PDA

View Full Version : Birth Certificate - What it is



Pages : [1] 2

EZrhythm
05-11-14, 04:11 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.

Certificate of Title - "These are issued by a designated state agency to identify the owner of (a) *vehicle, aircraft or water *vessel. Any liens or outstanding loans will be identified on the certificate of title. Often, a lender, such as for an automobile loan, will hold the title until the obligation has been satisfied, at which point the lien is released and the certificate of title will be sent to the owner." http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/certificate-of-title.asp
*The NAME is being classified as a vessel or financial vehicle, in this case, to be utilized in commerce.
Now read that but with a twist as the "holder" is the "STATE OF..."-
[Birth Certificates] are issued by a designated state agency to identify the owner of the ...vessel (FIRST MIDDLE LAST). [A trustee of the NAME- You, may hold the title (Certified copy of the BC) and meet an obligation to satisfy such obligation, at which point the lien is released (Accounting brought to zero) as the certificate of title (BC) is sent to the owner. ("STATE OF..." who is the account holder.)
*The “STATE OF...” holds the NAME in regards to the United States Inc. accounting of it.

Definition of ‘Security Interest- A legal claim on collateral that has been pledged
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/security-interest.asp

The FIRST MIDDLE LAST was pledged at birth (registration).
The people unknowingly claim themselves and their property to be the collateral on legal claims when they claim that they are the FIRST MIDDLE LAST which is merely a name for accounting purposes.

Sample scenario-
Judge calls out, "Is JOHN WILLIAM JONES here?" John William replies, "Here!"
Instead, if John William replies, "I am here about that matter." He has not made a statement lending to evidence that he is (surety/collateral/trustee) for the FIRST MIDDLE LAST.

walter
05-11-14, 10:31 PM
" BIRTH CERTIFICATE is a PUBLIC RECORD that a CROWN ORGANIZATION was ORGANIZED on that date."

words from john scott duncan

allodial
05-12-14, 12:19 AM
" BIRTH CERTIFICATE is a PUBLIC RECORD that a CROWN ORGANIZATION was ORGANIZED on that date."

words from john scott duncan

You might be onto something. The certificate typically is from the registrar to evidence an entry in the register or rolls.

EZrhythm
05-14-14, 03:18 AM
Except that it is not a public record. And it represents an "Individual" as opposed to an organization.

allodial
05-14-14, 03:22 AM
Except that it is not a public record. And it represents an "Individual" as opposed to an organization.

In most U.S. States it is a private record with the particulars thereof to be guarded just like a social security card. Depending on the context an organization can be an "individual".

walter
05-14-14, 05:32 AM
Except that it is not a public record. And it represents an "Individual" as opposed to an organization.

Criminal Code
R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46
“every one”, “person” and “owner”, and similar expressions, include Her Majesty and an organization;
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/fulltext.html

In order to get a driver's license you must first show a BC.
They need a "public record" of WHO they are dealing with before any DL is handed out.

walter
05-14-14, 05:49 AM
In most U.S. States it is a private record with the particulars thereof to be guarded just like a social security card. Depending on the context an organization can be an "individual".


More from the Criminal code of Canada

“public department” means a department of the Government of Canada or a branch thereof or a board, commission, corporation or other body that is an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada;

“public stores” includes any personal property that is under the care, supervision, administration or control of a public department or of any person in the service of a public department;



As you can see by definition all "public stores" are linked to the “public department” which is a "body that is an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada;"
The BC is the missing link.
Its the JOINDER that makes you an agent for the crown.

Where's my pay cheque?
I think I might have to RESIGN.

David Merrill
05-14-14, 10:20 AM
PERSON as a corporation that can sue or be sued...


Ergo the True Name as a class action.

walter
05-14-14, 03:39 PM
"Living Father"

Through the rules of capitalization "Living Father" is now a Title.
And Title is ownership.

walter
05-14-14, 03:46 PM
Came across this and I think it might add to the topic of the BC.


Nemo dat quod non habet, "no one gives what he doesn't have"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemo_dat_quod_non_habet
Recording statutes

When dealing with real property, most American jurisdictions have codified recording statutes that will enable subsequent purchasers to divest title from the party with common law title if they qualify for protection under the recording statute. Three varieties of recording statutes exist: 1) Race statutes, 2) Notice statutes, and 3) Race-Notice statutes.

A race statute will divest common law title from a person with superior title if the subsequent purchaser recorded their deed prior to the person with superior title. A notice statute will divest common law title from a person with superior title if the subsequent purchaser had no notice (either actual or constructive - otherwise known as bona fide) of the true owner's title. A race-notice statute requires a subsequent purchaser to be bona fide and record first.

shikamaru
05-17-14, 10:27 AM
Is a birth certificate a quasi-corporate sole?

EZrhythm
05-17-14, 06:49 PM
It is a certificate representing a security interest in an individual person. "Individual" and "person" being a legal entity, fiction, etc.

David Merrill
05-17-14, 09:55 PM
It is a certificate representing a security interest in an individual person. "Individual" and "person" being a legal entity, fiction, etc.


I can see how a template of trust law might indicate this is true. However you indicate there might be some kind of monetary value or even any value whatsoever to this certificate?

I went through all this with a Canadian Freeman named Robert MANARD. There is a clause in the constitution there about "Security of the Person" he misconstrued miserably. You might be able to view this video by searching around for it - Security of the Person. The 5:00 Minute Mark had Rob telling the viewer (1:00 Hour Mark too) that the Canadian Birth Certificate was a stock certificate worth quite a bit of money - untrue.

He seems to have given up his quest to assert this myth.

Michael Joseph
05-18-14, 03:33 AM
I can see how a template of trust law might indicate this is true. However you indicate there might be some kind of monetary value or even any value whatsoever to this certificate?

I went through all this with a Canadian Freeman named Robert MANARD. There is a clause in the constitution there about "Security of the Person" he misconstrued miserably. You might be able to view this video by searching around for it - Security of the Person. The 5:00 Minute Mark had Rob telling the viewer (1:00 Hour Mark too) that the Canadian Birth Certificate was a stock certificate worth quite a bit of money - untrue.

He seems to have given up his quest to assert this myth.

Any beneficial interest certificate is only evidence of interest. The value of the property which one holds a share in can only be known when said property has a buyer. That is the beauty of trust. The BIC holder only holds an interest in personality. And that is generally reflected in avails proceeds etc. therefore the BIC itself is valueless. Therefore not taxable. The rich use this simple strategy. It is quite effective when one has a skilled trustee.

David Merrill
05-18-14, 09:17 AM
A fluent knowledge about trust law is quite enjoyable and interesting. I even believe there is a powerful metaphysics called Law driving engines unseen.

When one starts making claims for value though, upon another estate there might be major problems.



P.S. I think that may be at the heart of my uneasiness when I see people prying at government like a stock valued corporation. Negative averment too, which is in all the Accept for Value mythology.

walter
05-18-14, 06:10 PM
Straight from the horses mouth.
CEO of Vital stats.

"The birth certificate is a foundation identity document that establishes your identity at the point of birth; including your name, your birthdate and your parental information. This information is used by other agencies to create secondary identification, such as a passport, driver's license or a service card."

The legal NAME on the BC is the only one you have a RIGHT to use.

Michael Joseph
05-18-14, 08:46 PM
Straight from the horses mouth.
CEO of Vital stats.

"The birth certificate is a foundation identity document that establishes your identity at the point of birth; including your name, your birthdate and your parental information. This information is used by other agencies to create secondary identification, such as a passport, driver's license or a service card."

The legal NAME on the BC is the only one you have a RIGHT to use.

Framing the statement: that name is the name one is entitled to make a use of within a certain law boundary. If one were to declare himself then one could establish a new name. Therefore in a sense I wrote to the brain trust years ago that I model it as an access easement in Function. Heridaments can be held in a name. Becaus Equity acts in personam.

Shalom
MJ

Moxie
05-18-14, 09:26 PM
Accept for Value mythology.

Sooo...

if Accepted For Value is a myth, then why has it been effective?

David Merrill
05-18-14, 09:34 PM
Sooo...

if Accepted For Value is a myth, then why has it been effective?


I have never believed that it is effective. In other words, for every example or demonstration you might show me, I would probably be convinced that it is something much simpler; usually fair debt collections policy or law.

One might be behooved to understand how inherently Trebilcock v. Wilson allows for anybody who refuses to accept legal tender for a payment, especially for services has waived the debt. Also there are flaws with MERS and other consideration-less transactions that will cause a bank to back away and cut losses, making A4V appear to have been successful.

Then there is the pure mythology, people who believe hearsay success stories. It is not worth arguing about really. If you can show us a coherent demonstration that will not take much time to be convincing, great!

My advice is to study Rules of Evidence and apply them to any demonstration other than your own direct experience.

David Merrill
05-18-14, 09:42 PM
Straight from the horses mouth.
CEO of Vital stats.

"The birth certificate is a foundation identity document that establishes your identity at the point of birth; including your name, your birthdate and your parental information. This information is used by other agencies to create secondary identification, such as a passport, driver's license or a service card."

The legal NAME on the BC is the only one you have a RIGHT to use.


Thank you Walter!

We have the right to use the True Name too, but it is not very functional as a legal name unless people (and especially computer fields) presume one's middle name is the last name. I have identified myself correctly for twenty years now and never been charged with criminal impersonation for not using the "my" legal name. I have watched officials ponder that when I suggest they charge me, and it is rather amusing to watch the conundrum work through their conditioning for a while.

Michael Joseph
05-18-14, 11:08 PM
Thank you Walter!

We have the right to use the True Name too, but it is not very functional as a legal name unless people (and especially computer fields) presume one's middle name is the last name. I have identified myself correctly for twenty years now and never been charged with criminal impersonation for not using the "my" legal name. I have watched officials ponder that when I suggest they charge me, and it is rather amusing to watch the conundrum work through their conditioning for a while.


Once in a while I feel we come full circle. CHARGE requires a surety.

walter
05-19-14, 04:48 PM
"CHARGE requires a surety."


Deed of Trust. A transfer of legal title to property from the trustor to the trustee, for the purpose of placing the legal title with the trustee as security for the performance of certain obligations, monetary or otherwise.

walter
05-19-14, 05:11 PM
In Canada's jurisdiction when one gets an invitation to court it starts off with:

"You are commanded in Her Majesty's name"

Canadian Law dictionary.
Her Majesty (His Majesty)
1. The Crown in right of the provinces and in right of Canada.
2. Also refers to the Sovereign of the United kingdom, Canada and Her other realms and territories, and Head of the Commonwealth. see Crown.

So then the NAME on the BC belongs to whom?
To me it means it belongs to Her Majesty.
Its that BC NAME that is commanded to appear in HER NAME.
There is joinder happening here.
How?
Maybe because the BC NAME is granted by deed.
You can only grant it if it is yours in the first place.
Which would mean the BC and the NAME on it belong to the Crown.

From the Criminal Code:
“every one”, “person” and “owner”, and similar expressions, include Her Majesty and an organization;

David Merrill
05-19-14, 08:58 PM
That makes sense in context of the Letter I showed, that it is not a financial instrument. It is used by the man or woman by a government grant.

David Merrill
05-19-14, 09:00 PM
Once in a while I feel we come full circle. CHARGE requires a surety.

If I liked emoticons I would insert a smiley.

Moxie
05-19-14, 09:37 PM
If I liked emoticons I would insert a smiley.

I am wondering why you don't like emoticons.

Or maybe you're a Mr. Spock kinda guy.

ag maniac
05-19-14, 11:06 PM
http://i717.photobucket.com/albums/ww173/prestonjjrtr/Smileys/Star%20Trek/spock-2.gif

David Merrill
05-19-14, 11:13 PM
Emoticons just bug me.

If I was to pinpoint why it would be the same question we got for homework in Bible Study last night. Is God always angry with us when we sin?

Anthropomorphism would have us relating and even imposing lower-dimensional emotions upon an obviously higher-dimensional being. Isn't that simply vain to be creating God in our image?

Applying emotions via computers just bugs me, I guess.

ag maniac
05-20-14, 02:16 AM
"We don't need no stinkin' emoticons"


http://www.auburnmedia.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/03-21-06_alfonso-bedoya.jpg"We don't need no stinkin' emoticons"

Moxie
05-20-14, 03:27 AM
Emoticons just bug me.

If I was to pinpoint why it would be the same question we got for homework in Bible Study last night. Is God always angry with us when we sin?

Anthropomorphism would have us relating and even imposing lower-dimensional emotions upon an obviously higher-dimensional being. Isn't that simply vain to be creating God in our image?

Applying emotions via computers just bugs me, I guess.

You are soo Mr. Spock! LOL

To me, a smile sets a pleasant tone for a post which could be taken the wrong way. This is good manners. It is decent and civilized. Like not talking on the cell phone when ordering a taco with extra guacamole. And sauce.

But srsly, a smile can give hope and lift someone up, even on the interwebz where eye contact is absent and cutthroat is usually the key signature.

But: I'll be sure not to smile at you. I hope I don't forget.


