at least he let people know about it, so he's done his part. Boris is definitely not the type who wants to trespass on free will. As far as I'm concerned, I appreciate Boris tremendously.

If anyone wants more details, just ask.

Thank you for reading.

salsero
05-15-14, 12:25 PM
Hi David -

I can not directly assume that AJ lost his home under Boris guidance at all. First of all, there have been a few others who have had success [up until now] that have NOT lost the home THEY USE. They do not own the home they use, they just use it. There is a fine line between it is MY house and I have control, dominion, possession and use of a home. If AJ says I am AJ SMITH and that is MY house, AJ is liable.

It is not about stating, I AM NOT JOHN SMITH. This is a claim. It is about asking the question: Under what authority and/or legislation are you using a name to identify a man? Thanks to the 1933 bankruptcy of the US, ALL TITLES [property] WERE SEIZED, inclusive of the Name [COLB].

As stated in Senate Doc #43, page 9, second paragraph, April 1933: “The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of Government, ie, law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.”

In the beginning I had some issues with Karl Lentz and his common law. Karl went on to define what HIS PROPERTY means. His property means He has exclusive use of say, his home TO THE EXCLUSION OF OTHERS. In other words, use, control, passion and dominion over.

The problem is the "earthly illusion sees so real" that we "buy it". This is where we honor the false god as opposed to the Supreme True One. And then comes the problems. We must come to a logically conclusion that EVERYTHING HAS BEEN PROVIDED FREELY AND ABUNDANTLY BY THE CREATOR. The Creator does not and can not NOT provide EVERYTHING TO EVERYONE TO MEET HIS NEEDS, and with extra to spare. However, man make a free will CHOICE to make false claims upon the usufruct and intermeddle, ultimately to be held accountable under the Supreme Law.



Thank you Lost in Florida (backwards);


Welcome to StSC!

That is a relief that I do not offend Boris. I am pleased that in your unique and forgotten heritage that this process somehow turned up a lost estate. Would you please elaborate and maybe isolate what facets of Boris' process caught this attorney's attention?

From your post I presume that the attorney was after a cut of salvaging your estate from all that escheat and assumpsit.



P.S. On that known by his fruit doctrine: About 8 months back I received a call from AJ's wife as they lost their home, in a panic because in the process of the county removing all their possessions to the curb, they cuffed and jailed AJ. This explains to this amateur psychologist why he would feel so invested in Boris' doctrine, AJ now feeling he sees what went wrong. It also explains why he must resort to slurs and his own derogatory diagnosis of my mental health. His example of the 2008 Mortgage Release does little to convince me that portion of the process shown was the reasoning for releasing the mortgage when AJ himself lost his home - I assume under Boris' guidance.

salsero
05-15-14, 12:52 PM
For clarification: Boris does not believe in A4V and this is the reason why. He separates man and the fiction.

Under CJS – Infants, §166 Intermeddling with estates of infants: “anyone who intermeddles with the property of the infant without authority is liable to account thereafter”. Under law, when one is making a claim in some form to that estate or trust, it is a warring decree and YOU, in plural form, the man and person, will be held to account therefor.

Under Boris' scenario, the man has NOTHING to do with them other then he uses a name. The acquittal and discharge under 12 USC 95a is for the entity or person and NOT the man. by chance, man is "incidentally or indirectly receives a benefit" but this negligible. The public trustees are to "take care of the property of the state". If, I am man interfere by paying bills, taxes, speeding tickets, etc, the trustees are more than happy to let me "go at it".

We are not to interfere AT ALL. Now the question is what happens when the trustee fails to do his oath bound duty? This is where Karl Lentz MAY provide some insight. I am not there yet.


I never heard Boris mention A4Vs in his YouTube seminar. I could have asked him. And he could have responded to this thread, too.

People have succeeded with A4V without filing a UCC-1. Maybe they got away with something?

The Bunny says he wasn't trying to be snarky with what he said.

Sometimes this place is waaayy too serious for its own good. In my opinion.

allodial
05-15-14, 01:10 PM
For clarification: Boris does not believe in A4V and this is the reason why. He separates man and the fiction.

Under CJS – Infants, §166 Intermeddling with estates of infants: “anyone who intermeddles with the property of the infant without authority is liable to account thereafter”. Under law, when one is making a claim in some form to that estate or trust, it is a warring decree and YOU, in plural form, the man and person, will be held to account therefor.

Under Boris' scenario, the man has NOTHING to do with them other then he uses a name. The acquittal and discharge under 12 USC 95a is for the entity or person and NOT the man. by chance, man is "incidentally or indirectly receives a benefit" but this negligible. The public trustees are to "take care of the property of the state". If, I am man interfere by paying bills, taxes, speeding tickets, etc, the trustees are more than happy to let me "go at it".

We are not to interfere AT ALL. Now the question is what happens when the trustee fails to do his oath bound duty? This is where Karl Lentz MAY provide some insight. I am not there yet.

The matter of 'executor de son tort (http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/executor-de-son-tort.html)' has been gone over in detail. Having the birth certificate itself is evidence of authority. If you don't present it or otherwise adequately handle matters pertinent then you might be presumed to be executor de son tort. If you are adequately describing Boris's views then I sense he might be in error on the topic as in maybe he really doesn't know what he is talking about and is just "feeling his way" and improvising.


Under Boris' scenario, the man has NOTHING to do with them other then he uses a name.

That seems rather contradictory. "Roy has nothing to do with the Company other than he uses the Company name all the time." Wut?


As stated in Senate Doc #43, page 9, second paragraph, April 1933: “The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of Government, ie, law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.”.

That pertains to what is "in the State" not to what is private or without the State.

David Merrill
05-15-14, 01:40 PM
One Enoch from Seth. One Enoch from Cain. I conten[d] that Moses' bones were being contested. Ref Jude. In my opinion Moses and Elijah could come [forward] in time to see Jesus because they transfigured.

What is interesting to me about Jesus' geneology is that he was of Levi and Judah. Remember that Mary sprang forth from Levi and Judah. Joseph also from Judah but only by law adoption.

In my opinion Jesus walked his boundary Survey. He was and is King. If you translate Israel you get "the prince that prevailed with God". Therefore we see an Israel of God. That is royalty. God too has a government and it is founded on a King.

I find Only one name that is above all names. The reason I hate the model being proposed by others is that it denies Jesus Christ. Salvation thru any other name is no salvation at all but is subject therefore to the claims established by imperfect men. I equate that to leaning on a shaky reed.

Remember the false one comes In prosperity. Said one does bring financial peace but he denies Christ.

Shalom
MJ

Yes. The Book of Jude refers to The Book of Enoch all right. I had not looked carefully into the debate about Moses' bones until now. - The commonality being oath - the Mark or Stigma placed on both Cain and the Sons of God. The Lucifer Rebellion swearing out an OATH (Enoch 6) on Mount Hermon...

I am interested in Joseph being adopted? I always thought Joseph was Judah by bloodline.

David Merrill
05-15-14, 01:46 PM
Salsero;


You remind me of my understanding that Jesus became authorized to teach redemption through his sense of separation:


Oh God! My Father!! Why has thou forsaken me?

salsero
05-15-14, 02:05 PM
I believe you misunderstood me. The BC is evidence of the "usufruct compliant certified certificate indemnity receipt" for redemption FOR the person under Liebor Code 38. Yes, I agree it is presumed one is the executor de son tort. When I did "my release", I did not do a UCC form. Attached to the release is the BC and on the backside it is marked "pay to the United States of America, without recourse".

It is a difficult to separate man and the person. I do not know how to say it any other way. Man is the SOURCE [I did not use the word creditor, even though that is what man is in "normal terms"] for THEIR fictional credit. From the BERTH EVENT, the state was able to "monetize" and benefit from man being real. The state kept the original title or COLB, where the state should have returned that to the parents or baby once he turned a certain age. However, the state SEIZED, TOOK, STOLE, whatever word you want to use and left man with "naked authority" - meaning everything man does in that name automatically vests in the state trust. Since man has little option but to do commerce using that name otherwise he can not eat, house himself, etc AND the state receives all the benefits, the state MUST too be subject to the liabilities.

There is nothing contradictory that man separates himself from the fiction - which ain't easy.


The matter of 'executor de son tort (http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/executor-de-son-tort.html)' has been gone over in detail. Having the birth certificate itself is evidence of authority. If you don't present it or otherwise adequately handle matters pertinent then you might be presumed to be executor de son tort. If you are adequately describing Boris's views then I sense he might be in error on the topic as in maybe he really doesn't know what he is talking about and is just "feeling his way" and improvising.



That seems rather contradictory. "Roy has nothing to do with the Company other than he uses the Company name all the time." Wut?



That pertains to what is "in the State" not to what is private or without the State.

And this is where we disagree. If that original title had been returned to the "RIGHTFUL OWNER", then we would agree. Since the state holds this in "trust" or whatever AND you can not obtain this, this more than suggests that something ain't right in Hooterville. This quote was stated during the bankruptcy. We have evidence today that this is supreme law of the land - the recent Colorado case proved this again. the fact that child protective services remove children from homes is yet another example.

ALL PROPERTY IS VESTED [OWNED] IN THE STATE.

Per Karl, if you want to define "my property" as MY exclusive use of a thing to the exclusion of others", mazel tov! If you want to state, it is my property because I worked for it. double mazel tov - however, MY question to you is: What evidence do you have to support that the "thing" is yours, as you are the owner? Did you pay for it? How? Prove that name you use is yours.

salsero
05-15-14, 02:31 PM
I do not understand what you are attempting to say: If you are attempting to say - I know nothing, I have no issue accepting your opinion. I teach nothing, all I did was offer my opinion. Actually I stopped bothering with this group for the reason of rudeness. The other day, someone from the PI group said Boris responded to this section, so I checked it out.

The PI process is NOT for everyone. I am in the middle of this myself. Will it work? I have no idea. And in a different sense, it almost does not MATTER. That is beyond the scope of this conversation. One does what one feels compelled to do, right or wrong.