1750
Serious cat is serious about not smiling. Srsly.

Moxie
05-20-14, 03:28 AM
"We don't need no stinkin' emoticons"


http://www.auburnmedia.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/03-21-06_alfonso-bedoya.jpg"We don't need no stinkin' emoticons"

Classic! LOL

walter
05-20-14, 05:01 PM
That makes sense in context of the Letter I showed, that it is not a financial instrument. It is used by the man or woman by a government grant.

I know which one you are talking about but some here might not.
Can you post it in this thread David?

David Merrill
05-20-14, 06:47 PM
I know which one you are talking about but some here might not.
Can you post it in this thread David?


Sure. No problem.





1751

salsero
05-21-14, 11:59 AM
I believe a person is a non-incorporated organization under the UCC Check it out at the 43 minute mark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQM6rjkVjtU

salsero
05-21-14, 12:11 PM
However, this can not be correct. It is not correct because on the SS5, it states:

"WE CANNOT ACCEPT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE, HOSPITAL SOUVENIR BIRTH CERTIFICATE, SOCIAL SECURITY CARD STUB OR A SOCIAL SECURITY RECORD as evidence of identity." A SS card is also not to be used for identity. Therefore, under state logic, if you take a BC and a SSN and put these two non-permissible uses for identification together - it is magic that you can turn them into a DL and Passport which are used for identification.

Therefore a more logical approach would be to ask the State a few questions [from a letter I wrote a chief judge]:

In summing up the “Name” issue in a legal sense: If a man were to be asked, – what is your name? Here could be some various interesting responses: What makes you believe I own such a thing? OR By what authority are you using a Name to identify a man? OR By what legislation do you rely upon to use a Name for personal identification? OR What evidence do you have to suggest that I am an executor or trustee of that estate? OR What evidence do you have the Name I am using serves to recognize the one using it?

The essence of the above is there is no legislation whatsoever that can ever identify a man through a [fictional] Name. As an observation, it actually states on the Form SS5 that a birth certificate [or berth certificate] can not be used for identity. A social security number can not be used for identity. However, when you put these two “non-permissible, non-identifying” documents together, it seems magic occurs in the form of a driver’s license or passport that is required AS identity. Who or what is being identified?

The bottom line is there is an appearance of some sort of activity in that “estate or trust name” whether it be obtaining a Form W-2, “applying for a license” or the like; therefore, under operation of law, a trustee, executor or some administrator must be acting on behalf of that “property”, FOR the infant, by operation of law who is deemed to be “missing or lost at sea”. When a man claims that he is JOHN DOE, through legal presumption, by adhesion contact, he is making a claim against the usufruct and will be held to account thereafter.

Of course the chief judge did not answer. There is no legislation that any state HAS AUTHORITY to use a BC, SSN for ID. If the state has no legislation, it has no authority, if the state has no authority, YOU, the man must provide your consent. See?

salsero
05-21-14, 12:19 PM
AFV is an INTERNAL way to help the fictional system balance its fictional books - through the fictional system's authorized representatives - whatever that means.

Here again, please take note: I do not say AFV is not a valid remedy. What I am commenting on - what business does a man have to do with their fiction? This is why, at least I am in the midst of trying, I have done the release of claim and interest per 12 USC 95a, along with release of reversionary interest. THEIR JOB is to settle all claims with regard to their property called a name. I have done my part, NOW they or the State has a contractual obligation to do its part THROUGH its paid for service public servants. When I AS A MAN INTERMEDDLE IN THEIR INETERANL PRIVATE AFFAIRS BY "PAYING FOR SOMETHING", The state has legal authority to presume I am the trustee or executor of that trust or estate.

HOWEVER, those lovely paid for public service public trustees need to settle their public matter [as in a name or property of the state], I do not care, if it is a AFV, or they use toilet paper with US promises to pay US by authorized representative - Hillary - THEY must settle the claims otherwise those public servants can be held personally liable. YAY!!


Sooo...

if Accepted For Value is a myth, then why has it been effective?

David Merrill
05-21-14, 01:49 PM
The only traditional Acceptance for Value is to accept an oath of office, after validation.


Therefore, under state logic, if you take a BC and a SSN and put these two non-permissible uses for identification together - it is magic that you can turn them into a DL and Passport which are used for identification.

That is where you lost the thread of logic. You have involved magic - metaphysics - but magic of your own surmise. You have created a device of your own torture. However, I am expecting that you cannot take what you said and understand what you say. You are involved in priestcraft and justifying the same priestcraft here. You are wrapped up in it.

I will try for the sake of the other Readers though:


Therefore, under state logic, if you take a BC and a SSN and put these two non-permissible uses for identification together - it is magic that you can turn them into a DL and Passport which are used for identification.

The State compels you to misidentify yourself in order to get government-issued ID. If you hear what I say, and understand it, that you misidentify yourself to be a government employee in need of a government-issued ID then you might get why suitors sign their Driver License cards with their True Name.

I understand from years of experience that there is no way to tell you this without sounding condescending. So I am not going to push it - but allow the Readers to judge for themselves.

It should be pointed out though, that instead of simply showing us a coherent, easy to understand example that A4V is a functional process you posted a flurry of justifications under a fiction "salsero". Now you will become indignant at what a closed mind I have and such.



Regards,

David Merrill.

allodial
05-21-14, 09:10 PM
#1. What/who they are out to identify at the DMV is the TRUSTEE thusly associating that PERSON with the BC or the SS account;
#2. The social security card might be evidence of federal exemption with respect to authority to do business in the State;
#3. Acceptance for Value or Acceptance for Honor is done when the acceptor is not the drawee if the drawee is the acceptor then it would merely be acceptance.

David Merrill
05-21-14, 09:58 PM
#1. What/who they are out to identify at the DMV is the TRUSTEE thusly associating that PERSON with the BC or the SS account;
#2. The social security card might be evidence of federal exemption with respect to authority to do business in the State;
#3. Acceptance for Value or Acceptance for Honor is done when the acceptor is not the drawee if the drawee is the acceptor then it would merely be acceptance.

I am uncertain if you are posing questions or not.

The IN GOD WE TRUST Trust on money assures value in a trust. The officials under a tenet of monotheism swear in and validate the office before that same God. Therefore the Oath of Office may be accepted for value as notice that violations of the bills of rights will be met by a bill of indictment.

Traditionally also is that upon proof of this violation of statute (constitutions) the official is without judicial or sovereign immunity and becomes personally liable.

Above in my post I must admit I came against Boris/A4V acutely simply because I have wanted to see some good examples of successful A4V, and have only collected a few myself. In all fairness I should disclose a certain perspective that cuts through the dross of fashioning a formidable Bill of Indictment through a grand jury, in a system that will tend to protect its own officials.

Instead of a Bill of Indictment my heritage as a Patroon allows me simple billing process through access to the Municipal CODE as old as the Levite Priesthood itself, called waiver of tort[/URL].



1Ch 6:54 Now these are their dwelling places throughout their castles in their coasts, of the sons of Aaron, of the families of the Kohathites: for theirs was the lot.
1Ch 6:55 And they gave them Hebron in the land of Judah, and the suburbs thereof round about it.
1Ch 6:56 But the fields of the city, and the villages thereof, they gave to Caleb the son of Jephunneh.
1Ch 6:57 And to the sons of Aaron they gave the cities of Judah, namely, Hebron, the city of refuge, and Libnah with her suburbs, and Jattir, and Eshtemoa, with their suburbs,
1Ch 6:58 And Hilen with her suburbs, Debir with her suburbs,


This is why I say it seems condescending. I refer to a specific bloodline when this is simply how I was able to see the redemption heritage through my own example and demonstration. I am not special.

My point specifically is that there may be other instances where Treasury monies are available through Acceptance for Value. It just becomes frustrating over the years waiting for somebody to come up with good examples that are easy to verify as reproducible.


Regards,

David Merrill.

allodial
05-21-14, 10:10 PM
The reason most people can't produce practical results is because they wont bother studying the underlying law and principles of say banking law, commercial law, etc. Lack of practical knowledge lack of practical results. They think its all secret when much of it is found in law books that are freely available in most any major US city even free online via books.google.com. Sure sure, they can stuff an envelop, stamp something, sign a form provided by someone else but beyond that.... I'm not sure if its laziness or what. I recall how it seemed for a decade like you and I were the only ones that could actually find a library and a scanner.

David Merrill
05-21-14, 10:17 PM
I recall Isaac of the Bible, ascending peaks of higher dimensional Mosaic thought, meeting God in the Fourth Dimension and beyond, introducing to the layman (not the initiate) genetic engineering. Remember that? He was discovering the dihybrid cross but as I see it, he was expressing his transcendence of time! He was able to see how time en-capsules all other dimensions of the space-time continuum.

He probably studied the Torah quite a bit in preparation for that.

allodial
05-21-14, 10:19 PM
Perhaps some people have to find themselves in a 'situation' undesirable enough to bother seeking elevation. Until then they blame others or remain just another co-abusive fork-stabber-in-a-mosh-pit brick in the wall? Perhaps taking interests in things of interest to God puts one on a frequency that opens the possibility for communication with God?


God is a rewarder of those who dilligently seek him...

Ah perhaps one has to have God or things of interest to God on one's mind first?

1755


He probably studied the Torah quite a bit in preparation for that.

Probably. Common interest, common 'meeting ground'.

Moxie
05-22-14, 10:18 AM
As for me, I've never done Accepted for Value, but have been studying to see how it's different or the same as Boris' process. So, no A4V examples to post, sorry.

salsero
05-22-14, 12:41 PM
David are you for real? I have heard your audios and you come across as intelligent - after what you just wrote, I am beginning to wonder? Is this how you interpreted what I wrote? Did you read the whole reply?

I have no issue about USING their fiction. There is little other option if one wants to live among society. If you want to intermeddle in their affairs, go for it.


The only traditional Acceptance for Value is to accept an oath of office, after validation.

I do not involve magic - THEY involve magic. The SS5 form is not mine, it is theirs. It is THEIR logic, not mine. I am not wrapped into their stuff at all. There mere fact that I breath on Planet Earth involves - to some degree - PLAYING a part in the illusion or in the world but not of the world.

That is where you lost the thread of logic. You have involved magic - metaphysics - but magic of your own surmise. You have created a device of your own torture. However, I am expecting that you cannot take what you said and understand what you say. You are involved in priestcraft and justifying the same priestcraft here. You are wrapped up in it.

I will try for the sake of the other Readers though:

The state compels no one to do anything. Everything must be done by free will and therefore by consent. I do not disagree that a man CAN misidentify himself to be a fiction IF he so claims to be that fiction. Man has every right to use that fiction in order to do commerce WITHOUT liability. Agree or disagree - I really do not care.

Since I do not take what you say personally, you can tell me off, F-U, or anything else your little ol' heart desires, why would I look at anyone's comments as condescending? I thought we are adults attempting to offer constructive OPINIONS or alternatives that may resonate better for some. This peaceful inhabitant concept is really not for everyone.

If you read what I really wrote instead of interpreting what I wrote, you may have had a different opinion on me in supplying a coherent AFV method. Again, I did not say it was an invalid remedy. FOR ME, I do not subscribe to it for the reason that is part of THEIR system for them to help balance out their books - if this could ever be done. My take on "remedy" is to separate man from fiction. This does not equate to man not USING fiction JUST not making claims to be that fiction. In my opinion, if you as a man begin to ACT as an employee of the State, then the State has legal authority to presume you to be an UNAUTHORIZED AGENT of the State, therefore intermeddling in State affairs. Even the 12 USC 411 makes you an agent for the state - as who uses statutes? Persons.

I GET that it may not make sense to some - but in my opinion - the key to remedy is completely separating man and fiction. Man has been left spoliated without any way to pay a debt OR even means to "own" anything - it only appears he owns something or pays a debt - this is not legally factual. This is the system. Since the system SEIZED, took, stole, confiscated by military necessity - the system authorized itself. Even under the rules of war, the system MUST act in honor. The Lieber Code, Hague, Law of Nations, etc have protocol that must be followed.

Again David, either 1. You do not understand what I write 2. It does not resonate with you 3. You are a government agent or 4 whatever. If you prefer I no longer comment on your blog - please let me know, and I will stop. I do not want to upset you or anyone else.

The State compels you to misidentify yourself in order to get government-issued ID. If you hear what I say, and understand it, that you misidentify yourself to be a government employee in need of a government-issued ID then you might get why suitors sign their Driver License cards with their True Name.

I understand from years of experience that there is no way to tell you this without sounding condescending. So I am not going to push it - but allow the Readers to judge for themselves.

It should be pointed out though, that instead of simply showing us a coherent, easy to understand example that A4V is a functional process you posted a flurry of justifications under a fiction "salsero". Now you will become indignant at what a closed mind I have and such.



Regards,

David Merrill.

salsero
05-22-14, 01:24 PM
David - it is not important we agree - but to be open to a different POV.

It is my opinion that "IN GOD WE TRUST" on what is referred to on the money - is not the same God you think it is. To me - this means IN THE STATE WE TRUST. Now you ask why? OK On a spiritual side - The Creator has provided everything FREELY GIVEN to every living Being for his use, possession, control and dominion over. The living soul DOES NOT OWN IT. We, as men are being tricked to believe that "FRNS" are our savior, a false god, in violation of the 10 commandments. Do you put your trust in the Real God or the false god? It is a test.