It is also not necessary to "interpret" what I write. If you keep it simple, as to what I write and if not understood, just ask for clarification instead of defining what I write, this would be better for everyone.

Since you like the bible so much

James 2: 7-10

7 Do not they blaspheme the worthy Name after which ye be named?
8 But if ye fulfill the royal Law according to the Scripture, which saith, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well.
9 But if ye regard the persons, ye commit sin, and are rebuked of the Law, as transgressors.
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet faileth in one point, he is guilty of all.

Job 32: 21-22

21 Let me not, I pray you, accept any mans person: neither let me giue flattering titles vnto man.
22 For I know not to give flattering titles: in so doing my maker would soon take me away.


For those who believe they own private property:

Psalm 24:1: The earth is the LORD's, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein
Haggai 2:8: The silver is mine, and the gold in mine, saith the Lord of hosts.
Leviticus 25:23 The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me.

But again, one can pick and choose what they like or do not like in the bible - so this may not be the best example



Salsero;


You remind me of my understanding that Jesus became authorized to teach redemption through his sense of separation:


Oh God! My Father!! Why has thou forsaken me?

Keith Alan
05-15-14, 03:01 PM
Or the BC is simply what it appears to be: a public recording of an event. Since it's public, and held by the State, then the State is the controlling legal authority of the instrument.

When people make use of the public record for private gain, isn't that a trespass?

Keith Alan
05-15-14, 03:05 PM
Salsero;


You remind me of my understanding that Jesus became authorized to teach redemption through his sense of separation:


Oh God! My Father!! Why has thou forsaken me?

This is an interesting thought. I've never before considered this view. It's worthy of further contemplation. Thanks for bringing it up.

Michael Joseph
05-15-14, 03:11 PM
Yes. The Book of Jude refers to The Book of Enoch all right. I had not looked carefully into the debate about Moses' bones until now. - The commonality being oath - the Mark or Stigma placed on both Cain and the Sons of God. The Lucifer Rebellion swearing out an OATH (Enoch 6) on Mount Hermon...

I am interested in Joseph being adopted? I always thought Joseph was Judah by bloodline.

My apologies I should have been clearer. I meant that Joseph was Jesus' father only by law [adoption]. Joseph did not lend his seed. I try not to get bogged down in the flesh but try to use the keys to get broader understanding. Christ is the Word. Jesus is the Word made flesh. So we see Christ in Jesus [Flesh nature] and we see the resurrection of Jesus to Christ. Paul understood this wisdom and if you look carefully you might begin to get a peek at the encryption. Christ Jesus vs. Jesus Christ. This is a wisdom in writing that has been hid but will be revealed by John [Elect] to Peter [Church].

So the Word was beaten and then even put to death - the preachers only teach the flesh aspect in History and Lineage. If that is all the Bible one sees - well at least they have that. The Word contains the fullness of the Godhead. And the Word was made flesh so the encryption is Christ Jesus. But the Word has power from El Elyon - thru a Promise! - isn't that amazing - everyone talks about Abraham in terms of the promise- yet few understand the promise to the Word made flesh, Christ Jesus - Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedok.

So I meant to express that Joseph adopted Jesus and further now that Mary was a surrogate.

Now I shall take a small tangent. Consider there are three items in the Ark. And I believe these are three testaments. We see Aarons Rod [NT], we see twin tablets [OT] and we see a golden bowl with manna. It is the golden bowl with the manna that interests me. I find that Jude, Paul and James quoted books that are not part of the established canon.

Just as Peter [the church] denied Christ Jesus three times so the Church has denied Christ three times now in regard to the established canon. Consider why do you require a canon at all if you understand the Wisdom of the language used to write the Scripture. Understanding that wisdom unlocks any book and therefore if those keys do not work, then the Book is not from God. Therefore what need of a canon. But I find the Church in dishonesty. For if you accept Jude, then you MUST accept Enoch. If you accept the OT, then what of Jasher, to name just one.

Book of Adam and Eve, Testament of Solomon, Testament of Moses, Wisdom, Maccabees, etc. Why does Peter [the Church] deny the Christ. Paul understood the mystery and was entrusted with the key. Paul would send Onisimus to Philemon, which is to say the Elect to the latter day Church. And while John and Peter ran to the tomb, John arrived first, but he stopped and let Peter enter in before him.

See that men rejected Wisdom so she left the sons of men and went back to Heaven and took her seat with the angels. Can't find that one in the canon, right? Well check out Enoch 42: 1-2. What will happen to pastor when he is shown everything he has taught is a lie. All of his TALENTS will be given to another man who knows how to work the field.

For while some Pearls are wonderful [understanding in the flesh] there is a GREATER PEARL [understanding in the Spirit].

================================================== =======================================

The word OF is a very important term. It denotes progeny. So I see a U.S. citizen and a Citizen of the United States as two separate classes. Just as a Resident is a totally separate class than Citizen. A Citizen takes an oath, pledging to a Constitution and that can only be done in a Common Law court. Now consider Joseph son of Jacob, when he was in the pit, he was found to be stateless. He was seized as a slave and sold into Egypt. Joseph kept his mouth shut and in his lack of Declaration of Status, he was delivered into Egype as property.

Multiple paths are set before men. The state setup in 1789 is under the Crown with its own separate government and for its own People. And I myself believe that it is impossible to become a Citizen of the United States UNLESS I am allowed. Which means I would have to take an oath and pledge myself to the Constitution of the United States. And that Oath would have to be in a Common Law court of competence. In my opinion residents lack the status and therefore the standing of a citizen. I wonder even today if it is possible to even be a State citizen. I might look into that to see if I can find a court that might administrate that oath.

No Oath or Pledge means no standing. That is the position of a Stateless man or woman. Thus a Stranger.

Now recall your Scripture. If a stranger desires to bind himself to the House of Israel [nation-state] then said stranger was to be made subject to the Torah; HOWEVER where did said stranger get standing in Israel? Shall we rise up out of the flesh to see with new eyes?

Shalom,
Michael Joseph

allodial
05-15-14, 03:16 PM
I believe you misunderstood me. The BC is evidence of the "usufruct compliant certified certificate indemnity receipt" for redemption FOR the person under Liebor Code 38. Yes, I agree it is presumed one is the executor de son tort. When I did "my release", I did not do a UCC form. Attached to the release is the BC and on the backside it is marked "pay to the United States of America, without recourse".

....

There is nothing contradictory that man separates himself from the fiction - which ain't easy.

And this is where we disagree. If that original title had been returned to the "RIGHTFUL OWNER", then we would agree. Since the state holds this in "trust" or whatever AND you can not obtain this, this more than suggests that something ain't right in Hooterville. This quote was stated during the bankruptcy. We have evidence today that this is supreme law of the land - the recent Colorado case proved this again. the fact that child protective services remove children from homes is yet another example.

ALL PROPERTY IS VESTED [OWNED] IN THE STATE.

Per Karl, if you want to define "my property" as MY exclusive use of a thing to the exclusion of others", mazel tov! If you want to state, it is my property because I worked for it. double mazel tov - however, MY question to you is: What evidence do you have to support that the "thing" is yours, as you are the owner? Did you pay for it? How? Prove that name you use is yours.

#1. I am unaware of having a "last name" or holding any "birth certificate".

#2. When they are using words such as "property" its in their context. "Owner" effectively in their sense means surety. "Possession" and "ownership" aren't the same. Ownership does not necessarily imply exclusivity--it can be shared, joint or pertinent to divided title. [ Speaking of divided title: Long ago, I was told the primary thing the Russians or Germans were demanding "Papers please" was for determining whether one had full title or not.] Karl might be coming into deeper comprehension of the meanings of words outside of popular idiomatic speech, however in the Greek language the variations for ownership are very apparent. There were posts on the old SJ site about the word ownership and how the word does not necessarily connote absolute exclusivity. It might be that some have problems because of their way of thinking rather because of the State.

#3 Prior points were about Boris' doctrines not about your particular views (re: not taking it personally).

#4. Endorsing vs acceptance on the birth certificate is quite very similar if not the same. Acceptance of a draft, for example, can be on the backside too. He isn't talking anything new. He might be good at elaborating on certain aspects of trust law but its not new.

#5. That one can void or surrender a birth certificate or record has been gone over many times too even back in the 90s. There was an affidavit available via the Internet net that could get a birth certificate removed from the record.

#6. Regarding children taken from families, one thing that might not be readily apparent is that application for the birth certificate may have been taken as a willing, knowing act. There have been reports of children taken from households except the ones that weren't associated with birth certificates.

#7. The key point was if he is using the name on the birth certificate then he has a lot to do with them rather than little. The presumption that the State or "the Crown" isn't willing to handle liability is incorrect.

#8. 'Property' is the right or title to a thing not necessarily the thing itself. California Code however also defines "property" as "the thing of which there may be ownership."

There are many ways to "do commerce" without a birth certificate.

You raise many issues that vary wildly depending upon who, what, where.


ALL PROPERTY IS VESTED [OWNED] IN THE STATE.

Property relates to the word proprietorship. The word "property" is limited to the state's cognizance. "All {public} property is vested {could that mean that it came from without} in the State". Often words in statutes are silently prefixed with the word "public".

Michael Joseph
05-15-14, 03:36 PM
#1. I am unaware of having a "last name" or holding any "birth certificate".

#2. When they are using words such as "property" its in their context. "Owner" effectively in their sense means surety. "Possession" and "ownership" aren't the same. Ownership does not necessarily imply exclusivity--it can be shared, joint or pertinent to divided title. [ Speaking of divided title: Long ago, I was told the primary thing the Russians or Germans were demanding "Papers please" was for determining whether one had full title or not.]

#3 Prior points were about Boris' doctrines not about your particular views (re: not taking it personally).

#4. Endorsing vs acceptance on the birth certificate is quite very similar if not the same. Acceptance of a draft, for example, can be on the backside too. He isn't talking anything new. He might be good at elaborating on certain aspects of trust law but its not new.

#5. That one can void or surrender a birth certificate or record has been gone over many times too even back in the 90s. There was an affidavit available via the Internet net that could get a birth certificate removed from the record.

The key point was if he is using the name on the birth certificate then he has a lot to do with them.

I truly believe the whole concern is remedied in Standing. Look at the Scriptures. Where did a subject to Israel have any Standing to trade or cause to be traded property in Israel? Only a citizen of Israel had standing. And notice again, could Jacob bless himself or was he anointed by a higher power?

Most are as Joseph ben Jacob in the pit - stateless. How then will any understanding of a foreign government help him. He must be elevated to a status within that foreign government. It was Pharaoh that anointed Joseph. Just as El Elyon annointed Yehoshuah with the oil of gladness above his fellows. Look at Daniel. Joseph and Daniel were strangers to Egypt and Babylon. I find God working in the heart [mind] of Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar. Joseph might have declared himself to be of Melchizedok in Israel [coat of many colours] Daniel was taken captive in war. Either way both were strangers.

Notice that a Warranty Deed today bears the words - Grantor agrees that he is "lawfully seized of said property in fee simple".

A resident may use but only according to the rules governing the use. Therefore the resident is not Owner but is merely a Registered User. Nevertheless, the resident does have titles to the little right he/she may possess.

Shalom,
Michael Joseph

allodial
05-15-14, 03:48 PM
Well if the State actors could be punished for dealing with an enemy you might get why they want to see some kind off evidence that you aren't the enemy. The trustees might be more limited and restrained than you.

Michael Joseph
05-15-14, 04:44 PM
Well if the State actors could be punished for dealing with an enemy you might get why they want to see some kind off evidence that you aren't the enemy. The trustees might be more limited and restrained than you.

But lets frame this properly. The trustees are beholding to the Beneficiaries - of the United States. That being "Ourselves and our Posterity" The people of the States have their own governments and constitutions. So yes in deed those trustees are going to make darn sure they serve their beneficiaries as all trustees should. But CONSIDER have we been TAUGHT that this is the only game in town? Ah ha. At once the mind springs to life!

I believe the enemy are those who seek to take against the will. Meaning the Settlors placed a Will within the Trust. I believe the confusion arises in thinking that I am a member of the class of "We the People of the United States". With that understanding in place "I have no trust in the United States". For how could I unless I was a citizen of the United States. Which I believe is an impossibility for me unless I am invited into that status.

14th Amendment Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I was not born in the United States, I am not subject to its jurisdiction - so what is naturalized in the United States - I must look up the Naturalization Act. Upon viewing that I find an Oath and a Pledge is required in a common law court. See if you can get a judge to allow you to take that oath and pledge. I may be wrong, but I don't see it happening. For that is a privileged status!

CLICK HERE. (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=226)

Has anyone here made application to a common law court for citizenry of the United States?

Outlaw (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proscribed)

Shalom,
Michael Joseph


P.S. The Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion appear to be correct - men are in deed being taught to abandon property interests into the hands of a few men - and they are willingly doing it. The order of Melchizedok escapes so many.

allodial
05-15-14, 05:12 PM
One of my Forebears who lived to be over 100 years old taught me a few things before she passed away. She told me that many would not listen or hear what she said: that one of the most important things to remember is who you are (true name) that the danger in the U.S. is forgetting who you are and losing touch with reality; that many had forgotten who they are even those around me at the time (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUYKSWQmkrg). "They will try to make you believe you are something or someone other than who you are."

Re: Pop Culture; Media; Mis-Education
I'm not sure why folks have this idea that the most sparkly presentation would necessarily be the most truthful one. "Oh look they put it upon this fancy screen it must be true." Seriously? Just because someone fancily gives a false impression of something being true doesn't mean 300 million people have to buy into it. Ah but yes...the poppies...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG2keYgBiZc
The Pied Piper is out to get people to throw the baby out with the bath water.

There are State actors that want to help but they might be restrained from telling you what they want to tell you. However, for education systems to be aligned with utter deception strikes me as a heinous and great fraud.

David Merrill
05-15-14, 06:06 PM
Or the BC is simply what it appears to be: a public recording of an event. Since it's public, and held by the State, then the State is the controlling legal authority of the instrument.

When people make use of the public record for private gain, isn't that a trespass?

This is refreshing because I have never seen any indication it is anything more.

I suppose that it secures legal identity because you need it to get Government Issued ID or a driver license.

allodial
05-15-14, 06:30 PM
Yes. One can hire the State to perform various estate management services (probate, escheats, succession to titles, inheritance, etc.).

Re: event recording
Perhaps the presumption is that the event recorded is public rather than private?

Keith Alan
05-15-14, 08:06 PM
Yes. One can hire the State to perform various estate management services (probate, escheats, succession to titles, inheritance, etc.).

Re: event recording
Perhaps the presumption is that the event recorded is public rather than private?
Since the instrument is in interstate commerce, doesn't that make it public? Can a thing be in interstate commerce and remain private?

Moxie
05-15-14, 08:16 PM
In the beginning I had some issues with Karl Lentz and his common law. Karl went on to define what HIS PROPERTY means. His property means He has exclusive use of say, his home TO THE EXCLUSION OF OTHERS. In other words, use, control, passion and dominion over.

Karl also had a chat with the Sheriff's department and FBI about his status. They are aware of his common law court of record techniques and leave him alone.

He makes a point not to meddle in codes, ordinances, and statues and does not entertain callers who want to. He only talks common law and how to resolve defacto problems using common law language only.

allodial
05-15-14, 08:27 PM
Since the instrument is in interstate commerce, doesn't that make it public? Can a thing be in interstate commerce and remain private?

What makes it in interstate commerce? If it is not a negotiable instrument then why would it be commercial? Interstate commerce refers to commerce among U.S. States--which to knowledge are 'public'. If there is a forum common to all the U.S. States, I would imagine that that forum would be inherently "interstate". However something between a state and a private organization wouldn't necessarily be interstate commerce. "Commerce among the States" seems to refer to commerce between U.S. States. It is possible for a state to issue a private charter (see the Dartmouth cases).


Karl also had a chat with the Sheriff's department and FBI about his status. They are aware of his common law court of record techniques and leave him alone.

He makes a point not to meddle in codes, ordinances, and statues and does not entertain callers who want to. He only talks common law and how to resolve defacto problems using common law language only.

I believe it. Sheriffs and FBI agents have limitations on their authority and they are likely aware of it. Getting into the mud of codes is not always necessary. Staying out of those courts is best IMHO.

Keith Alan
05-15-14, 08:30 PM
What makes it in interstate commerce? If it is not a negotiable instrument then why would it be commercial? Interstate commerce refers to commerce among U.S. States--which to knowledge are 'public'. If there is a forum common to all the U.S. States, I would imagine that that forum would be inherently "interstate". However something between a state and a private organization wouldn't necessarily be interstate commerce. "Commerce among the States" seems to refer to commerce between U.S. States. It is possible for a state to issue a private charter (see the Dartmouth cases).
Aren't they transferred from the state of the event to the US? Aren't they "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?

Moxie
05-15-14, 08:52 PM
For clarification: Boris does not believe in A4V and this is the reason why. He separates man and the fiction.

A4V already separates man from the fiction on the instrument.


Now the question is what happens when the trustee fails to do his oath bound duty? This is where Karl Lentz MAY provide some insight. I am not there yet.

Karl would say: get the trustee's first name and write him/her a letter. First-name basis makes it man-to-man/woman in common law. No titles allowed in common law.

Freddy Mac cannot come after someone's house, because Freddy Mac is a fiction. Fictions cannot take the witness stand in a common law court.

Find out the man or woman's first name who works for Freddy Mac, then write a letter. Only men can make claims, not fictions or those with titles:

"Dear Bob, greetings.

You've got an agency called Freddy Mac. They're making a claim I owe a debt to the United States. Is this true?"

And end it there. Don't add to it. Ask one question at a time.

Bob will respond quickly with "I wish to acknowledge your letter" because only a man can wish. Notice Bob didn't say, "we received your correspondence." Bob will sign, "very truly yours" which means he knows his place with you.

The goal is to get them to strip themselves of their immunity.

adirolfnitsol
05-16-14, 01:23 AM
And that was an excellent catch by you, salsero!

The key words here are Nature and Character. Florida Statute 697.02 tells us the nature (not the character).

For example, Keanu Reeves is the man ie. Nature/substance. A part he plays would be the character/form.

Want to really fry your brain? Pull up HUTCHENS v. MAXICENTERS, U.S.A 541 So. 2d 618

"Generally speaking, however, law courts have only the jurisdiction to render money judgments and common law writs of ejectment and replevin. All actions for more specific relief, such as, cases involving dissolutions of marriage, custody, guardianships, dissolutions of partnership, accounting, mortgage foreclosure, partition, subrogation, specific performance of contracts, the adjudication of equitable rights of beneficiaries under express trusts, the establishment of equitable liens, resulting trusts and constructive trusts, actions to reform, cancel or rescind instruments and agreements, actions for declaratory decrees, and actions for injunctions and to quiet title, are all causes of action which are peculiarly cognizable only in equity or chancery and are not within the jurisdiction of a court exercising only common law jurisdiction."

So, if the 'law courts' have only the jurisdiction to render money judgments and common law writs of ejectment and replevin, (I don't see foreclosure listed in there except under equity/chancery and how can fictions claim they gave equity when they didn't give equity) how can IT do a writ of ejectment when IT doesn't have the authority to hear a foreclosure, at law? Are these undocumented, unregistered judges, attorneys, employees actually using statutory equity? If so, how so? In other words, how does it go from point A to point C, where IT doesn't have the authority or power to even hear B, except under equity/chancery? These same numbered Circuit/District State courts deny there is any equity/chancery within these courts!