By definition per the SOT website

Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy.

So logically - TO ME - this trust you refer to is backed by nothing other than real men who perform some function in society. Those public servants swear an oath to the State not to God. This is why a Lois Lerner can get a way with what she is about to get away with - she has an oath to the State and the State must protect her. She must protect the public trust - the public trust is a fiction. The value is man not the trust. The trust is written on a piece of paper. Man uses real things. paper is a dead tree representing the real. The pope is the Head trustee and the Vicar of Christ here on earth.

And here we agree - The public employee basically makes an agree with the devil or state to uphold all the bankrupt public policy statutes of the US. The public servant MUST serve the public and only the public. You, the man are private - however, you have an indemnity receipt for indemnification for the public property you use called a name. Man indirectly receives a benefit where everything man does here on earth is to PUBLICALLY glorify Caesar - however, in private he honors his Creator AND all is well. The public servant under the rules of bankruptcy in the public policy statutes have a manner in which to DISCHARGE all obligations under the current system. FIRST man must rebut any presumption of THEIR status AND be willing to give Caesar all the glory [meaning no warring as an enemy of the State] AND then ACT as a man by not intermeddling by making false claims to public property.

Again, David or anyone - DO WHATEVER WORKS FOR YOU. Play in their sandbox. From my understanding, our friend, Dean Clifford, who is a man wanted to "war and play" - there is a cost. THEY can change the rules anytime they want in order to protect that fictional public trust. A comment about the AFV - sometimes they work, sometimes they do not. WHY is this? Carefully think why. Are you authorized to discharge public obligation?

All we have to do is accept and acknowledge what has ALREADY been done. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor”. – Declaration of Independence

And so David is comfortable with not insulting me - I offer this about MY opinions: WTF do I know?



I am uncertain if you are posing questions or not.

The IN GOD WE TRUST Trust on money assures value in a trust. The officials under a tenet of monotheism swear in and validate the office before that same God. Therefore the Oath of Office may be accepted for value as notice that violations of the bills of rights will be met by a bill of indictment.

Traditionally also is that upon proof of this violation of statute (constitutions) the official is without judicial or sovereign immunity and becomes personally liable.

Above in my post I must admit I came against Boris/A4V acutely simply because I have wanted to see some good examples of successful A4V, and have only collected a few myself. In all fairness I should disclose a certain perspective that cuts through the dross of fashioning a formidable Bill of Indictment through a grand jury, in a system that will tend to protect its own officials.

Instead of a Bill of Indictment my heritage as a Patroon allows me simple billing process through access to the Municipal CODE as old as the Levite Priesthood itself, called waiver of tort[/URL].





This is why I say it seems condescending. I refer to a specific bloodline when this is simply how I was able to see the redemption heritage through my own example and demonstration. I am not special.

My point specifically is that there may be other instances where Treasury monies are available through Acceptance for Value. It just becomes frustrating over the years waiting for somebody to come up with good examples that are easy to verify as reproducible.


Regards,

David Merrill.

walter
05-22-14, 03:17 PM
Salmon P. Chase, Treasury Secretary, scribes "In God is our Trust," scratches out "is our" and overwrites "We" to arrive at "In God We Trust" in a 1863-12-09 letter to James Pollock, Director of the Philadelphia Mint.

Who is We?

Keith Alan
05-22-14, 03:24 PM
Salmon P. Chase, Treasury Secretary, scribes "In God is our Trust," scratches out "is our" and overwrites "We" to arrive at "In God We Trust" in a 1863-12-09 letter to James Pollock, Director of the Philadelphia Mint.

Who is We?
Users of the money?

David Merrill
05-22-14, 03:36 PM
Great Find! Thank you.

Can we read the Letter?

Michael Joseph
05-23-14, 02:48 AM
All we have to do is accept and acknowledge what has ALREADY been done. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor”. – Declaration of Independence



salsero,

Before there was District of Columbia it was called Rome. I find Rome dba USA. Therefore I see not a church in Rome but a State. I saw recently "since capitalism and communism don't work, lets try catholicism again". The Settlors of State declare the constitution which settles the money of State. On an ancient claim, builders see I working for Pontifex Maximus. A title held by one and no other.

What I see is a war. And this war is foretold in the Scripture. Rome waring against the Word of God. I saw in Henry VIII a king who took back his kingdom from Rome in the Statute of Uses he established both at law and in equity all interests in the throne.

Rev 12:13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.

Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

The times come and are now when Onesimus [Remnant] will have to stand for Truth - for there is in deed a flood [of lies] being cast forth onto the Earth out of the mouth [spokesmen] of the Dragon.

Philemon is blind - he denies the Christ. Pretends to be the mouthpiece of Jesus Christ. Oh there indeed is a king in the earth skilled at dissimulation.

All of those who pledged save MAYBE a few belonged to societies which serve Rome - secretly. I wonder when men begin to just wholesale surrender everything to another - what might happen when they are betrayed? or perhaps SOLD?

Did you notice that some men bound together in their society, pledged to themselves, declared themselves and in doing so got first hand access to the Land? I find it repugnant to bow my knee to any man. So why should I surrender ANYTHING to a man? Let the dead bury the dead.

I am a student of history - true history - and I know that men were actually tortured and killed for just READING the New Testament. Rome she wants to dole out to you your very thoughts! It is a slippery slope when one looks to be represented by another. One had best know for a surety to whom one is placing trust.

Enticements abound - everything is free - I don't think so. For then Atlas would in deed Shrug and then who would be available to serve me? I jest of course. I find a man who will not work should not eat. I find fascism - which is a nasty word - nevertheless is the style of government today within the United States. A little red worm has eaten the gourd which once gave shade.

John the Baptist ate locusts and honey so he could learn to love the good and hate the evil. I wonder why John was not in town drinking it up with all the other clowns bowing to their god- Ceasar. I heard a preacher once say "God does not give wealth to those who cannot handle it". I find that to be true. For absent God there is no Ceasar. Therefore what is Ceasar's except that he makes a Use of that which is God's property.

Again I see the Potter and the pot. Even in a Theocracy God meted out boundaries to the tribes so that their inheritance would be sure - nevertheless there was provision in the law concerning selling their inheritance. I am reminded of the son who went into a far country. I see Abraham buying a cave from the sons of Heth [burying place for Israel]

I wonder pray tell, which one of you here has EVER taken a pledge to the United States? Or for that matter even the State? I seriously doubt anyone here has done that - and yet - I hear talk issued by some that we somehow are part of that pledge - as hereinbefore referenced? Hogwash. No mutual pledge, no declaration, no standing!

What is funny to me is that the Scriptures even declare the same thing! They say at John 3:16 whomsoever places their trust in Jesus Christ...also we see the cup of communion - which is a pledge to marry!

So dear readers, tell me when did the United States take you to bride? Do you even have an engagement? Or have you been adopted? The husbandman takes a bride in contract. The father adopts a son per the father's prerogative.

Lacking evidence of a claim - under the Laws of Nations - one is Stateless [resident]. Will a Queen be courted by a peasant? I think not.





Shalom,
Michael Joseph

Michael Joseph
05-23-14, 02:58 AM
What then of a Bankruptcy? The trustees [Officers of State] would hold the Estates in Receivership. One making a Use is subject to the Terms of Use.

Shalom,
MJ

salsero
05-23-14, 01:58 PM
It looks like we agree on most ---
I agree - it is a war for Man's soul on who he will serve - the Real God or the false god? The false god is permitted to deceive, coerce, and trick everyone into believing "in god we trust" is the real god, but it is the false god. This is where man errs and there is a dear price on his soul for this error.

I agree - those men pledged themselves - their fortunes, and their honor. We are NOT a part of that pledge EXCEPT to release and surrender [by acknowledgment and acceptance of what has ready been pledged - dead paper appearing as something with value] back to them what is their property.

I am not sure what you mean by "lacking evidence of a claim - under the LON - one is stateless [resident]...

Personally I am not looking to be a resident, citizen, person, whoever of any nation - as I recall man is [a nation] unto himself - really the word "man" alone says it all. Stateless is their classification for their internal BS. I think we agree on the word "claim" - but again like Karl, once the word is defined better than by "normal regular talk", it seems I agree more.

To me making a claim COULD be making a complaint IF one is not careful and that is my only concern.


What I see is a war. And this war is foretold in the Scripture. Rome waring against the Word of God. I saw in Henry VIII a king who took back his kingdom from Rome in the Statute of Uses he established both at law and in equity all interests in the throne.

Rev 12:13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.

Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

The times come and are now when Onesimus [Remnant] will have to stand for Truth - for there is in deed a flood [of lies] being cast forth onto the Earth out of the mouth [spokesmen] of the Dragon.

Philemon is blind - he denies the Christ. Pretends to be the mouthpiece of Jesus Christ. Oh there indeed is a king in the earth skilled at dissimulation.

All of those who pledged save MAYBE a few belonged to societies which serve Rome - secretly. I wonder when men begin to just wholesale surrender everything to another - what might happen when they are betrayed? or perhaps SOLD?

Did you notice that some men bound together in their society, pledged to themselves, declared themselves and in doing so got first hand access to the Land? I find it repugnant to bow my knee to any man. So why should I surrender ANYTHING to a man? Let the dead bury the dead.

I am a student of history - true history - and I know that men were actually tortured and killed for just READING the New Testament. Rome she wants to dole out to you your very thoughts! It is a slippery slope when one looks to be represented by another. One had best know for a surety to whom one is placing trust.

Enticements abound - everything is free - I don't think so. For then Atlas would in deed Shrug and then who would be available to serve me? I jest of course. I find a man who will not work should not eat. I find fascism - which is a nasty word - nevertheless is the style of government today within the United States. A little red worm has eaten the gourd which once gave shade.

John the Baptist ate locusts and honey so he could learn to love the good and hate the evil. I wonder why John was not in town drinking it up with all the other clowns bowing to their god- Ceasar. I heard a preacher once say "God does not give wealth to those who cannot handle it". I find that to be true. For absent God there is no Ceasar. Therefore what is Ceasar's except that he makes a Use of that which is God's property.

Again I see the Potter and the pot. Even in a Theocracy God meted out boundaries to the tribes so that their inheritance would be sure - nevertheless there was provision in the law concerning selling their inheritance. I am reminded of the son who went into a far country. I see Abraham buying a cave from the sons of Heth [burying place for Israel]

I wonder pray tell, which one of you here has EVER taken a pledge to the United States? Or for that matter even the State? I seriously doubt anyone here has done that - and yet - I hear talk issued by some that we somehow are part of that pledge - as hereinbefore referenced? Hogwash. No mutual pledge, no declaration, no standing!

What is funny to me is that the Scriptures even declare the same thing! They say at John 3:16 whomsoever places their trust in Jesus Christ...also we see the cup of communion - which is a pledge to marry!

So dear readers, tell me when did the United States take you to bride? Do you even have an engagement? Or have you been adopted? The husbandman takes a bride in contract. The father adopts a son per the father's prerogative.

Lacking evidence of a claim - under the Laws of Nations - one is Stateless [resident]. Will a Queen be courted by a peasant? I think not.





Shalom,
Michael Joseph

David Merrill
05-23-14, 03:32 PM
That is why the Driver License is criminal impersonation - misidentifying the Brother to be a Noachide.

Michael Joseph
05-23-14, 07:14 PM
Lacking evidence of a claim - under the Laws of Nations - one is Stateless [resident]. Will a Queen be courted by a peasant? I think not.

Shalom,
Michael Joseph


Today I was given a fresh perspective from a young boy of 22 years - amazing his insight - and I was immediately keen to listen to his wisdom. He made a statement that the 501c3 membership REGISTRATION rolls, indicate an express trust. How true. He asked "have you ever wondered why the so called apostate churches are always collecting for the building fund". I answered yes, to keep the business in debt.

His response was that who is the surety for that debt? I responded the membership! Indeed.

He then asked who gave standing to those houses? I said the Pope thru his agencies. Then he asked isn't the United States just a Ministerial Trust? I responded yes it is. So who is liable for its operation? Its membership! Meaning the citizenry and those who would enjoin themselves to her as a Stranger. [Thank you David Merrill for that one].

Thanks to Tupper Saussy, I see that the Papacy has established that those in sin [as they define it - Heresy] cannot obtain property. Consider a claim unchallenged. No man has authority to appoint himself to office. Therefore a claim must be made - if it is met with silence - then the claim stands and those who remain silent agree. Martin Luther disagreed. And that struggle still is ongoing Catholicism vs. Protestantism. A recent agent for Pope is making a plea for peace - it is of course in this writers opinion False. Nevertheless those who pledged to support the Pope have their standing UNDER the Pope [Black].

For one living soul to have dominion over another requires a Trust Deed. But who has authority to do that deed? AUTHORITY is the Key. A trustee cannot appoint himself to office. Therefore a Claim is prerequisite. The benefits of said claim are Granted to Trustees to hold on behalf of the Claimant's beneficiary.

Consider the key is Authority - the key is in Debar. Dalet, Bet, Resh. The spoken word. Who spoke the Word? Look at Yehoshuah [Jesus] he never claimed authority he always cited his Father's Will. Where is the authority, renown, name of God found? Torah! How then can an apostate church have any claim especially if they deny that the King of the Universe and without the Universe has no Law? Said membership is in Sin and cannot inherit.