It was the above and the following that made my ears stand up in full attention to what Boris was saying:

Commissioner v. Estate of Field - 324 U.S. 113 (1945)
2. Since the corpus of the trust did not shed the possibility of reversion until the decedent's death, the value of the entire corpus on the date of death was taxable under § 302(c). P. 324 U. S. 116.

So what happens when the corpus of the trust sheds the possibility of reversion PRIOR TO the decedent's death? No taxation? No licensing? No federal withholding?

Yes, this was the point when I got very, very interested in what Boris was saying!

salsero
05-16-14, 12:31 PM
I am not bright enough to "catch anything" - I only can try and put the pieces together as best I can. And this includes being open to what others say. It was Boris who first brought this matter up of 697.02.

What is clear TO ME is this. Man must separate himself from the word YOU, in the plural form and stick only to the singular form of you. Under the bankruptcy, man has been left naked or spoliated.

A piece to the puzzle tells me - THEY DO NOT CARE about anything, law, fairness, right, good - they only care about saving their own asses and the trust. Under 18 USC 1001

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

THEY ACTUALLY TELL YOU IN STATUTE THEY CAN BE DISHONEST. Barry has a duty to deceive, lie, cheat, or whatever under executive privilege under the rules of war. He must do this to protect the public trust or bankruptcy - call it what you want.

In my simple logical thinking [right or wrong], it would be insane to use their private bankrupt statutes to apply to me, a man. The statutes only apply to those that take an oath to uphold them. If the State holds that original title Name or person in trust - AND I CAN NOT GET THAT ORIGINAL TITLE, it would be insanity to continue to state that name is mine. It is not mine, it can not be my property. However, under THEIR rules of war, an indemnity receipt has been issued for the purpose of settling matters for that Name or person. THEY must HONOR their rules of war. Since the state can only deal with "dead paper"

I have a choice to come to peace with "what is for now" or war against it. This PI process is not for everyone. And the best I can offer is after the paperwork on status is complete, it all may just be ignored by them. However, there is a higher reason FOR ME to do this.

When Hillary becomes the selected president by the PTB, then all this back and forth will be for naught, as all persons must be chipped and accounted for - for the purpose safety and security to protect the homeland from foreign terrorists, you the enemy of the state. Game over.

Michael Joseph
05-16-14, 12:47 PM
adirolfnitsol,

That sounds like probate to me. And probate is easy to avoid by placing a will within a trust and not naming the heirs. The estate is held for "ourselves and our posterity". Therefore there cannot be a life estate or an estate for years and therefore the estate is indefinite. I liken this to a will within a trust. Therefore at the death of the Testator there is no transfer and the board of trustees and board of directors continue to act without any disruption to trust business. The corpus does not change hands. Therefore since the estate is not TRANSFERRED no taxable event.

Equity acts IN PERSONAM. If the Trustor creates a trust binding himself to certain covenants which he/she agrees to perform wherein said Trustor appoints a Trustee, names a beneficiary and gives purposes/intent and life span of the trust [usually 30 years], then Trustor appoints himself as Borrower within the Covenants of said trust agreement - well then I would pretty much say that said Trustor created his/her own prison. How then will said Trustor argue in Equity when said Trustor created the Trust, created the terms of the Trust, and agreed to the Covenants which he/she created?

Consider now anything might have been used as a medium of exchange in the debtor/creditor relationship established in the Covenants. Perhaps certain rocks are the money - or perhaps and I am going out on a limb here, but just maybe - the value or equity is in the Promises that said Trustor/Borrower UNDERTOOK to perform. Having said that, I would maintain that if I made you a promise then you would have an equitable interest in me. And I would have a legal duty to you to perform my promise.

My promise does not require necessarily your consent. Sort of like a banking agreement it is signed by one party - therefore it is an undertaking - where in I become an Unsecured Creditor to one of the Trusts [banking agencies - ref 12USC90].

Names hold destiny and inheritance. If we are building on Scripture then that is a fact. A name is, well sort of a fiction, being that I am a living soul.

Shalom,
Michael Joseph

David Merrill
05-16-14, 07:08 PM
A piece to the puzzle tells me - THEY DO NOT CARE about anything, law, fairness, right, good - they only care about saving their own asses and the trust.


That is the reflection you project. You will see what you are looking for. The True Name is like a mirror that reflects only the truth. Once you understand this, you will indict or acquit, forgive and bring peace accordingly.

salsero
05-16-14, 10:08 PM
I attended a Science of Mind church for several years that by chance or right of consciousness I latter worked for. This is basically the same nonsense they came up with to justify immoral, throat-cutting, self-centeredness, dishonest, money-demanding, temper tantrum behavior - not that I am judging them but as a matter of simple observation - if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc - it must be a duck appearing. I will agree that what I may see in others MAY be some error within me; however, still being on planet earth, I would not discount entirely the fact we still live in density and duality. Translated, this means imperfections, free will and stroking one's EGO. Illusion or not, that just is what is appearing as the illusion that we all must "live under" while breathing and appearing in a body.

With this said, David did you bother to read the rest of what was written?

If it was not for my in depth study of those spiritual principles [well beyond what the church teaches], I would not have a better understanding of the PI process and how it relates to the collective consciousness of the people. TPTB are in place for OUR benefit. There are signs all around SHOUTING TO US TO US TO WAKE UP. And yet we still slumber and choose to actively participate in the matrix, mostly because of no real sense of Purpose or God, thus paying homage to false idols believing that they will cure what ails us. "the change we believed in and voted for" has only determined that the end result ain't good.


That is the reflection you project. You will see what you are looking for. The True Name is like a mirror that reflects only the truth. Once you understand this, you will indict or acquit, forgive and bring peace accordingly.

David Merrill
05-17-14, 12:30 AM
I am simply saying that you have constructed this illusion. Think about "them" and exactly who "they" are, and it might become clear to you what the truth is.

Michael Joseph
05-17-14, 01:09 AM
I trust you can see the woman in the following is every man and woman....She is supposed to be a Chaste Virgin - why does she chase after those who seek her life? Perhaps it is the colour of Purple [looking good], she is allured by the promise of an easy life, perhaps, but then again, maybe, just maybe she likes it rough. Consider, I write concerning every man[kind].


I see the bees busy at work. Yet they lack understanding that they are being "guided" by a hidden hand. Nestled under the eaves I find the honeycomb. Yes in deed I see signs all around of control and yet the more I study, the more I realize just how much I don't know. Funny how that works. Reminds me of Jacob's Ladder - specifically Seven Women taking hold of the garment of one man!

Isa 4:1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

Funny how she wants to do it by herself in her name. She denies that man until she is brought into destitution - eating the slop of the hogs - she says even the servants [slaves] in the house of my father have it better than I. With choice, which is all she has, she chooses her lover. Will it be the created or the Creator?

What then does she want? For her former lovers have dealt harshly with her. Took her virginity and bruised her teets, and yet she returns willingly to those who abuse her as they have locked her in a high tower - she is a prisoner - and her lovers guard her house.

But all is not lost, if she would just realize she cannot overcome in her own strength! She is Moses at the reed sea! She must rely upon El Elyon by and thru Yehoshuah. Until then, she remains a prisoner in the house of those who abuse her. Is she Bilhah or Zilpah or perhaps she has an estate as Leah [obligation wife - Martha] or maybe Rachel [beloved - Mary] or maybe Rebecca, Sarah, or Eve? Which of the seven is she?

Why does she cling to her lovers in hope of a restoration vested in man's inventions? When will she learn? How much chastisement is required before she returns to the vineyard of her Creator? Yet she courts yet another Suitor in hopes that he will give her the key to escape. Yet he only removes her into another prison - locked by a closed boundary. Twice the daughter of hell she becomes - trapped under the table of the Exchequer.

She cries out "let me take your name" to her lover, yet, she turns her back on Salvation. She knows not how naked poor and destitute she has become as she lives on in luxury greater than 99 percent of the worlds population - she sits a Queen and is no Widow, yet she is married to a Dead Man. And she trusts her dead man paying homage and making gifts unto her Dead Man in the name he gave her. And she is fond to make such gifts but when will she recognize her maker? Trusting in those who hate her she is made to serve, for what will happen to her when her lovers sell her? What will she do? Where will she turn? When she is useless and is no longer beautiful?

She seeks to enjoin herself to Princes - yet they use her as she can never become wife - just a harlot. She says of her lover let me take shadow under your protection - be my Sponsor. Then she is so bold as to make a use of the Prince's property - enjoining herself to him - she is fit for the harem yet not the wife. She therefore is given to uses [Smith, Miller, Cook] her lovers take of her fruits and she cannot figure out why she is so hated.

Lam 1:2 She weepeth sore in the night, and her tears are on her cheeks: among all her lovers she hath none to comfort her: all her friends have dealt treacherously with her, they are become her enemies.

Lam 1:9 Her filthiness is in her skirts; she remembereth not her last end; therefore she came down wonderfully: she had no comforter. O LORD, behold my affliction: for the enemy hath magnified himself.

Lam 4:1 How is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed! the stones of the sanctuary are poured out in the top of every street.

Lam 5:1 Remember, O LORD, what is come upon us: consider, and behold our reproach.
Lam 5:2 Our inheritance is turned to strangers, our houses to aliens.
Lam 5:3 We are orphans and fatherless, our mothers are as widows.
Lam 5:4 We have drunken our water for money; our wood is sold unto us.
Lam 5:5 Our necks are under persecution: we labour, and have no rest.
Lam 5:6 We have given the hand to the Egyptians, and to the Assyrians, to be satisfied with bread.


When will she give up her lovers and seek the one who Created her? WHAT DOES SHE SEEK? Is it comfort? Has she considered her latter end? Why does she continue to look without when her peace is within? She waivers between two lovers - wondering how to make both happy. Why are both angry?

1Ki 18:21 And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.