A king in Israel [Melchizedok] must have a written copy of Torah - this is his Authority to rule! Now consider dear Readers - the King James Bible. Is it not copyrighted? MeLoCH. Mem-Lamed-Qof. The office of the King is to work with his hand [Qof] by the Staff of Instruction [Lamed - Torah] to guide the people [Mem - Ref 17:15]. Therefore the name, authority, renown of the king is his Authority = Torah. Therefore I may be a stranger in regard to the United States or State of North Carolina but I am of the Order of Melchizedok walking in the Light - Gen 1:3. I have the precious name of God - I have the doubled edged sword in my hand.

Will you trespass God? My claim is in God. My Refuge, My Hightower, My Provider, My Sustainer, My Savior, My King, I am vassal UNDER Yehoshuah in El Elyon. Let the Rulers of Evil govern Evil. What have I to do with evil? The Sons of Cain have their jobs to do [they are marked]. Let them rule over evil men. Those who are in sin cannot inherit. They are perpetually without at the mercy of another man's claim.

I see this as bowing to the man of sin. For I clearly see the Apostate Church at war with the Remnant.

I have a son and he has a name. I might seek to disrespect him by calling him "boy" or some other such title. But if I want to recognize our close relationship I will call him by his name. And vice versa he will not refer to me as his Father, if he desires to express a special relationship he will say he is Andrew son of Michael. That nails it down. I have respect on to my son, my brother and my daughter, my sister and my wife, my sister. You understand? The first is flesh the latter spiritual. Notice how Lucifer's name was taken from him? He disrespected El Elyon and as such Lucifer was stripped of Title and given the role of Adversary.

How many know the name of God? I speak not exactly to His phonetic name but His Authority, His Renown, His Great and Awesome Way. His Authority or Name is found in Torah = The Way.

Yehoshuah saying "I AM the Way". But we see John saying "I wish to see you face to face". So we see a "spoken word" and a "written word". The written word only certifies a preexisting establishment.



Continuing ..... Next Page

Michael Joseph
05-23-14, 07:14 PM
Continued....

I am a Stranger to the United States. And since I refuse to trespass the Trustees, I cannot be made to pay as a Constructive Trustee. Nevertheless, my Authority does not come from myself - I come to do thy will Father.

Yehoshuah said He came to do the Will of His Father - the One who SENT Him. Therefore Yehoshuah is the Chief Apostle. I cannot be in the Order of Melchizedok if I choose to remain absent Torah. The Apostate church will waive the carrot of Salvation - but Dear Reader - I am talking about two mutually exclusive ideas. Salvation is without me and Authority is without me. I am with Choice.

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.

I am called to be a king-priest. Therefore my Authority is not in my name [renown, report] my Authority is in Torah. For the double edged sword [The Word] is in my hand. Therefore I have a State. And I am not Stateless. My Claim is in God. And it is there where I take my Shadow.

Psa 91:1 He that dwelleth in the secret place of the MOST HIGH Shall abide under the shadow of THE ALMIGHTY.
Psa 91:2 I will say of the LORD, "He is my refuge and my fortress: My God; in Him will I trust.

Shalom,
Michael Joseph

shikamaru
05-26-14, 01:19 PM
Today I was given a fresh perspective from a young boy of 22 years - amazing his insight - and I was immediately keen to listen to his wisdom. He made a statement that the 501c3 membership REGISTRATION rolls, indicate an express trust. How true. He asked "have you ever wondered why the so called apostate churches are always collecting for the building fund". I answered yes, to keep the business in debt.

His response was that who is the surety for that debt? I responded the membership! Indeed.

He then asked who gave standing to those houses? I said the Pope thru his agencies. Then he asked isn't the United States just a Ministerial Trust? I responded yes it is. So who is liable for its operation? Its membership! Meaning the citizenry and those who would enjoin themselves to her as a Stranger. [Thank you David Merrill for that one].


Check out charitable trusts from the perspective of English Law sometime.

walter
05-26-14, 06:14 PM
Great Find! Thank you.

Can we read the Letter?

Sure if you can find it.
Chase, Salmon P (December 9, 1863). "Letter to James Pollock". Document # RG 104_UD 87-A_Folder In God We Trust 1861_Part1 (National Archives and Records Administration). p. 11.

Some more info about the subject.

http://www.treasury.gov/about/education/Pages/in-god-we-trust.aspx


National Motto Display Act
Along with twenty-five co-sponsors on October 1, 2013, Saccone entered House Bill # 1728 with the short title, "National Motto Display Act," and it exerts, "The board of directors of every school district in this Commonwealth shall display the motto 'In God We Trust'." Most questionable within the text of the Bill is the statement "[Former Pennsylvania Governor] Pollock suggested the motto 'In God We Trust' be featured on all United States currency" because 1) other sources suggest that Pollock preferred "Our God and Our Country," "God and Our Country," or "God, Our Trust" (Pollock's personal favorite) and 2) Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase over-ruled Pollock in favor of "In God We Trust."

walter
05-26-14, 06:24 PM
The only traditional Acceptance for Value is to accept an oath of office, after validation.
David Merrill.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02sJAePKuT8
Phone Call to IRS: how to pay bills with just my signature*

salsero
05-27-14, 11:28 AM
I seem to recall something "not good" happened to this guy - I do not remember if it had to do with this issue or another.

And one other comment AGAIN: 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”.
The fact remains IF we stick our noses into their private internal business, they are allowed by their law to presume, we fall under the jurisdiction thereof, AND since we have no authority to settle matters, only our presumptions, therefore, THEY can and do slap us.

In my opinion, it is easier "to let them figure it out" and take care of their property, rather than me get involved. The ? is what if they do nothing and ignore? Then a man who acts outside his oath of office, for the intent of personal profit and gain, is held personally liable.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02sJAePKuT8
Phone Call to IRS: how to pay bills with just my signature*

David Merrill
05-27-14, 12:16 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02sJAePKuT8
Phone Call to IRS: how to pay bills with just my signature*

I always cringe watching someone like that. I could only stand about two minutes...

Maybe it is because I take the perspective of the official on the other end and watch the traditional presumptions (that whatever he is paying with, the "coupon" or "voucher" has direct monetary value, not a Treasury Direct account). To watch the "Patriot" twisting words of art to mean what he likes really turns me off!

David Merrill
05-27-14, 12:19 PM
That is what I was pointing out. IN GOD WE TRUST and the Oath before that same God forms a security agreement with the Treasury (state treasury).



I seem to recall something "not good" happened to this guy - I do not remember if it had to do with this issue or another.

And one other comment AGAIN: 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”.
The fact remains IF we stick our noses into their private internal business, they are allowed by their law to presume, we fall under the jurisdiction thereof, AND since we have no authority to settle matters, only our presumptions, therefore, THEY can and do slap us.

In my opinion, it is easier "to let them figure it out" and take care of their property, rather than me get involved. The ? is what if they do nothing and ignore? Then a man who acts outside his oath of office, for the intent of personal profit and gain, is held personally liable.

salsero
05-28-14, 11:14 AM
And stated that way, I agree. Regardless of what is the definition of God is, there is "contract". Unfortunately, all the words used: Trust, God, Oath, Security, Agreement DO NOT pertain to the Creator but rather an image of a false god, appearing real.

There is only One Law, a Supreme Royal Law. There is only One God, Supreme, Divine, Perfect, Complete, Holy. That Law is immutable. Man's law does not even come close to second rate. it can't. God did not create "money". God did, does and will give everything IN His creation FREELY with Infinite Love. To put the phrase: IN GOD WE TRUST" on what is legally known to be, under man's law [or as an "intention" spiritually speaking] as a debt instrument where men, women and child are nothing more than chattel to other men, is nothing but a slap in the face to the Real Creator. God created all men equal. And that is what some men want - to be the supreme god as in a "corporate takeover". It ain't goin to happen.


That is what I was pointing out. IN GOD WE TRUST and the Oath before that same God forms a security agreement with the Treasury (state treasury).

walter
05-30-14, 07:28 PM
Quote from David from another thread.
"I don't think so. If you are redeeming lawful money then the obligations are set out by the signatures."

When someone signs papers with words on it there is an obligation that follows the signature.
So what is the obligation that the RG acquires when he signs the BC?

JohnnyCash
05-31-14, 01:50 AM
I've taken to just putting the demand for lawful money on the check without signature: http://www.ctcwarrior.com/check.jpg
and found the bank's ATM has no problem with it.

David Merrill
05-31-14, 10:46 AM
I can appreciate the idealism. However, to most people God is invisible. I had to work rather hard to finally "see" God (in the Table of Relative Weights balancing the naturally occurring isotopes) and even so, I am not all that convincing.




And stated that way, I agree. Regardless of what is the definition of God is, there is "contract". Unfortunately, all the words used: Trust, God, Oath, Security, Agreement DO NOT pertain to the Creator but rather an image of a false god, appearing real.

There is only One Law, a Supreme Royal Law. There is only One God, Supreme, Divine, Perfect, Complete, Holy. That Law is immutable. Man's law does not even come close to second rate. it can't. God did not create "money". God did, does and will give everything IN His creation FREELY with Infinite Love. To put the phrase: IN GOD WE TRUST" on what is legally known to be, under man's law [or as an "intention" spiritually speaking] as a debt instrument where men, women and child are nothing more than chattel to other men, is nothing but a slap in the face to the Real Creator. God created all men equal. And that is what some men want - to be the supreme god as in a "corporate takeover". It ain't goin to happen.



I suspect that one must acquire an understanding about the distinction between:


1) Faith in Jesus
2) Faith of Jesus

So ask yourself this question:

When Jesus asked a patient prior to healing, Do you have faith? Did Jesus mean, Do you have faith that I will be Resurrected as the Only Begotten Son of God? Or did Jesus mean, Do you have the same faith in God the Father that I do?

Do you put your faith in me? or Do you have the same faith you will be healed that I do?

Without this distinction one cannot discern a man of faith. This distinction means the difference whether Jesus is The Example, or The Exception.

salsero
06-01-14, 01:26 PM
Herein lies the problem. If you sense an invisible "god" and it is an "ideal", well - there can not be much more after those comments.

The Creator created everything, this includes a Hitler, Barry, Geo to Mother Teresa. Each "thing" created has the spark of Divine. Some "thing" may appear bad or evil but this is false because the Creator can NOT create that which he is not. So you ask: Then how is there the appearance of evil? There is an appearance due to a gift called "free will". ACIM says - at one point we, as spirits, had so much power, we had an idea what it would be like to "not live in eternal bliss" and with that thought - we find ourselves dealing with Hillary for 2016.

I am not moved by appearances, therefore appearances move. I guess you can use the word faith - but to me it has to ne something greater than faith. To me, I like this thinking more: Boy does this shit suck, ok there must be something in this for me to learn, ok let me step back and think a little - then be open to a response, I ask to see "something - a clue". then most of the time a light bulb goes on - not always. At times I say: "WTF?" - there must be an easier way to learn something. When is everyone going to wake up? When is this appearance of evil going to evaporate from planet earth?

I have studied spirituality for some years - I went to Brazil to see John of God. I physically saw healing that "can not be done in our common sense". God don't do common sense. God is Common Sense. God is health - he does not heal. It is the man who goes into alignment with his Creator.

ULTIMATELY YOU CAN NOT BE ANYTHING BUT HOW YOU WERE CREATED. YOU WERE CREATED BY DIVINITY AND THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE. Free will is permitted here but all you are doing is fighting your ABOLSUTE NON-RETURNABLE, FOREVER YOU ARE ---- POWER, DIVINITY, HEALTH, HAPPINESS, LOVE, CREATIVITY, JOY, BLISS, AND BEINGNESS OF ALL THAT IS. Double WOW!!!

Stop analyzing is - yes you must start this way - just move on. You will begin to see those "proving results" in minor time. You can look into Christian Science and Ho'oponopono - if you choose to do so.




I can appreciate the idealism. However, to most people God is invisible. I had to work rather hard to finally "see" God (in the Table of Relative Weights balancing the naturally occurring isotopes) and even so, I am not all that convincing.







I suspect that one must acquire an understanding about the distinction between:


1) Faith in Jesus
2) Faith of Jesus

So ask yourself this question:

When Jesus asked a patient prior to healing, Do you have faith? Did Jesus mean, Do you have faith that I will be Resurrected as the Only Begotten Son of God? Or did Jesus mean, Do you have the same faith in God the Father that I do?

Do you put your faith in me? or Do you have the same faith you will be healed that I do?

Without this distinction one cannot discern a man of faith. This distinction means the difference whether Jesus is The Example, or The Exception.

David Merrill
06-01-14, 02:11 PM
That is what I was pointing out. IN GOD WE TRUST and the Oath before that same God forms a security agreement with the Treasury (state treasury).



Ergo you can utilize the System's testimony of faith. No need for Rules of Evidence - everybody knows the Treasury's testimony is IN GOD WE TRUST as it is all over the currency. I am not saying the System testifies so, I simply have evidence that this is the System's testimony. I do not have to conjure up any more metaphysics than what the System is already conjuring.