With the Sword in my hand I sing the Halleluyah Psalms: Building upon BEDROCK I care not for the Sand [doctrines of man]. Therefore why should she rely upon the foundations of sand constructed by her lovers? When the rains come they will all be washed into the sea [place of Leviathan]. For these are mere BUSINESS VENTURES and why is she allured by the Dead Man? She who was once alive is made dead as they TWO become ONE.

Looking to be Quickened she remembers for FIRST LOVE - long ago. Long before she asked her Father for her inheritance to go into a far country.

I wonder about a system which denies Christ. Clearly it is erected on Sand. Faith is the deed. Again she asks what will be my latter end? For she willingly places herself in the hands of those who hate her.

Maybe she will win the lottery this time. A lifetime wasted - she never finds the Great Pearl. For even the Creator desires a Pledge - will she drink of His cup? But until she chooses to settle down and marry - she remains on the fence - bruised and battered by her lovers. Please she cries to her lover, why do you treat me so bad? In return, why do you keep coming back for more?

There is only ONE way - The Word of God. For when Satan tempted Jesus he said IF you will just bow to me I WILL GIVE YOU EVERYTHING. Now consider what is before you, the same choice. What was Jesus' response, and did Jesus bow? Starting at Matthew 4:4 I see the same drama playing out again. What is humorous to me is that people actually think the being that covered the Mercy Seat is so dumb as to be overt in his deception. Just give all to me and pay homage and ye shall have your hearts desire. [B]BE CAREFUL MY FRIENDS.

Shalom,
Michael Joseph

Michael Joseph
05-17-14, 01:52 AM
TPTB are in place for OUR benefit. There are signs all around SHOUTING TO US TO US TO WAKE UP.

salsero,

I wonder if you will respond to this fictional entity you formed? This persona which you gave life to entitled "salsero" - said persona being entitled to have access to these forums thru a membership. Since you were the creator of this persona you submitted said persona to the membership rolls herein. I know not to whom I write for I find only an actor wearing a mask. Who are you and more importantly What are you? Rhetorical Question. I am not goading you personally, I am sort of making a point.

Equity acts IN PERSONAM.

Now then I cannot find one shred of evidence that the powers that be act for my benefit. Rather I find those who pledge themselves to each other act for their own behalf. My Scriptures instruct me not to place my trust in governments. As such, I cannot accept this declaration and I therefore refuse it for cause. For I find the terms "ourselves and our Posterity" to be a closed system. Thus a COPYRIGHT. Protecting the close.

Shalom,
MJ

allodial
05-17-14, 04:19 AM
Consider the roles of ISP user or forum member might be 'fictions' too.

Michael Joseph
05-17-14, 07:23 AM
Consider the roles of ISP user or forum member might be 'fictions' too.

This response is computer generated. If you are reading this know for a surety that a computer produced this text....ROFLMAO....

Exactly my point. Thank you.

Shalom,
MJ

salsero
05-17-14, 05:27 PM
The soul is encased in a body. The body is NOT who we are. We are created from Divine Love AND we are as created. The soul encased in a body has an "learning opportunity" to live in a setting called earth that appears very real but is only an illusion. Buy this or not - I really do not care.

My soul is here earth, appearing on earth. I have not learned how to transcend density, meaning pain and suffering. I have less of that negativity but "I ain't hit the mark". I do not fret about this because regardless if I hit the mark or not, NOTHING can ever remove the real me from MY Creator. My Creator only knows Infinite Love, Immutable Law and Abundant, Overflowing Good - ALWAYS.

If this body that I USE is not feeling well, I have choices. No choice is wrong; however, there are better choices. One thing that is definite, this body is going back to where it came from - the earth. The body stays here. My soul moves on. The soul takes with it experiences and karma. This is based on free will choices - either the soul was MORE in line with Divine Law OR LESS. More and less have consequences, call them better or worse but neither are wrong or right. Do you see?

TPTB are provided to the people by right of consciousness, not GOD [do not be confused entirely, there is a difference between observing something and asking how does this relate to Divine Law OR reacting to something INSIDE of that soul - only the individual can do a self-test to come to the conclusion] As the people's hearts become more corrupt OR flows AWAY from Divine Law, so does the government reflecting back to them becomes. We observe in each election cycle, the stakes and scandals get worse and worse. Is anyone learning anything or are they saying I can be just as corrupt as my brother? We can turn on the news today, with minor truth being told, the vets scandal, IRS, Benghazi, Barry-kare, etc - it appears TO ME, we are not far off for another false-flag operation in order for the people to consent to yet another nail in their coffins. When the people begin to get away from "I, me, mine and my" and turn that into "we, us, and ours" removing the appearance of separation, our dear "evil ones", Nancy, Harry, Barry, George, etc will evaporate, as their job will have been completed. If the people do not wake up, it is my opinion, the chipping must begin for their safety.

MJ whatever works for you, I wish you the very best. If doing equity, common law, making claims, my property is working - go for it. I do not negate my humanity. I see it as a tool. I often may joke - because at times you got to have a sense of humor otherwise, one would require a Prozac, double vodka and now legalizing pot - all combined.

Collectively we are at choice. Choice to follow the Royal Supreme Law - that always Was, Is, and Will be and go into sync with that or suffer the consequences. And suffer we will, as we are not designed to be anything but that Divine Love.

I fully agree with you on that fact that TPTB have pledged themselves to each other to act on their own behalf. This is 1/2 of the contract. The other half of the contract is you have their entity or their property or Name. In their dead paper world, when you make a claim to that trust, estate or property, under their rules, you are an enemy of the state. You unknowingly agree to be a surety in their dead world. There is evidence that supports this. Therefore once you remove their "legal presumption" and return their property back to them, THEY must provide remedy to you, the man since they have SEIZED everything you will do. THEY have no right to do this. Does their Creator grant man authority over another? No.

I accept their declaration as a man who has come to peace with them, basically saying, here is your property back. I MUST use it because I won't eat, etc without it. God Bless you, now honor your CONTRACT with the devil and take care of your property. I receive a minor indirect benefit, as a man. The Name I use is acquitted and discharged of all claims against it - AS LONG AS I do not intermeddle.



salsero,

I wonder if you will respond to this fictional entity you formed? This persona which you gave life to entitled "salsero" - said persona being entitled to have access to these forums thru a membership. Since you were the creator of this persona you submitted said persona to the membership rolls herein. I know not to whom I write for I find only an actor wearing a mask. Who are you and more importantly What are you? Rhetorical Question. I am not goading you personally, I am sort of making a point.

Equity acts IN PERSONAM.

Now then I cannot find one shred of evidence that the powers that be act for my benefit. Rather I find those who pledge themselves to each other act for their own behalf. My Scriptures instruct me not to place my trust in governments. As such, I cannot accept this declaration and I therefore refuse it for cause. For I find the terms "ourselves and our Posterity" to be a closed system. Thus a COPYRIGHT. Protecting the close.

Shalom,
MJ

David Merrill
05-17-14, 09:53 PM
I view this at the end of the Colorado Constitution as a security agreement:

Moxie
05-17-14, 11:14 PM
A piece to the puzzle tells me - THEY DO NOT CARE about anything, law, fairness, right, good - they only care about saving their own asses and the trust.

Here's my view on this. Glad you asked! lolol

It doesn't matter what cloak these agents are wearing or what their man-made laws say. They do not get a free pass to behave like this, because in the end, they will be accountable before Almighty God, and scripture says so.

Their fruits are not of the Spirit described in Galatians 5:13-14.

I know you're not a scripture guy, but I'm illustrating that even God's Word addresses what you brought up. :-)

salsero
05-19-14, 12:47 AM
We fully agree THEY do not get a free pass and will be held accountable. The question now arises when do the scales of Justice balance out? We do not always see Justice work, but we must KNOW that Justice is always Working.

I also never said they are to get a free pass. The devil does not get a free pass either. He is just permitted to deceive, trick and coerce us breathing self-aware souls THROUGH OUR FREE WILL to tempt bolster our EGOs as part of the duality planet Earth offers. It is our job to say to Satan: Go away, I ONLY do the will of my Father. The point of this "human exercise" is to remove the dross from the gold.



Here's my view on this. Glad you asked! lolol

It doesn't matter what cloak these agents are wearing or what their man-made laws say. They do not get a free pass to behave like this, because in the end, they will be accountable before Almighty God, and scripture says so.

Their fruits are not of the Spirit described in Galatians 5:13-14.

I know you're not a scripture guy, but I'm illustrating that even God's Word addresses what you brought up. :-)

Moxie
05-19-14, 04:14 AM
The question now arises when do the scales of Justice balance out? We do not always see Justice work, but we must KNOW that Justice is always Working.
In God's timing, not ours.


I also never said they are to get a free pass.
I am aware of that.

David Merrill
05-19-14, 09:30 AM
I like to explain the divine in profane terms. The security agreement coagulates the IN GOD WE TRUST Trust found on the money and swearing out oaths before the Ever-Living GOD. Now understand that the exact same numero-linguistics is applied to both the Sons of Cain and the Sons of God1. This much I feel is explicit enough (exoteric) to call fact, as you will find it on the currency as well as in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.

The highly polished esoteric then would be to accept my current Bible interpretation that as we read about Cain and Abel something is not right according to our current justice system. God was punishing Cain for killing Abel, his brother! Cain is banished to a world where he must work to eek out a living? Cain is put into a crude civil death called caput lupinum, or outlawry - outside the law's protection. Cain complains that as he tries to abide in civilization men will be able to kill him on sight with immunity. What does the Father do? The Father puts a Mark, or Stigma on Cain called OATH and linguistically this is the exact same MARK or OATH put on us, Sons of God (Bride of Yehoshuah). [Many are called but few are chosen.]

Why would God do such a thing?

Because the Sons of Cain would effectively wipe out the Sons of God in the same manner that Cain killed Abel.