The oaths of office follow the same Form of Oaths (http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/6332/formofoath.jpg). All officials must swear in to validate their Office before that same Ever-living God found on the currency. There is only one God! Everybody immersed in monotheism knows that. This is how the security agreement is built.

The USGS (Geodetic Survey) testified for me that the Summit of Mount Herman is 9,035 feet above the High Tide and therefore out of admiralty jurisdiction. Get it? I used the US' confession of faith and testimony (http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/73/indictmentonrubinmtherm.pdf) so that Robert E. RUBIN resigned in time to make the 5:00 News! Within a few weeks somebody climbed the mountain and destroyed the placard, having to carry a sledge hammer to the top of the mountain! Now who would do that?



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. One should note that the Oath of the Luciferian Rebellion took place on Mount Hermon!

1778


This connects directly to my work on the Table of Relative Weights (http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/6653/statecourtprayer.pdf), where I proved the existence of God as Law, as the angles of the Pentagram are 72 Degrees (http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/710/monumenttended.jpg) and the Fibonacci Sequence relates to the 72-Fold Name of God too. The ideal Standard for the best resonance of the naturally occurring isotopes is Germanium 72! So do not confuse my post please, with a lack of faith - simply utilize the record and the Law will prevail!



1779

Mount Herman, Colorado.

salsero
06-02-14, 03:28 PM
David - I basically understand what you are saying. I do not agree. There is a HOWEVER though. In law, definition of a word is everything. Bill Clinton asked - what does "is" mean? We all know from the word "person" has a different meaning in law then our everyday meaning. The whole point of law is to trick, deceive, falsify, cheat, manipulate all for the purpose of protecting a public trust through repatriation of FRNs or under 26 USC 165[g] - worthless securities which are debt obligation of the US 18 USC 8.

In my opinion, an oath of office is a contract with Satan. This contract is entered into knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily. It is an official exchanging worthless FRNs for the RIGHT, under man's law to exercise control over a population in some "official capacity" [which begs the questions, who provides this authority to make it official?]. One man has no authority over another man, as we were all created equal. God does not do official authorities to some men over other men - God does not have signature notarized either to validate someone's authority over another. Silly concept, isn't it?

There mere fact that man COULD equate IN GOD WE TRUST on money where God Don't Do Money, as everything on this planet was graciously provided freely for all men equally to use, possess, and have dominion over says that man wants superior claim to full ownership - which can and will never happen. Hillary, Barry, Nancy, Harry, Geo, Soros, Zbrinsky, Rothchilds, Al those superior beings of god-like grandeur [in their minds, of course] is the IN GOD WE TRUST - they classify themselves to be - trust in money, our money, we are god. These highly intelligent people have conned mankind into believing MONEY and power are the REAL SOURCE to man's ills. This is simply an error.

There is only One Source, One Creator. There are no seconds or thirds. Until people start to wake up and SOON, those false gods are going to do horrific un-godly acts to them for their disobedience to the Royal Law, as moving against that Royal Law demands not so good consequences. THe con job is to have men think these PTB are referring to the One God. This is not the case. If this were the case, there would be no wars, no poverty, no money, no sickness, no drugs, everyone would have food, housing, and all their NEEDS MET without issue.

I suspect taking a watch of fox news [you know, fair, balanced and unafraid] one can see the vets scandal [little does everyone realize tptb want to have the vets killed off], IRS, Benghazi, etc. If those public officials had taken an oath to the Living One God as opposed to man as god, we would have heaven on earth. No, those oaths are to the IMF, world bank, etc.

When Kathleen Sibelius was asked to comment about people calling for her resignation, she properly answered "I don't work for them", in other words, those people are sureties, my job is to step on them, I am hired by unknown and unelected international bankers to do their work, I took an oath to them. YAY!!!!


[QUOTE=David Merrill;14212]

The oaths of office follow the same Form of Oaths (http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/6332/formofoath.jpg). All officials must swear in to validate their Office before that same Ever-living God found on the currency. There is only one God! Everybody immersed in monotheism knows that. This is how the security agreement is built.

David Merrill
06-02-14, 03:40 PM
We all know from the word "person" has a different meaning in law then our everyday meaning.


You might better understand my perspective if you were to assign a certain and specific numerical quality to the word person and realize it is not what people think of it that counts, it holds a certain power in its formation. Person always means the same thing.

ag maniac
06-02-14, 06:12 PM
"YAY" indeed ;)

Michael Joseph
06-02-14, 10:17 PM
In my opinion, an oath of office is a contract with Satan.



One reading the Holy Scriptures found in Genesis will take notice that Cain was given the Rule. I find it quite interesting that the sons of Cain were granted the authority to rule over Rebellion. Both the man and his wife rebelled against the rule of Elohim. And that would make them outlaws in regard to the Law of Elohim. I agree with you salsero, I too, as Paul, model the State as Satan in the sense that clearly the State is secular without the Church. Or you might say without the Commonwealth of Israel [spiritual Israel].

HOWEVER, with my whole heart I believe that the only way out is to be in accord with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The powers that be attempt to lead us into rebellion which is against the Gospel and as such, they have their warrant to smash all in rebellion. So I always try to show that I am not in rebellion but am lawful according to the laws of the realm.

Rebellion is akin to witchcraft.

I am not saying that wickedness in high places does not exist - but nevertheless we are not to rebel - for if I think that I can change the government, then I must also by needs be undertake in the ministry of Condemnation - which is against my calling - I undertake in the ministry of Reconciliation. I am not called to pass judgment upon another. Let the blind lead the blind. I can only change myself. As Jesus said - "Ye would have no power except that which my Father has granted you" - speaking to Pilate. For he who picks up a sword will die by it. For what does two swords have to do with the Prince of peace except rebellion? And Jesus said "it is enough". The sword I carry is The Word. Let the sons of Cain fight it out. It is not my bailiwick.

This is why I look at guys like Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones as agent provocateurs. In my opinion, these incite the people to possibly rebel against the powers that be and thus Cain is justified in squashing that rebellion and thus Cain grows stronger.

Now therefore I am commanded to live a quiet life if possible. As such, the sons of Cain have setup a system but if they think their hand is high and this was all their doing - they need to think again!

Deu 32:27 Were it not that I feared the wrath of the enemy, lest their adversaries should behave themselves strangely, and lest they should say, Our hand is high, and the LORD hath not done all this.


My only recourse is to fall in line with the Gospel of Jesus Christ in totality. For therein is my shield. I grant you it appears to be a weak position, until one realizes that there is no Cain absent Yehovah. Ceasar's stuff? Yes and no. Who granted Ceasar the right to sit? So should I lead others into rebellion against Ceasar's state? No. For to do so is to lead them into destruction.

So I find that Jesus Christ warned Cain in no uncertain terms:

Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

So what is Cain looking for? Your express trust MUST match your implied trust! But who benefits from both Cain and Seth? Father El Elyon does!

For those children that went astray [prodigal] most times need a bit of tribulation in their lives before they will stop in their way and consider their Maker. There is a grand plan. One walking in the way of Jesus Christ by my reasoning is NOT walking under his own authority!

That one is dead in Christ. Meaning that one has PLEDGED his life in trust to Yehoshuah. Now if Jesus holds my life in trust, then I am subject to his will. And I must be attentive to the Directives given by the Holy Spirit. Else I am not dead in Christ but I am living to my own flesh. Now if the latter, then I am without and an outlaw in rebellion! I am Joseph found in the pit. Absent remedy. A slave to Cain.

1Co 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.

1Co 5:2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.

1Co 5:3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,

1Co 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,

1Co 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.


Now was Paul telling the Church to go into satanic worship? No! In my opinion, Paul is saying, let the sons of Cain deal with this one in their criminal justice system. Maybe one day that one will realize how good is the Law of God. For it is Love.

I always run into my High Tower. And it is a true statement that when I am weak, I am the strongest. For then I lean the hardest upon my Father. Now I wonder why I just can't do that all day everyday? Alas we are in this dimension of the flesh - awaiting the adoption.

Nevertheless my mind is transformed. I realize that a man rebelling against the State rebels against God. For God ordained Cain to rule over both the good and the evil. Now please do not misunderstand me, I am not condoning the worship of Satan and when I say that I am not to rebel that does not mean I am to abandon Torah. On the contrary I uphold Torah by not condemning Cain.

Mat 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Mat 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Considering the "poor estate" of one who would say to their father "I wish you were dead give me my estate now so that I may go away from you and live apart from you" - consider our existence in this dimension. In light of our previous existence? Intuitively you know if you just think about it - Where did I come from if not from God?

And who were these stars SINGING?

Job 38:1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Oh yes, friend, the daughters and the sons delighted to see the Earth in its FIRST creation - before it fell into vanity.

Now then back on topic. So let me get this straight. Man gives God lip service, yet man refuses to keep God's way. In fact we know that many a man denies Torah. And then man complains because he does not want to keep man's law. Talk about rebellion. Therefore I see Cain as a "Rod of Iron" = An INSTRUCTOR to the Rebellious.

The righteous refuse to rebel and the righteous live by faith in their God. For if my life is in trust with Yehoshuah, then what of my choices? I am a subject of my King - and therefore I shall do what my King commands of me. Nevertheless, I seek a better relationship than that:

Psa 46:10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.
Psa 46:11 The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah.


and

Hab 2:4 Behold [the proud one], his [the lawless one's] soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but a righteous one shall live by faith [fidelity].

It gets a bit interesting when one considers the "little foxes" that spoil the vine. I find some who realize they can gain exponentially by promoting rebellion. For their has always been a power up close and comfortable with the real ruling authority.

Son 2:14 O my dove, that art in the clefts of the rock, in the hiding places of the cliff, let me see thy countenance, let me hear thy voice; for sweet is thy voice, and thy countenance is comely.

Son 2:15 Catch for us ... foxes, ... little foxes, that spoil the vines: for our vineyards are in bloom.

Son 2:16 My beloved is mine, and I am his: he who feedest among the lilies.


Shalom,
Michael Joseph

David Merrill
06-03-14, 08:17 AM
I believe that people who live in judgment make themselves sick.

walter
08-19-14, 12:56 AM
CASE OF SHEFFIELD AND HORSHAM v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-58212#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-58212%22]}


28. Registration of births is governed by the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 (“the 1953 Act”). Section 1(1) of that Act requires that the birth of every child be registered by the Registrar of Births and Deaths for the area in which the child is born. An entry is regarded as a record of the facts at the time of birth. A birth certificate accordingly constitutes a document revealing not current identity but historical facts.

Casper
08-19-14, 04:43 AM
I've been doing some research on the BC, and recommend the following interviews with KW about his first hand experience and knowledge dealing with the BC in Kentucky. These are long but worth it for those exploring this topic.

http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-39904/TS-811207.mp3
http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-39904/TS-811209.mp3
http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-89643/TS-852169.mp3

Quick Summary of first mp3:
[This is the youtube video he mentions where judges/lawyers discuss UCC Revised Article 9 and reveal the Registered Organization/Trade Name/Birth Certificate term and please realize all of the entities discussed are statutory definitions of person, including people when litigating bankruptcies, which all persons, including people can file with the SOS.] http://youtu.be/EQM6rjkVjtU?t=41m12s

Ken's interesting points:
- Birth Certificate (BC) is an entity, a Registered Organization, a STATE agency. It is not yours, its their property.
- BC is registered where all other organizations are registered in your state, the Secretary of State (SOS)
- Ken sent the SOS a Revocation of Agency Letter resigning his "Agency", thus removing "legal name" from service of process.
- Ken went for Declaratory Judgment and told a Judge that he knows about the 2 capacities of his name, and wants to know the rights and duties of the other capacity.
- He got a Declaratory Judgment that he is now not in commerce, but a private citizen
- He then went to Kentucky DMV and said he wanted to fill out the app for a Driver License for a private man not in commerce and showed them the Declaratory Judgment. They told him there was no license for that and to go see the DOT. She admitted his BC was a Registered Organization, a STATE Agency
- Now he tells the cops, he is not in commerce, no agency, a private man, and shows his Declaratory Judgment, and they would commit a felony to kidnap him and carjack his auto. They leave him alone.

Chex
08-19-14, 02:30 PM
Thanks Casper.


He got a Declaratory Judgment that he is now not in commerce, but a private citizen

Attention: The Office of the Secretary of State is completing a project to redact the social security numbers of living persons from the documents filed in this office. As you know, UCC financing statements are public records and the information on those statements is readily available to all requesting parties including the availability of filed documents on SOSDirect. Please join us in protecting your client’s privacy by refraining from including client social security numbers in UCC filings. In addition to the privacy concerns, redaction is costly and may result in delays in processing your documents. Thank you for your cooperation. http://www.sos.state.tx.us/corp/sosda/index.shtml •The SOS UCC System is compliant with Revised Article 9 (RA9). (http://www.bankersonline.com/lending/article9.html)

http://www.unisearch.com/index.php?page=revised-article-9

walter
08-19-14, 04:06 PM
This report about BC fraud has some gems.
https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-99-00570.pdf


"A certified copy of a birth certificate is proof only that a birth occurred and was recorded."

one of my favorites
"Most staff also indicate that many prosecutors are reluctant, or refuse to take
birth certificate fraud cases "

Why? Because the cat would be let out of the bag.

Casper
08-19-14, 06:21 PM
To make KW's long story short, this is how I comprehend it with my added knowledge:
1. The BC is a public record showing the Registered Organization was organized. That the event occurred on that "date of birth" date. It is called by your legal name. It is dormant as you are just a baby.
2. At some point you voluntarily apply to get a SS#, even though it is only for residents of the federal zone, not the 50 states. This converts you to "federal personnel" See 5 U.S. Code § 552a(a)(13)
3. Then at some point you take the BC (organization) and the SS# (federal personnel) to the Department of Commerce (DMV) to get an "operator license" (DL) and BAM you are now licensed and insured to run you very own STATE agency, called by your legal name, and right in the middle of INTERSTATE COMMERCE within "this state" (fed zone), of which US Congress has 100% dictum. You now hold "public office" and can vote in elections.
4. Now that you are a federal citizen, with interstate commerce privileges, you are a taxable entity as your income is effectively connected to a trade or business (public office, STATE agency) within the United States (fed zone) See 26 USC §7701(a)(26)
5. Then you made the election to be treated as a taxpayer and file a W-4 and 1040. http://www.weissparis.com/july4.html

In my opinion, there are at least 3 parties to this Registered Organization. The man, the entity on the birth certifcate called the "person" (legal name), and fedgov. There may even be an outside investor, or stockholders.

So is the BC the issue? Or the fact you voluntarily used it to become a federal personnel and operate a STATE agency in INTERSTATE COMMERCE within "this state"? And volunteered to be treated as a taxpayer? So how do you come out of this beast, its name, and the number of its name?

salsero
08-21-14, 02:19 AM
As way of a point of consistency: "It is called by your legal name". I do not agree with it is YOUR legal name. It is their name that you use, as it was sent to you for YOUR exclusive use. If they create the document, as creators, it can not be yours. Your parents do not call you JOHN DOE. They call you John and it just so happens you share the family name with other Doe's; therefore, the Name Doe is not yours, as in exclusive ownership. The state being clever, put your name and family name together and created a title or property - which through legal presumption, they get you the man under their tangled web called jurisdiction WHEN you claim that as your name.

I believe what you mean as "it is dormant", you are suggesting the estate that was created. It is there until you reach age of majority and sound mind to claim those "benefits". However, I do not agree that those "benefits" are yours, those benefits are theirs. You have been left totally naked and spoliated, as a man.

I do not agree that "I am licensed and insured". What is licensed and insured is their property name that I use. If I claim that DL as "my DL", this puts me, a man into their jurisdiction or presumptive commerce.

The name, I use is a citizen of the US, it is a person, estate, trust, whoever, ens legis, organization, taxpayer, surety, all those "nouns" that are part of their system.

I do not agree there are 3 parties as you named. There are 3 parties or more, and on any claim made against that Name, these parties MUST be named as co-defendants. The US, as beneficial holder under UCC 8-303, the state that holds original title, as owner of that title and take your pick - Governor of the state where the entity resides, SOS, etc. All of these "fictions" are trustees of public property or their Name. But I do not see how the man holds any liability on that Property since everything he does in that Name, the US and all of its subsidiaries benefits. And the one who benefits is subject to the liabilities. US v Pewee Coal Co 1951.

The only time you volunteer is through your consent. Without consent, they be screwed.


To make KW's long story short, this is how I comprehend it with my added knowledge:
1. The BC is a public record showing the Registered Organization was organized. That the event occurred on that "date of birth" date. It is called by your legal name. It is dormant as you are just a baby.
2. At some point you voluntarily apply to get a SS#, even though it is only for residents of the federal zone, not the 50 states. This converts you to "federal personnel" See 5 U.S. Code § 552a(a)(13)
3. Then at some point you take the BC (organization) and the SS# (federal personnel) to the Department of Commerce (DMV) to get an "operator license" (DL) and BAM you are now licensed and insured to run you very own STATE agency, called by your legal name, and right in the middle of INTERSTATE COMMERCE within "this state" (fed zone), of which US Congress has 100% dictum. You now hold "public office" and can vote in elections.
4. Now that you are a federal citizen, with interstate commerce privileges, you are a taxable entity as your income is effectively connected to a trade or business (public office, STATE agency) within the United States (fed zone) See 26 USC §7701(a)(26)
5. Then you made the election to be treated as a taxpayer and file a W-4 and 1040. http://www.weissparis.com/july4.html

In my opinion, there are at least 3 parties to this Registered Organization. The man, the entity on the birth certifcate called the "person" (legal name), and fedgov. There may even be an outside investor, or stockholders.

So is the BC the issue? Or the fact you voluntarily used it to become a federal personnel and operate a STATE agency in INTERSTATE COMMERCE within "this state"? And volunteered to be treated as a taxpayer? So how do you come out of this beast, its name, and the number of its name?

salsero
08-21-14, 02:37 AM
Thank you for bringing this point out. Here is the solution and we have Boris to thank for this information - as I am not bright enough to figure it out. But boy I am sure getting it little by little.

Get a certified copy of the BC from the State of creation. Once you have this in place. Take the BC and mail it to the SOS of the state where it was created and have it "authenticated" NOT apostilled. Each state is different so check how do this for the state of the BC. Once authenticated, there is a statement to the effect - "it is hereby certified that Joe Blow was clerk of ...... and that full faith and credit may and ought to be given to said clerk's official acts."

Once you get this back from the state, go ahead and send this up to federal SOS for authentication. You do this here. http://travel.state.gov/content/travel/english/legal-considerations/judicial/authentication-of-documents/authentication-certificate-requirements.html

This document comes back with "I certify that the document hereunto annexed is under the Seal of the State of XX and that such Seal is entitled to full faith and credit" signed and sealed Big Kahuna.

What are the key words here? "full faith and credit"

I have tingles just thinking about Nancy, Harry and Barry providing the Name I use with the full faith and credit of all that power they hold near and dear to their hearts. All that power amounts to nothing more than debits and credits on worthless paper. Yet We, the People believe it has value. And that is all that matters. Do you see?

Boris has offered an audio of a lady that brought up the "full faith and credit of the US" at "her" bankruptcy hearing and guess what? Bye Bye debt, as in the trustees took care of the debt for the name - NOT her debt. See? This is how it is supposed to work. See Lieber Code #38 YAY!!!




This report about BC fraud has some gems.
https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-99-00570.pdf


"A certified copy of a birth certificate is proof only that a birth occurred and was recorded."

one of my favorites
"Most staff also indicate that many prosecutors are reluctant, or refuse to take
birth certificate fraud cases "

Why? Because the cat would be let out of the bag.

salsero
08-21-14, 02:48 AM
Before you do any revocation - think carefully before you act. Early on one of Ken's audios he mentioned remorse on this action but went forward since it was already done.

I agree with points 1 and 2 completely. I do not see point 3 as necessary; however, "some form of public notice is required" to rebut any presumption. I do not agree with point 4. Point 5, how does a judge provide a declaratory judgment for a man and how can one be a private citizen? the very nature of the word citizen is public. How does "one not do commerce"?

I am glad this is working out for Ken in traveling. How does he go to the restaurant, store, or do any commerce, etc?


I've been doing some research on the BC, and recommend the following interviews with KW about his first hand experience and knowledge dealing with the BC in Kentucky. These are long but worth it for those exploring this topic.

http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-39904/TS-811207.mp3
http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-39904/TS-811209.mp3
http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-89643/TS-852169.mp3

Quick Summary of first mp3:
[This is the youtube video he mentions where judges/lawyers discuss UCC Revised Article 9 and reveal the Registered Organization/Trade Name/Birth Certificate term and please realize all of the entities discussed are statutory definitions of person, including people when litigating bankruptcies, which all persons, including people can file with the SOS.] http://youtu.be/EQM6rjkVjtU?t=41m12s

Ken's interesting points:
- Birth Certificate (BC) is an entity, a Registered Organization, a STATE agency. It is not yours, its their property.
- BC is registered where all other organizations are registered in your state, the Secretary of State (SOS)
- Ken sent the SOS a Revocation of Agency Letter resigning his "Agency", thus removing "legal name" from service of process.
- Ken went for Declaratory Judgment and told a Judge that he knows about the 2 capacities of his name, and wants to know the rights and duties of the other capacity.
- He got a Declaratory Judgment that he is now not in commerce, but a private citizen
- He then went to Kentucky DMV and said he wanted to fill out the app for a Driver License for a private man not in commerce and showed them the Declaratory Judgment. They told him there was no license for that and to go see the DOT. She admitted his BC was a Registered Organization, a STATE Agency
- Now he tells the cops, he is not in commerce, no agency, a private man, and shows his Declaratory Judgment, and they would commit a felony to kidnap him and carjack his auto. They leave him alone.

Casper
08-21-14, 03:53 AM
Good comments, much appreciated.

The name my parents gave me was registered by the STATE at my parents application. So my name was turned in to a legal name for the STATE, and I believe its their property. I have lived 4 decades of my life without knowledge of that. I answered for that name, acted as agent and created joinder, without knowing what I was doing. I do believe, now, I have the option not to use it.

What I meant by dormant, was that the BC itself is just a public record. I activated it 16 years later getting a SS# and a license under that legal name, using it in interstate commerce, filing returns etc. If some other parties invest in it, and trade it, I have no knowledge of that and have seen no proof. Just theory. But it does make sense.

Have you first hand experience yourself with the BC? I would like to hear it.

Here is mine. After listening to KW, I went to the SOS of my state this year on other business, and before I left, requested someone answer a question regarding a BC. The lady asked me was it a certain organization? I replied that it was an instrument given to me by my parents. She said she would get an attorney. I waited 20 minutes, and she came back and sat down with the attorney and took notes. The man was around 50 years old and stiff as a board. I showed him the BC and asked who is this person, and asked if this instrument was registered here? He looked stupified, paused and asked "What, the Hospital? Or the Registrar office?". I pointed and stated, the name, the legal name, is it registered here and if so, how can I resign the agency of that name. He acted confused and asked, "Have you contacted the Registrar Office?" and then said "You would be better off talking to the Registrar office at the City Health Department." Then he arose out of his chair and slowly walked out without saying another word. He would not answer about the resignation of agency. The woman looked at me and I looked at her. I said, OK, that was interesting, and walked out.

I found the gov code in my state for resignation of agency KW mentions. Howard Griswold also has been teaching to resign the agency for 30 years. So even if you get a ticket or get sued, there is no agent for service of process. They are stating that you are acting as the registered agent for service of process for the legal name entity, until you resign.

KW said he was harassed while using his car without tags and license until he resigned the agency, then he had no further issues. He lives his life in the private venue without use of the legal name and its benefits. He uses cash and money orders similar to others on this site. He explains how he lives in his mp3s.

Casper
08-21-14, 04:05 AM
KW's remorse on resigning the agency was that he later learned he could file a UCC-1 lien on his house and car, and see if the other interested parties stepped forward. If not, he could act in the executor role to settle it up and own it outright. That was his remorse. He stated otherwise he is happy with his decision, but said it may not be good for everybody.

This is the link to KW's Resignation of Agency doc and his findings. It is a word doc called Greetings. I apologize I forgot to link it in the original post. He removed all of his personal info.
http://privateaudio.homestead.com/Greetings.doc

salsero
08-21-14, 12:57 PM
Good comments, much appreciated.

The name my parents gave me was registered by the STATE at my parents application. So my name was turned in to a legal name for the STATE, and I believe its their property.

You do not have to "believe" this - they actually tell you and you have EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT THAT THE NAME IS NOT YOURS. It is a fact that all property/titles have been sized under a national state of a declared emergency. You the man can not own nothing. Nothing means nothing. They own it all, receive all benefits, subject to all liabilities UNLESS you claim that property as yours.

What I meant by dormant, was that the BC itself is just a public record. I activated it 16 years later getting a SS# and a license under that legal name, using it in interstate commerce, filing returns etc. If some other parties invest in it, and trade it, I have no knowledge of that and have seen no proof. Just theory. But it does make sense.

You are correct. The reason why you have no knowledge what THEY do with that property is because it is not yours and therefore you have no legal say whatsoever. However, because THEY are so kind and generous, they will allow you to claim that Property [deceptively] in many cases from taxes to court to traffic tickets for the simple reason, THEY want to "legally take" $$ or SOMETHING YOU BELEIVE IS YOURS, from $$, to house, car, bank account, etc to SATISFY their own personal profit and gain at YOUR expense. And that is the law!!! YAY...

Have you first hand experience yourself with the BC? I would like to hear it.

This is my experience. I did the process of "full faith and credit", I also did 3 recorded public notices of release of claim and interest of the usufruct and reversionary interest. I sent the three recorded notices to 9 trustees and did not receive back any response. This is not unexpected from what others have stated. I am not leaving it there though. I am looking for the "offense" meaning the 12 USC 95a full acquittal and discharge in all matters relating to their property, including bills. There is plan B happening in a few weeks. I now have in my possession "full faith and credit" from authorized trustees of that property provided to me for MY exclusive use.