Now I would evolve into imagination, prophecy and intuition. I am pointing out some numerical consistencies about the OATH and also 153. We have entered the 153rd year since LINCOLN's proclamation that there is a domestic enemy "Combinations" to be dealt with by force. I also indicate that there is a powerful basis to believe in Redemption, whether you apply that notion to Federal Reserve notes or a much higher dimensional precept about spirituality:

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

The way to apply justice in your life NOW is to research the oaths, and do that where the state constitution says to go get a certified copy too. If there is no oath, get a Certificate of Fact that the office of the prosecutor, Attorney General or judge is vacant and publish that, or at least serve it on the case and watch how quickly the case is dismissed!

If the oaths are in order then you get your day in court, assured the protections in the bills of rights. Now you might get a glimpse of why I simply shrug off your conspiracy theories (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImYWE3NjhmNTMtNmE1MC00NzJhLWFhNzEtY2FjN mUwZTQxYjQx/edit?).



Regards,

David Merrill.


1 There are two different Enochs found in Genesis.

salsero
05-19-14, 06:52 PM
Here we disagree. God does not know time. I do not see God as judgmental or condemning. The Creator can not be that which he is not. God IS infinite Love, Divine Holiness, Immutable Law and much more than we can ever possibly comprehend.

When a "Soul plants a seed, he reaps what he has sown". God does not the balance the scales, the soul, consciously or unconsciously balances it out however it needs to be balanced out in accordance with immutable law. This is why we have the duality. When the soul is not aligned with its Creator, this is the error and there are consequences. Take note, I did not say good or bad consequences - as all consequences are just learning tools or journeys back to the Divine. Since we are God's property, we can NEVER be lost. It just appears that way.

The teachings of Christian Science, Hoponono and A course in miracles - to name a few have a different spin on Life. I suspect the bible has the same ideas when viewed from a different metaphysical observation.


In God's timing, not ours.


I am aware of that.

Moxie
05-19-14, 08:29 PM
Here we disagree. God does not know time. I do not see God as judgmental or condemning. The Creator can not be that which he is not. God IS infinite Love, Divine Holiness, Immutable Law and much more than we can ever possibly comprehend.

When a "Soul plants a seed, he reaps what he has sown". God does not the balance the scales, the soul, consciously or unconsciously balances it out however it needs to be balanced out in accordance with immutable law. This is why we have the duality. When the soul is not aligned with its Creator, this is the error and there are consequences. Take note, I did not say good or bad consequences - as all consequences are just learning tools or journeys back to the Divine. Since we are God's property, we can NEVER be lost. It just appears that way.

The teachings of Christian Science, Hoponono and A course in miracles - to name a few have a different spin on Life. I suspect the bible has the same ideas when viewed from a different metaphysical observation.

..........................................

Moxie
05-19-14, 08:31 PM
your conspiracy theories

Who is "your"?

tommyf350
05-19-14, 09:18 PM
salsero


Here we disagree. God does not know time. I do not see God as judgmental or condemning. The Creator can not be that which he is not. God IS infinite Love, Divine Holiness, Immutable Law and much more than we can ever possibly comprehend.

When a "Soul plants a seed, he reaps what he has sown". God does not the balance the scales, the soul, consciously or unconsciously balances it out however it needs to be balanced out in accordance with immutable law. This is why we have the duality. When the soul is not aligned with its Creator, this is the error and there are consequences. Take note, I did not say good or bad consequences - as all consequences are just learning tools or journeys back to the Divine. Since we are God's property, we can NEVER be lost. It just appears that way.

The teachings of Christian Science, Hoponono and A course in miracles - to name a few have a different spin on Life. I suspect the bible has the same ideas when viewed from a different metaphysical observation.

You are on to something.
Dualism gives foothold to deception, I believe. Of course im learning here, like everyone else and im glad about that. Perhaps this dualism is simply a misconception giving birth to further misconceptions like the fiction of a state and rulers with divine rights also Public or private. The truth is we are all the same and on the same creation /existence. Which is what interests me about this surrender concept or perhaps just stepping aside ? like just putting to record and demonstrating by actions that there is no trust without the use (trust) of state methodology. Since its our belief and use in such fictions that give jurisdiction what is the point of carrying on those beliefs ? I hope I am not being disparaging to anyone with a different concept and keeping them from exploring it, we are all learning, I think its best to share to draw us closer to a solution.


Shobogenzo (http://de.slideshare.net/UnitB166ER/master-dogens-shobogenzo-and-shobogenzo-the-true-dharma-eye-treasury) - Page 5

"That is, in each training ground of every Buddha as the embodiment of truth, the work of Buddhas find's expression and put into practice down to the smallest detail, as they create for others far and wide the circumstances that help them go beyond the notion of 'being a Buddha', through their vigorous promotion of the teaching that one goes on, always becoming a Buddha. At this very moment ,the lands of the earth with their tree's and grasses , as well as the walls and fences with their tiles and stones, are all seen to be performing the works of the Buddhas. As a consequence all who make profitable spiritual use of whatever storms and floods may arise will be receiving will guidance and assistance in unseen ways from the profound and inscrutable instructions of the Buddha's, and they will give expression to their innate understanding, which is every intimate with the Truth. Because persons who accept and make profitable spiritual use of such floods and firestorms all gladly receive from the Buddhas instruction and guidance on their innate understanding, those who reside with such persons are spiritually conversant with them, in turn, mutually provide for each other with unbounded ,endless virtues of Buddhas and cause the unceasing, wondrous immeasurable dharma of Buddhas to roll forth far and wide until it spreads throughout the whole universe ,both from within and without.
However these persons of whom I speak are not kept in the dark by being wedded to their senses, for they straight away realize the truth by not fabricating anything within the hush of their meditation. If as ordinary people believe spiritual practice and personal realization are two different sorts of things, then each could be seen and recognized separately from the other. Should someone become all involved with his sensory perceptions and intellectual understanding he will not be in the ' realm of enlightenment' because the realm of enlightenment is beyond the reach of delusory ,discriminatory thinking.
Furthermore, even though , amidst the stillness of meditation, someone experiences - not only subjectively within the heart and mind, but also objectively within outer conditions - an 'entering into realization' and a 'going beyond awakening to the truth', because he is in a realm of delight in the truth, he does not disturb a single dust mote or shatter the aspect of 'oneness of all things'.

David Merrill
05-19-14, 11:09 PM
Who is "your"?


I think in terms of projection and reflection. If you are sensitive then I meant your conspiracy theories but that is not exclusive to you. If you ask for another reason, then I do not mean you. I directed the comment to conspiracy theorists.

ag maniac
05-20-14, 02:21 AM
Who is "your"?


I had never thought of the "legal" you until seeing one of a number of Bill Turner videos

salsero
05-20-14, 01:26 PM
EXACTLY - You explained it very well. If one can have a out-of-the-box sense of humor with a questioning mind, asking a profound but dumbfounded question: WTF is all this about - this being life AND then take action to really seek, you will find Something that will help your journey. There has to have some purpose - AND it must be GOOD. I have been fortunate to experience first hand - non-traditional miracles or happenings that on the surface or by appearance simply can not be. It is the questioning mind, open to ALL possibilities, coming from a sense of awe and humbleness where one becomes RECEPTIVE to a better understanding - this does not mean a know it all guy but rather attempting to putting the pieces of the puzzle together as best one can, consistent with the "life leaves clues" GIVEN foundation. And it is one's job, to find his way back Home.

Along the way, one plants seeds and will reap what he has sown. God is Law. Law is immutable, past, present, future as there is no time. Therefore, the soul either aligns himself to that Law [as the created can never entirely leave the Creator] and gets closer to his Kingship or moves away bolstering the EGO [or edging God out] acknowledging the appearance as real AND serving that as the false god.

The surrender concept is not about making the illusion real or giving up but rather saying OK, it appears what is - but I KNOW or sense something greater than I is working. This WORKING FORCE WORKS FOR MY GOOD ALWAYS, as I was created in the Image of that Good. However, one day, living in Bliss and Paradise AND having so much Power, I had a thought of what it would be like NOT to be in Bliss and Paradise - and whammy here I am witnessing Barry, Harry and Nancy [WTF was I thinking? lol]. In order to know Good, one must come to know the opposite. And then we see George, Dick, Bill and Hillary. They are our teachers. OMG. Man was created in the Image of the Creator. He can never be lost forever. He can only journey off the path. He must return to SOURCE, as that Source has ALL of His Creation accounted for. This is what Hillary wants to do when she is selected [through computer voting of the People] President. She wants to chip the chattel called persons, citizens and residents of the United States under Executive Order to show she is just like God. This way she can account for everything every person does. And if she don't like what that person is doing. The chip gets turned off. YAY!

One other further comment --- Not every soul can be or is receptive to this thinking. And there is good reason why it does not resonate with them. The soul is not ready. This is not a judgment of right or wrong but rather smiling and saying - all in good time - reassured! If you have not had the opportunity to listen to the Boris or Marcus series - take the time - if this topic resonates with you and see how these men attempt to bring you down the path slowly to a different realization.


You are on to something.
Dualism gives foothold to deception, I believe. Of course im learning here, like everyone else and im glad about that. Perhaps this dualism is simply a misconception giving birth to further misconceptions like the fiction of a state and rulers with divine rights also Public or private. The truth is we are all the same and on the same creation /existence. Which is what interests me about this surrender concept or perhaps just stepping aside ? like just putting to record and demonstrating by actions that there is no trust without the use (trust) of state methodology. Since its our belief and use in such fictions that give jurisdiction what is the point of carrying on those beliefs ? I hope I am not being disparaging to anyone with a different concept and keeping them from exploring it, we are all learning, I think its best to share to draw us closer to a solution.


Shobogenzo (http://de.slideshare.net/UnitB166ER/master-dogens-shobogenzo-and-shobogenzo-the-true-dharma-eye-treasury) - Page 5

tommyf350
05-20-14, 10:27 PM
I have started the unraveled programs of Marcus a while back and I began watching Boris. I will complete them ,just not today.