Here is mine. After listening to KW, I went to the SOS of my state this year on other business, and before I left, requested someone answer a question regarding a BC. The lady asked me was it a certain organization? I replied that it was an instrument given to me by my parents. She said she would get an attorney. I waited 20 minutes, and she came back and sat down with the attorney and took notes. The man was around 50 years old and stiff as a board. I showed him the BC and asked who is this person, and asked if this instrument was registered here? He looked stupified, paused and asked "What, the Hospital? Or the Registrar office?". I pointed and stated, the name, the legal name, is it registered here and if so, how can I resign the agency of that name. He acted confused and asked, "Have you contacted the Registrar Office?" and then said "You would be better off talking to the Registrar office at the City Health Department." Then he arose out of his chair and slowly walked out without saying another word. He would not answer about the resignation of agency. The woman looked at me and I looked at her. I said, OK, that was interesting, and walked out.

I found the gov code in my state for resignation of agency KW mentions. Howard Griswold also has been teaching to resign the agency for 30 years. So even if you get a ticket or get sued, there is no agent for service of process. They are stating that you are acting as the registered agent for service of process for the legal name entity, until you resign.

KW said he was harassed while using his car without tags and license until he resigned the agency, then he had no further issues. He lives his life in the private venue without use of the legal name and its benefits. He uses cash and money orders similar to others on this site. He explains how he lives in his mp3s.

First you must remember those government attorneys do not work for you. I am surprised he even bothered to talk to you but again, maybe he wanted to amuse himself and attempt to trick you. IMO, the only way to back them in a corner is to REQUIRE a response from them, under penalties of perjury with full commercial and personal liability. THEY simply can NOT do this.

As far as resigning as agent, I do not see this as necessary. Remember the registered agent is just that and not to be presumed as the liable party, unless he consents. The registered agent's job is to simply forward all claims or matters to the principal. I do not see an issue being labeled "registered agent" - in a nonsensical sort of way. So who is the principal? The title owner of the property who receives benefit.

As a peaceful inhabitant, the car registration issue in not "my main concern". I really do not care about the $50 yearly fee. If it keep the peace FOR NOW, then what the hell and I stated in the notice that I use the DL, etc in order to keep the public peace. If I, the man can not own anything and everything I do is FOR their benefit, per property notification, well there ain't much more to say. My main objective is to have them doing their oath bound duty and take care of their property that I have exclusive use of, called a name.

I have no option, I must do commerce.

salsero
08-21-14, 01:14 PM
Honestly, I am not feelin this. "I have heard" others say this does not work. However, I do LIKE Boris' approach to the UCC1/3 filings. I happened to do notices instead of UCCs. They really are the same thing. It is releasing all interest and claim to the usufruct and reversionary interest to the US. We have yet another example of this "working" with a recent audio just posted from a lady in bankruptcy court.

Remember, if you want to be the executor, you are a person. If you are a person, you are under THEIR jurisdiction.

Since I do not know what exactly you are looking for on this journey, it is hard to provide some guidance. However, if you want to listen to KW, by all means do so, just really understand that method and grasp - legally what he is doing and ensure you do not get "snagged"

Did everyone hear about Jim McBride? This is from Jaro's website

"An Ohio man was found guilty on charges of selling fake diplomatic identification cards to members of the anti-government organization Divine Province.

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia said 60-year-old James McBride produced false IDs and documents so that members of the sovereign citizen group that he led can avoid being arrested or paying taxes and debts.

McBride is facing up to 35 years in prison after a U.S. District Court jury found him guilty of conspiracy, causing the impersonation of a diplomat and producing false identification documents.

Prosecutors said McBride sold the documents to Divine Province members in sets of two for $200. One of the ID identified its holder as a "Universal Post Office Diplomat," while the second document entitled its holder to an "international Diplomatic Driver Permit."

McBride started selling the identification cards in September 2012. He also sold the IDs online. Divine Province earned close to $500,000 from the sales of the documents alone, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office.

McBride, who lives in Columbus, Ohio, argued that the United States government doesn't hold authority over the members of Divine Province. Likewise, McBride told the court that it was the Vatican that gave him the permission to issue the IDs to his members.

In April 2013, McBride told ABC News that his mission in life was to obtain "world peace."
“I’ve been stopped five or six times, and every time, they give me my driver’s license back and they say, ‘Have a good day. Please slow down,’” McBride told ABC News.

McBride was arrested early in the year after it was discovered that he issued at least 900 fraudulent diplomatic credentials to those who paid to be part of Divine Province. Prosecutors said McBride told his followers that they can avoid paying taxes and debts if they enroll in his society for a minimal fee.


McBride faces a maximum punishment of five years in prison for the conspiracy count, ten years for the count of causing the impersonation of a diplomat, and five years for each count of producing a false identification document.
This case was investigated by Homeland Security Investigations, with significant assistance from the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division."


http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/6872/20140815/divine-province-leader-james-mcbride-found-guilty-selling-fake-ids.htm


BTW, here's a doc showing the IDs:


http://www.nationalrepublicregistry.com/public/2013/NV/05.07.000001.pdf


Oh, and before the trial he received mail under his name, James McBride no inmate number needed, at the Alexandria Detention Center, 2001 Mill Road, Alexandria, VA 22314. My guess would be that address'd be good until the sentencing.





KW's remorse on resigning the agency was that he later learned he could file a UCC-1 lien on his house and car, and see if the other interested parties stepped forward. If not, he could act in the executor role to settle it up and own it outright. That was his remorse. He stated otherwise he is happy with his decision, but said it may not be good for everybody.

This is the link to KW's Resignation of Agency doc and his findings. It is a word doc called Greetings. I apologize I forgot to link it in the original post. He removed all of his personal info.
http://privateaudio.homestead.com/Greetings.doc

walter
08-21-14, 04:26 PM
Remember, if you want to be the executor, you are a person. If you are a person, you are under THEIR jurisdiction.


EXECUTOR'S go to jail.

Casper
08-21-14, 05:20 PM
I posted this for KW's first hand experience with BC in Kentucky. He stated he has a Declatory Judgment that he acts in a private venue, a letter from the SOS stating he is the acting Executor, he designated a trustee, he resigned from service of process, and changed the name he is known by. He is not only not in jail, they leave him alone. Not sure why you posted a fake ID, KW is going by the name of his new vessel, KW. He is not pretending to be a post office or a diplomat, just a man. I am quite sure he is that. Anyone can change their name under common law, as long as it is not used for fraud. KW could change his name to Paul Washington and start doing business as that vessel, as long as he established it in the community. No need to register it with the state or it becomes theirs. Everybody knows him as KW.

What he did not do is correct his status from a 14th Amendment citizen to a national (state Citizen) via a USA passport. Then send $50 to get an authentication from the US Dept of State. That will give you evidence from the highest authority that you are not a 14ther. That option is still there and I know of people that did that. That gets your domicile out of the District (fedzone), so you are not subject to their 100% dictum. Then you can get a bank account without a SS# as a foreign national (without the US). If you wanted an "operator license" (DL) to do interstate commerce, you could get the license as a non-resident alien. So you are doing commerce in an appropriate capacity. That is my path. I just linked KW as he has quite a bit of knowledge to share, from his study of the code, to interaction with Kentucky and the DMV. This is all very interesting stuff to me.

Thanks for the input. I try to get first hand experience for myself, but I value others first hand experience as well.

KW's approach is a little different than mine. I do not want the 14ther tag. From my research, that is my approach. We may achieve similar results.

Casper
08-21-14, 05:47 PM
A comment on identification, I know of a church that issues identification, driver license and passports. The couple who founded the church were against property taxes and such, and ended up being raided by 25 armed feds who took their computers and claimed they coud not issue identification. When they tried to prosecute, it was brought to a screeching halt because of separation of church and state. The feds had no authority over the church jurisdiction. Turns out they did not check to see that this church was not a 501(c)(3) church. No nexus to the state. That was in 1997 I believe, and they still issue church identification. I know of a man who opened a bank account without a SS# with the church driver license. I know of a man who entered and returned from Mexico with the church passport. Different ways to skin a cat, indeed.

I have church ID (DL and passport in True Name) and also have a common law photo ID, that I made and had notarized. I carry it daily. I have used it for various purposes, including ID at a bank. I have one with True Name (daily carry) and one with Legal Name (when needed).

Casper
08-21-14, 06:19 PM
Salsero, regarding auto registration, you may have an interest to read the pdf linked here: http://privateaudio.homestead.com/It_s_All_About_Venue.pdf

Look on page 7 of that pdf, regarding his first hand experience with auto registration. He stated he has tested his theory for several years, and when pulled over 4 times, he never received a ticket and just let go.

When I received my renewal notice, it is a one page instrument. However there are 2 stickers, an IN the car windshield sticker, and an OUT of the car plate sticker that says "VOID". Both stickers have the same tracking number printed on them.

The verbiage on the instrument states the following:

** IMPORTANT NOTICE **
You only need one registration sticker on your vehicle
You will use either the windshield sticker or the plate sticker
Do not apply the sticker printed with "VOID", it is not a valid sticker
It may have already been removed from your receipt.

So you have a choice of which sticker to use. Now, on the opposite side, it states "Important document: Please retain for your records. THIS RECEIPT TO BE CARRIED IN ALL COMMERCIAL VEHICLES.

I do not carry the receipt (sticker) IN the vehicle, as I am not "for hire" commercial. So the theory is you are given 2 stickers (receipts), IN and OUT of the vehicle. IN is for commercial vehicles in "this state", OUT is for the private venue, not "valid" for use in "this state". The VOID sticker on the plate makes the plate VOID for commercial use in "this state". That could be why the cop let him go the 4 times he was pulled over. That could be the remedy. The cop clearly sees that you paid the fee, and clearly sees you are not in "for hire" commerce in "this state".

From my experience, when I called the agency who issues the plates, and discussed canceling and sending back, they said when you return them, be sure to write VOID across the plates, so it will be known they are not in use. So I removed the IN the car sticker, and attached the OUT of the car sticker. Its been a couple months and I have not been pulled over yet.

salsero
08-22-14, 11:46 AM
Bingo - you are a surety, executors are liable to account thereof of all the estate's assets.


EXECUTOR'S go to jail.

salsero
08-22-14, 12:05 PM
Casper - it is not about picking on you - however, logically speaking. How does a SOS provide a letter to a man stating KW is acting as an executor and trustee and that he no longer liable for process of service. The SOS can only communicate with persons not men. The mere fact those titles are the registered agent for the estate or trust. Now again, I am speaking logically.

Man is not "vessel", man only is man. He can not be anything but an image created by God or I am that I am, or comes from the pre-existant father, a son in the pre-existent One. A vessel is a thing under the jurisdiction of the US. ALL property is vested in the state, where "men" or persons [take you choice] are mere users for the BENEFIT of the state.

I have no issue with the American National status, if you need a passport to use. I was thinking of doing this myself. But this Is off topic. You are presumed to be a 14th A citizen. THey are allowed to presume that by law. Your only job is to rebut that presumption. They can not force you to be a citizen.

I am always open to be corrected; however, with this new "vessel", I am not feelin the bank would be opening a bank account without a SSN. First of all, all bank accounts are the property of the government. At any time, FRNs can BE confiscated for national security reasons, as Barry has a pen and a phone. We can look to Cyprus for recent confirmation.

It looks like you are on a path and I wish you the best.

I am interested in obtaining more info on the "American national" passport. I never really looked into that. If you care to provide the details as what is required, this would be good. thanks


I posted this for KW's first hand experience with BC in Kentucky. He stated he has a Declatory Judgment that he acts in a private venue, a letter from the SOS stating he is the acting Executor, he designated a trustee, he resigned from service of process, and changed the name he is known by. He is not only not in jail, they leave him alone. Not sure why you posted a fake ID, KW is going by the name of his new vessel, KW. He is not pretending to be a post office or a diplomat, just a man. I am quite sure he is that. Anyone can change their name under common law, as long as it is not used for fraud. KW could change his name to Paul Washington and start doing business as that vessel, as long as he established it in the community. No need to register it with the state or it becomes theirs. Everybody knows him as KW.

What he did not do is correct his status from a 14th Amendment citizen to a national (state Citizen) via a USA passport. Then send $50 to get an authentication from the US Dept of State. That will give you evidence from the highest authority that you are not a 14ther. That option is still there and I know of people that did that. That gets your domicile out of the District (fedzone), so you are not subject to their 100% dictum. Then you can get a bank account without a SS# as a foreign national (without the US). If you wanted an "operator license" (DL) to do interstate commerce, you could get the license as a non-resident alien. So you are doing commerce in an appropriate capacity. That is my path. I just linked KW as he has quite a bit of knowledge to share, from his study of the code, to interaction with Kentucky and the DMV. This is all very interesting stuff to me.

Thanks for the input. I try to get first hand experience for myself, but I value others first hand experience as well.

KW's approach is a little different than mine. I do not want the 14ther tag. From my research, that is my approach. We may achieve similar results.

salsero
08-22-14, 12:25 PM
I would much rather let the trustee handle the matter and take care of their public property that I use. Man has been left spoliated and naked and HAS NO MEANS to pay any claims, all under a declared national state of emergency by a foreign military occupation for the purpose of keeping the government/military operating and maintaining public peace.