David Merrill
05-21-14, 12:57 AM
EXACTLY - You explained it very well. If one can have a out-of-the-box sense of humor with a questioning mind, asking a profound but dumbfounded question: WTF is all this about - this being life AND then take action to really seek, you will find Something that will help your journey. There has to have some purpose - AND it must be GOOD. I have been fortunate to experience first hand - non-traditional miracles or happenings that on the surface or by appearance simply can not be. It is the questioning mind, open to ALL possibilities, coming from a sense of awe and humbleness where one becomes RECEPTIVE to a better understanding - this does not mean a know it all guy but rather attempting to putting the pieces of the puzzle together as best one can, consistent with the "life leaves clues" GIVEN foundation. And it is one's job, to find his way back Home.

Along the way, one plants seeds and will reap what he has sown. God is Law. Law is immutable, past, present, future as there is no time. Therefore, the soul either aligns himself to that Law [as the created can never entirely leave the Creator] and gets closer to his Kingship or moves away bolstering the EGO [or edging God out] acknowledging the appearance as real AND serving that as the false god.

The surrender concept is not about making the illusion real or giving up but rather saying OK, it appears what is - but I KNOW or sense something greater than I is working. This WORKING FORCE WORKS FOR MY GOOD ALWAYS, as I was created in the Image of that Good. However, one day, living in Bliss and Paradise AND having so much Power, I had a thought of what it would be like NOT to be in Bliss and Paradise - and whammy here I am witnessing Barry, Harry and Nancy [WTF was I thinking? lol]. In order to know Good, one must come to know the opposite. And then we see George, Dick, Bill and Hillary. They are our teachers. OMG. Man was created in the Image of the Creator. He can never be lost forever. He can only journey off the path. He must return to SOURCE, as that Source has ALL of His Creation accounted for. This is what Hillary wants to do when she is selected [through computer voting of the People] President. She wants to chip the chattel called persons, citizens and residents of the United States under Executive Order to show she is just like God. This way she can account for everything every person does. And if she don't like what that person is doing. The chip gets turned off. YAY!

One other further comment --- Not every soul can be or is receptive to this thinking. And there is good reason why it does not resonate with them. The soul is not ready. This is not a judgment of right or wrong but rather smiling and saying - all in good time - reassured! If you have not had the opportunity to listen to the Boris or Marcus series - take the time - if this topic resonates with you and see how these men attempt to bring you down the path slowly to a different realization.


Great post Moxie;


Sometimes the motivation is to make a claim upon somebody else's estate. Tapping stock, so to speak. This is almost always interpreted as a trespass and treated with criminal prosecution.

salsero
05-21-14, 11:27 AM
First it was not Moxie that made the comment.

For your consideration - and this is way outside of the box: These "estates" are nothing more than fictional pieces of dead paper. God made the tree from where the paper came from. The paper is an image of something appearing real - but in fact IS NOT. We "buy into the piece of paper re-presents - meaning the paper re- presents the real, ie, house, car, etc. The paper itself has NO VALUE. We just think it does. God created everything real for OUR USE, possession, control and dominion over. Man created a false image of the real.

Letter to James Madison

Thomas Jefferson
September 6, 1789
Paris

THE EARTH BELONGS TO THE LIVING

DEAR SIR,

-- I sit down to write to you without knowing by what occasion I shall send my letter. I do it because a subject comes into my head which I would wish to develope a little more than is practicable in the hurry of the moment of making up general despatches.

The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be transmitted I think very capable of proof. I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;" that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by an individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society. If the society has formed no rules for the appropriation of its lands in severalty, it will be taken by the first occupants. These will generally be the wife and children of the decedent. If they have formed rules of appropriation, those rules may give it to the wife and children, or to some one of them, or to the legatee of the deceased. So they may give it to his creditor. But the child, the legatee or creditor takes it, not by any natural right, but by a law of the society of which they are members, and to which they are subject. Then no man can by natural right oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the paiment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which would be reverse of our principle. What is true of every member of the society individually, is true of them all collectively, since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of individuals. To keep our ideas clear when applying them to a multitude, let us suppose a whole generation of men to be born on the same day, to attain mature age on the same day, and to die on the same day, leaving a succeeding generation in the moment of attaining their mature age all together. Let the ripe age be supposed of 21. years, and their period of life 34. years more, that being the average term given by the bills of mortality to persons who have already attained 21. years of age. Each successive generation would, in this way, come on and go off the stage at a fixed moment, as individuals do now. Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations during it’s course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the 1st., the 3d. of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation. Then no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of it’s own existence. At 21. years of age they may bind themselves and their lands for 34. years to come: at 22. for 33: at 23 for 32. and at 54 for one year only; because these are the terms of life which remain to them at those respective epochs. But a material difference must be noted between the succession of an individual and that of a whole generation. Individuals are parts only of a society, subject to the laws of a whole. These laws may appropriate the portion of land occupied by a decedent to his creditor rather than to any other, or to his child, on condition he satisfies his creditor. But when a whole generation, that is, the whole society dies, as in the case we have supposed, and another generation or society succeeds, this forms a whole, and there is no superior who can give their territory to a third society, who may have lent money to their predecessors beyond their faculty of paying.



Great post Moxie;


Sometimes the motivation is to make a claim upon somebody else's estate. Tapping stock, so to speak. This is almost always interpreted as a trespass and treated with criminal prosecution.

Moxie
05-22-14, 10:08 AM
Great post Moxie;


Sometimes the motivation is to make a claim upon somebody else's estate. Tapping stock, so to speak. This is almost always interpreted as a trespass and treated with criminal prosecution.

??
You are mixing up me and Salsaro.

David Merrill
05-22-14, 12:09 PM
More likely I mixed the bottom of the post up with the top "Reply With Quote". Then I just did not notice the text. Editing now would be incongruity so I apologize for the confusion.

Salsero;

That is an enjoyable read and begs to be cited - who wrote that? It looks like a modern writer spoofing Declaration era prose. - Very nice.

I want to get back to the Tread Topic here. I don't mean staying on point; I mean the definitions of public and private. I feel like we may be using different definitions. To me, Public means Government. Private means Non-Government. But I have to admit it gets fuzzy when we start talking about living men and women - there seems to be a different rendition of Private being exposed in your elegant post.

I would think that we settle on Private by definition whenever we step out of the house and interact. We can still be men and women, in fact we are never not. But we have to put up facades, dawn faces called Persons named PERSONS by legal name whenever we contract in the traditional Private venue. All Recordation in any Public venue requires such. This is why whenever I use David Merrill, my true name I will put my red thumbprint by my signature so as to designate a living man. This is evidence of my bond and functions satisfactorily. With responsibility comes authority and vice versa.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Using government-issued ID (for Identification Purposes) conveys the transactions from Private to Public in nature, as I see it. This is why it is effective to tell the Public police officer that you are not using the Driver License card for Identification Purposes. He usually gives it back because there is no viable interface for the Public venue to prosecute a Private man.

Keith Alan
05-22-14, 01:57 PM
I would also like to say that in addition to the public/private distinction in personhood currently being discussed, there also must be a distinction in personalty with the money. In fact, I think this second distinction is more crucial to understand in relation to redeeming for lawful money, than is the personhood question, or at least as important, because after all, it is through the money that society most often imposes public obligations.

For instance, we know that FRN and banking credit are obligations of the US, and that when used in the public venue, the money carries with it certain reciprocal obligations (like reporting income and expenses) to the holders thereof. I believe that is the purpose for offering the remedy of redemption. Otherwise any person that uses the money is kept in the public, and subject to those obligations, which is tantamount to a taking of private rights of enjoyment. Justice and honor demand the opportunity for redemption.

salsero
05-22-14, 02:02 PM
And here we have to define terms. The use of a government ID for the purpose of doing commerce is required. Use, possession, control and dominion over is not the same thing as THAT government ID is mine. Consent by making claims is what is required by government to snag the unknowing man into the State's web of surety-ship. How can that DL re-present me, a man? It can not UNLESS I say that is MY signature near the image that appears to be me where on the top of the DL it says STATE OF XXX. To me it appears that is state property that I use.

I use the government property to help the government ID its property so it can do all those debit and credits it requires in its fictional monetary system. If the cop is an agent of the state, he is then authorized, as trustee or executor or administrator to discharge or have discharged all debt obligations of the state. He is the one who wants to make a claim upon state property and the one who does that is in violation of his contract to the US. This appears to me to be seditious, rebellious and treasonous. How does one bite the hand that feeds him and then expects to get away with it? lol

This is my simply logic on any state matters. And you know this all to well David. The Fed pumps FRNs out and the IRS pulls them back in. Well technically, any state agency has to help pull those FRNs back to the Fed. It does not matter if you call it a toilet paper tax or Al Gore global warming tax - whatever you call it - it must be palatable to the people or sureties of the state, at least so they do not catch on to the fact they, the people are servants to the state or really a few rich banking families.

We have to remember that the Creator created the earth and all that dwell on it. He has given FREELY AND ABUNDANTLY to ALL his creation so that each may have an abundant life. It is man making claims upon HIS creation or usufruct in violation of the Royal Law that creates poverty or wealth - WITH THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. MAN HAS NO RIGHT WHATSEOVER TO CLAIM GOD'S PROPERTY AS HIS OWN TO THE EXCLUSION OF OTHERS. Man can use a house. If he thinks he owns 100 houses and then rents them out to others, he is asking God's creatures to "pay" God for something that has already been given freely and abundantly by God. Where does this authorization come from? How does one man charge his own brother? Did God not command to love one another? Was man charged rent to live upon the earth?

Now this may or may not resonate with some. And that is fine either way. This is how I see it.




P.S. Using government-issued ID (for Identification Purposes) conveys the transactions from Private to Public in nature, as I see it. This is why it is effective to tell the Public police officer that you are not using the Driver License card for Identification Purposes. He usually gives it back because there is no viable interface for the Public venue to prosecute a Private man.

doug555
05-26-14, 06:13 PM
I would also like to say that in addition to the public/private distinction in personhood currently being discussed, there also must be a distinction in personalty with the money. In fact, I think this second distinction is more crucial to understand in relation to redeeming for lawful money, than is the personhood question, or at least as important, because after all, it is through the money that society most often imposes public obligations.

For instance, we know that FRN and banking credit are obligations of the US, and that when used in the public venue, the money carries with it certain reciprocal obligations (like reporting income and expenses) to the holders thereof. I believe that is the purpose for offering the remedy of redemption. Otherwise any person that uses the money is kept in the public, and subject to those obligations, which is tantamount to a taking of private rights of enjoyment. Justice and honor demand the opportunity for redemption.

Watch this new video that cites "private money" issue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UEUvKlaEEc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UEUvKlaEEc)

In that regard, I believe the title of this thread is backwards!

Are we not redeeming money from the PRIVATE to the PUBLIC venue, in order to not incur the legitimate private FRB "usage fee" known as "income tax"?

David Merrill
05-26-14, 08:36 PM
I agree, stipulating it is like a system in thermodynamics. What is being redeemed where is dependent on system parameters.

Keith Alan
05-26-14, 11:25 PM
Watch this new video that cites "private money" issue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UEUvKlaEEc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UEUvKlaEEc)

In that regard, I believe the title of this thread is backwards!

Are we not redeeming money from the PRIVATE to the PUBLIC venue, in order to not incur the legitimate private FRB "usage fee" known as "income tax"?

Maybe it is backwards. I'm still trying to get a handle on it, which is why I started the thread.

I'm questioning all of it, from top to bottom. I recognize it's a private credit scheme, but at the same time, the currency is legal tender for all debts, so it's also public. Also, since citizens of the US are citizens subject to the jurisdiction of the US, doesn't that make them public citizens? And aren't citizens of the US engaged in interstate commerce when using the currency?

It's all very confusing.

David Merrill
05-27-14, 01:37 AM
That is in essence the distinction between handling insurance notes, awaiting claim and lawful money.


Maybe it is backwards. I'm still trying to get a handle on it, which is why I started the thread.

I'm questioning all of it, from top to bottom. I recognize it's a private credit scheme, but at the same time, the currency is legal tender for all debts, so it's also public. Also, since citizens of the US are citizens subject to the jurisdiction of the US, doesn't that make them public citizens? And aren't citizens of the US engaged in interstate commerce when using the currency?

It's all very confusing.

salsero
05-28-14, 11:27 AM
Exactly!!!!

Boris has a new video and you are gonna luv it. I did not see all of it yet. But he does talk about Treasury Form 1048 Fling a claim for lost, stolen or destroyed US savings bond and notes and he goes back into the "spiritual aspect of the system and how it operates".

Gentlemen - we all want to be on the same page - so let's bring about this. Even the 12 USC 411 is playing in their sandbox. I am not saying this is not remedy but what I am saying is if Boris - who is clearly on a Freedom Path has a step by step simple instruction moving MANY of us forward to the Christ [and he does mention successes on this video], let us all begin to THINK OUTSIDE OF OUR BOXES AND TRY TO BE OPEN and this is more about removing the dross so we become pure Gold.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWXFtUcmUeE


Making claim to what has been already seized will NOT get one "off the battlefield".

Acknowledgment of the seizure and a recognized record formed regarding a cease and surrender of reversionary/usufructuary interest claims makes for a peaceful walk "off the battlefield" - no "fighting" required.

salsero
05-28-14, 11:43 AM
David - Thomas Jefferson wrote this.

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl81.php

[QUOTE=David Merrill;14084]More likely I mixed the bottom of the post up with the top "Reply With Quote". Then I just did not notice the text. Editing now would be incongruity so I apologize for the confusion.

Salsero;

That is an enjoyable read and begs to be cited - who wrote that? It looks like a modern writer spoofing Declaration era prose. - Very nice.

salsero
05-28-14, 12:13 PM
It gets fuzzy because we FAIL to Remember who we really are! KNOW THYSELF. A la Karl Lentz and a few others. We Agree: While you are on planet earth, YOU ARE ALWAYS a man or woman. ALWAYS. In certain circumstance, you the wo/man APPEAR [like magic] as a fictional person. The only problem you, the wo/man fail to recognize it is a fiction and unknowingly make false claims to that APPEARANCE.

Now we disagree - "whenever I use David Merrill, my true name.... NO!!!! David is your given name. David Merrill is a fiction created by THEM for THIER purpose; however, you were sent a usufruct complaint certified certificate for YOUR USE, for indemnification purposes FOR DAVID MERRILL, a fiction.

The photo on the driver's license is that you? The thumb print on a state ID for say a professional license - it that you? A piece of paper can only RE-present a man - it is NOT the man. the fact that there is an IMAGE what appears to me on THEIR ID does not make it mine, it makes easier for them to help identity the USER. Their ID CAN NOT BE MINE. I do not say those finger prints are mine on that piece of paper. Logically [and almost stupidly based on OUR common collective thinking] the FINGERS are on this body that [my soul] is now USING for the purpose of incarnation. I can not even say the next breath I take is mine. Silly as this sounds. Each breath I take is given by Grace. Do you rebut that?

It sucks - I do not LIKE this at all. I have a get the F over it pill and it is a big swallow.

When you say to the cop - that I am not using the DL for ID purposes - you are making a claim. You are setting yourself up for controversy. You ask questions and do not make claims.

Cop: DL and registration. Me: thanks, not today. Cop: No, I want your DL and reg. Me: Are you an agent for the state? Cop: Yes. Me: OK then, you are asking as trustee for YOUR DL and registration?

Only the owner has the right to ask for its property. An officer who claims to be an agent for the state can ask for the state’s property. So asking me for YOUR DL is the wronig question.

All authority comes from legislation. Attempting to do something without legislation and therefore authority be outside the scope of their oath and thus breach of duty? This automatically strips that agent from immunity and is held personally liable.

He is now trespass and interference with my Natural Rights.




More likely I mixed the bottom of the post up with the top "Reply With Quote". Then I just did not notice the text. Editing now would be incongruity so I apologize for the confusion.

Salsero;

I want to get back to the Tread Topic here. I don't mean staying on point; I mean the definitions of public and private. I feel like we may be using different definitions. To me, Public means Government. Private means Non-Government. But I have to admit it gets fuzzy when we start talking about living men and women - there seems to be a different rendition of Private being exposed in your elegant post.

I would think that we settle on Private by definition whenever we step out of the house and interact. We can still be men and women, in fact we are never not. But we have to put up facades, dawn faces called Persons named PERSONS by legal name whenever we contract in the traditional Private venue. All Recordation in any Public venue requires such. This is why whenever I use David Merrill, my true name I will put my red thumbprint by my signature so as to designate a living man. This is evidence of my bond and functions satisfactorily. With responsibility comes authority and vice versa.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Using government-issued ID (for Identification Purposes) conveys the transactions from Private to Public in nature, as I see it. This is why it is effective to tell the Public police officer that you are not using the Driver License card for Identification Purposes. He usually gives it back because there is no viable interface for the Public venue to prosecute a Private man.

David Merrill
05-28-14, 02:56 PM
Merrill is conventionally my "middle" name. Agreed though!

The reason I do not use my family's name around here is because people are conditioned to construct the full or legal name and apply it to me, as they do erroneously to themselves until they understand your point.

David Merrill
05-28-14, 10:29 PM
David - Thomas Jefferson wrote this.

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl81.php


Thanks for that link! I have a copy of Inventing America; Jefferson's Declaration of Independence by Garry Wills on the shelf and just not enough time to read it again. Just the desire to...

salsero
05-29-14, 12:35 PM
Yes - and we must too be careful if in court when we make a statement to that effect to the judge:

Oh you can call me Johnny. The judge will then say to the prosecutor, would you like to amend the complaint to AKA Johnny? This actually happened - per Batman talkshoe. This example just came back on radar the other day. When in court, one is to be addressed as friend of the court, spoliated man, etc - NO NAMES, first or middle.

However, if by accident you slip, a question to ask to the judge could be: By what authority or legislation are you using a given name for identification or bringing that given name in an arena of commerce?

They certainly have us coming and going and it just sucks.



Merrill is conventionally my "middle" name. Agreed though!

The reason I do not use my family's name around here is because people are conditioned to construct the full or legal name and apply it to me, as they do erroneously to themselves until they understand your point.

salsero
05-29-14, 12:52 PM
Yes - David, this was just another part of the piece to the puzzle. It appears there were issues of "conscience" with regard to the future and who has the right to "bind others". It does not thrill me at all to learn all this - as I just want to be a simple man. For me, the path is evidently clear toward the Peaceful Inhabitant process. However, the EVIDENCE continues to pile up strongly that for actual remedy [not fully perfected and that is ok - but there are successes] UNDER the current bankruptcy - state of emergency UNDER the rules of war, I do not see any other viable option.

I was already to do the UCC process, copyright of the name, etc. It is by pure Grace I did not. It was a very patient man called John Tanis that eventually got me to see the light. I was stubborn in the beginning when I was told that bank account was not mine, the house, car, etc. My response was - but I worked for it. It matter not.

On this latest Boris video, he mentions form 1048 - filing a claim for lost, stolen or destroyed US savings bond and notes and the BC. I have not watched the whole video - but once again Boris is coming up roses. I bring to the attention of the group Boris' demeanor in his presentations - it seems to be a "its all good and for our good" and all we have to do is just accept it. He also mentions some successes on this video.


Thanks for that link! I have a copy of Inventing America; Jefferson's Declaration of Independence by Garry Wills on the shelf and just not enough time to read it again. Just the desire to...

xparte
09-16-14, 05:00 AM
diggin one hole while quietly rejecting the opposite one is what those bunny ears are for in-case your down to far. just stop diggin start filing in all the holes less rabbit holes eating same dirt