We are not there yet. But I sincerely sense it is soon. The issue at hand is having THEM honor THEIR law and providing discharge for all claims made against their property

And one final thought - when you play in their sandbox, remember it is their box and their sand. They are always correct, always. Dean Clifford recently found out even if he knows their laws, the law is they can change those laws at any time for the good of the public. And I agree. IMO, and after much study, and minor first hand experience, I see this path as legally valid, simple and there has been success by others [that have $$ or court issues] where the issues disappeared. For you see, their legal system is nothing more than a scam, fraud, deception, and attempt for control and power of the masses of idiots. And amerika has many of those. And all this fraud, etc is FOR the ultimate end purpose of GOOD. And that is why I CAN come to peace with it.



Salsero, regarding auto registration, you may have an interest to read the pdf linked here: http://privateaudio.homestead.com/It_s_All_About_Venue.pdf

Look on page 7 of that pdf, regarding his first hand experience with auto registration. He stated he has tested his theory for several years, and when pulled over 4 times, he never received a ticket and just let go.

When I received my renewal notice, it is a one page instrument. However there are 2 stickers, an IN the car windshield sticker, and an OUT of the car plate sticker that says "VOID". Both stickers have the same tracking number printed on them.

The verbiage on the instrument states the following:

** IMPORTANT NOTICE **
You only need one registration sticker on your vehicle
You will use either the windshield sticker or the plate sticker
Do not apply the sticker printed with "VOID", it is not a valid sticker
It may have already been removed from your receipt.

So you have a choice of which sticker to use. Now, on the opposite side, it states "Important document: Please retain for your records. THIS RECEIPT TO BE CARRIED IN ALL COMMERCIAL VEHICLES.

I do not carry the receipt (sticker) IN the vehicle, as I am not "for hire" commercial. So the theory is you are given 2 stickers (receipts), IN and OUT of the vehicle. IN is for commercial vehicles in "this state", OUT is for the private venue, not "valid" for use in "this state". The VOID sticker on the plate makes the plate VOID for commercial use in "this state". That could be why the cop let him go the 4 times he was pulled over. That could be the remedy. The cop clearly sees that you paid the fee, and clearly sees you are not in "for hire" commerce in "this state".

From my experience, when I called the agency who issues the plates, and discussed canceling and sending back, they said when you return them, be sure to write VOID across the plates, so it will be known they are not in use. So I removed the IN the car sticker, and attached the OUT of the car sticker. Its been a couple months and I have not been pulled over yet.

Casper
08-22-14, 03:49 PM
. How does a SOS provide a letter to a man stating KW is acting as an executor and trustee and that he no longer liable for process of service. The SOS can only communicate with persons not men. The mere fact those titles are the registered agent for the estate or trust. Now again, I am speaking logically.

Did you listen to KW's mp3's? It sounds like you did not. KW followed the written statutes. He is expressly not a trustee. The SOS responded by statute to resign the service of process for the organization. He can no longer receive service of process for tickets and lawsuits. They leave him alone. KW has studied the law of agency and is well versed in it. You do not seem to understand it as well as KW. Many other folks who have done this have had the same experience as KW, like Howard Griswold over the past 30 years acting as Executor without agency (not a trustee) and never being arrested. KW has been acting as Executor for a while now with no issues. He is very public about his experience.


Man is not "vessel", man only is man. He can not be anything but an image created by God or I am that I am, or comes from the pre-existant father, a son in the pre-existent One. A vessel is a thing under the jurisdiction of the US. ALL property is vested in the state, where "men" or persons [take you choice] are mere users for the BENEFIT of the state.


Of course a man is not a vessel, but a man can create and use many vessels. KW has stated he has 3 vessels he created and uses for commerce. The creator has control of the vessel he creates. A vessel is not automatically a property under US jurisdiction, only when you (as a good and faithful 14ther) register it there. It seems you have not researched this topic. I know of people who are doing this. A man has unlimited power to contract and is in charge of his own reality. Many people live "without the United States". I know a former bar attorney that has lived since 1987 "without the United States", and has many vessels he created for his private use. He has no federal contracts and hasn't paid FIT since 1987, no issues. It sounds like you bought off on the premise man is a slave under statism (communism). I do not.


Man has been left spoliated and naked and HAS NO MEANS to pay any claims, all under a declared national state of emergency by a foreign military occupation for the purpose of keeping the government/military operating and maintaining public peace.

I am sorry you feel that way about yourself, and that you allow others to control you. I know your statement to be false. Your issue is between your ears. Many people do not live that way. For example you and I could do a contract today, where I purchase a car from you, draft a private contract within the common law, use lawful money with just weights and measures (ounces of silver) as valuable consideration, and execute the agreement "without the United States", in the private venue, and I have absolute ownership with proof of sale. The United States can not intervene in that private contract as its protected in the Constitution. I know people who have done that, and it has held up. Their car is private property and do not have DL, plates, insurance. Just because you live naked and spoliated, doesn't mean others are required to live that way. For examples, look and learn today from the Amish, illegal aliens, foreign nationals, and state Citizens living like the founding fathers long before the 14th.


And one final thought - when you play in their sandbox, remember it is their box and their sand.

Why do you claim I play in their sandbox? What evidence do you have I am in their sandbox playing with their sand? Why would you think I have any desire to play in a sandbox of a foreign corporation's territory? It appears to me you are a 14ther, because they always think everybody is a 14ther and they have a mindset like you.

Casper
08-22-14, 04:14 PM
I have no issue with the American National status, if you need a passport to use. I was thinking of doing this myself. But this Is off topic. You are presumed to be a 14th A citizen. THey are allowed to presume that by law. Your only job is to rebut that presumption. They can not force you to be a citizen.

The passport is very on-topic. It is very related to the BC and correcting your status. If you choose the path of proving you are not a 14ther on a case by case basis, good luck with that, you will lose. Your voluntary contractual evidence testifies against you. There is only one way to rebut that, and it sounds like you have not done your research.


They can not force you to be a citizen.

That is exactly what they have done and are doing to you. I am in possession of a letter from the State Department with them telling me that I am a 14ther, as is everybody. At some point you have consented to it, and they are merely enforcing your consent. Have you corrected it on the record once and for all?


Dean Clifford recently found out even if he knows their laws, the law is they can change those laws at any time for the good of the public. And I agree

I agree too. That is why I don't do what Dean Clifford does. I am not at war, not a statute/code warrior, and I am not Canadian. It appears to me Canada wasn't changing the laws, they were changing the statutes and codes, moving/rearranging them. Statutes and codes are merely prima facie evidence of law, not the law. Big difference.

Casper
08-22-14, 04:30 PM
I am always open to be corrected; however, with this new "vessel", I am not feelin the bank would be opening a bank account without a SSN. First of all, all bank accounts are the property of the government. At any time, FRNs can BE confiscated for national security reasons, as Barry has a pen and a phone. We can look to Cyprus for recent confirmation.

All bank accounts are not the property of the government. It is the 14ther that is property of the government. You think like a 14ther. I know many people who have done just that, and that is the reason they did it. However they are not 14thers, they are not property of the government, neither is the funds in their account, nor can they be confiscated. It appears to me you have not done your research on any of these topics. You may benefit from researching territorial jurisdiction as it relates to 14thers and non-14thers and how to apply it. You may run head first in to a clerk who knows not the law of this land, but you are speaking to the wrong person, who is a mere firewall. Go to someone held accountable to the law, in your correct status, and you may find you "start to feel it".

Casper
08-22-14, 05:02 PM
The issue at hand is having THEM honor THEIR law and providing discharge for all claims made against their property

I find that the govco is very precise in following their law on the statutes and codes. In their application of the statutes and codes to you, have you contemplated that maybe it is you that is in the wrong capacity? Or maybe its you that does not comprehend the meaning of the legal terms, who it applies to, the applicable jurisdiction? Or maybe its you that is making claims that do not follow the proper application of law?

I used to have your mindset, and the more I researched, the more I learned it was my fault for not comprehending the law. It was my fault for contracting with the government in the wrong capacity, accepting a personna not meant for me, and entering in to the wrong jurisdiction. I have heard from others that when you present yourself in your correct status and jurisdiction, they surely do follow the law for that status. Maybe its your perception that needs correction.

salsero
08-23-14, 11:41 AM
I listened to KW once and was not impressed. What I sill do not understand is how once can still be the name and not be presumed surety for that property. Any government agency only has the authority to communicate with its property. If the government can only communicate with its property and man is not that property [or under that jurisdiction], I do not see how KW claims that title and is not liable. Being an executor without an agency makes no sense. I have listened to Howard Griswald and since moved on. Remedy costs nothing if it is real.

THe vessel was created by man for the purpose of control over other man. Man can USE that vessel without liability. ALL property is vested in the state where man is mere user. This is a fact. If man claims ANY property, ie my name, my car, my bank account, it is not legally YOURS.

Are you familiar with the terms naked and spoliated and where they come from? It is not about how I feel or allowing others to control me. On the contrary, it is freeing. As soon as you have a bill of sale in the Name and let us say it was "paid for" in silver, it comes back to how was the silver bought? Use of FRNs or private script. I understand what you are saying, the 12 USC 411 and I do not disagree - but again, you do not hold original title to that Name. Its a "they got you coming and going and then spin you around again".

Again, if KWs remedy is working for you, by all means do and provide specific info to the various groups.

For me, it makes sense to let anyone bring a claim against the Name I use, and let the public trustees take care of the property. Remember, you only receive a "certified copy of the title" not the original. If you were able to obtain the original, then maybe I would be better convinced.



Did you listen to KW's mp3's? It sounds like you did not. KW followed the written statutes. He is expressly not a trustee. The SOS responded by statute to resign the service of process for the organization. He can no longer receive service of process for tickets and lawsuits. They leave him alone. KW has studied the law of agency and is well versed in it. You do not seem to understand it as well as KW. Many other folks who have done this have had the same experience as KW, like Howard Griswold over the past 30 years acting as Executor without agency (not a trustee) and never being arrested. KW has been acting as Executor for a while now with no issues. He is very public about his experience.



Of course a man is not a vessel, but a man can create and use many vessels. KW has stated he has 3 vessels he created and uses for commerce. The creator has control of the vessel he creates. A vessel is not automatically a property under US jurisdiction, only when you (as a good and faithful 14ther) register it there. It seems you have not researched this topic. I know of people who are doing this. A man has unlimited power to contract and is in charge of his own reality. Many people live "without the United States". I know a former bar attorney that has lived since 1987 "without the United States", and has many vessels he created for his private use. He has no federal contracts and hasn't paid FIT since 1987, no issues. It sounds like you bought off on the premise man is a slave under statism (communism). I do not.



I am sorry you feel that way about yourself, and that you allow others to control you. I know your statement to be false. Your issue is between your ears. Many people do not live that way. For example you and I could do a contract today, where I purchase a car from you, draft a private contract within the common law, use lawful money with just weights and measures (ounces of silver) as valuable consideration, and execute the agreement "without the United States", in the private venue, and I have absolute ownership with proof of sale. The United States can not intervene in that private contract as its protected in the Constitution. I know people who have done that, and it has held up. Their car is private property and do not have DL, plates, insurance. Just because you live naked and spoliated, doesn't mean others are required to live that way. For examples, look and learn today from the Amish, illegal aliens, foreign nationals, and state Citizens living like the founding fathers long before the 14th.



Why do you claim I play in their sandbox? What evidence do you have I am in their sandbox playing with their sand? Why would you think I have any desire to play in a sandbox of a foreign corporation's territory? It appears to me you are a 14ther, because they always think everybody is a 14ther and they have a mindset like you.

salsero
08-23-14, 12:05 PM
Let us be clear. First I do not have to prove anything to them. By law, they are allowed to presume. If I fall silent to that presumption, then I am at fault, not them. How you REBT their presumption is by asking them questions NOT by proving what I AM NOT. I am not a 14 A citizen is a claim. ALL CLAIMS must be proven. MAN CAN ONLY BE MAN. He can not be a National, trustee, person, whoever, individual, etc. Those nouns are all jurisdictional evidence that man CONSENTS to be under THEIR jurisdiction.

Everybody is not a 14th A citizen or a person, taxpayer, etc. Everybody has the right to "be one of those". However, a man is not one of those. You UN-consent by asking questions. I am created in the image of God, do you rebut that? I have provide NOTICE of release of claim and interest per 12 USC 95a. It is signed by a man with a notary and witness agreement attesting to the fact that the man "signed it" - this means not using the last name.




The passport is very on-topic. It is very related to the BC and correcting your status. If you choose the path of proving you are not a 14ther on a case by case basis, good luck with that, you will lose. Your voluntary contractual evidence testifies against you. There is only one way to rebut that, and it sounds like you have not done your research.



That is exactly what they have done and are doing to you. I am in possession of a letter from the State Department with them telling me that I am a 14ther, as is everybody. At some point you have consented to it, and they are merely enforcing your consent. Have you corrected it on the record once and for all?



I agree too. That is why I don't do what Dean Clifford does. I am not at war, not a statute/code warrior, and I am not Canadian. It appears to me Canada wasn't changing the laws, they were changing the statutes and codes, moving/rearranging them. Statutes and codes are merely prima facie evidence of law, not the law. Big difference.

salsero
08-23-14, 12:13 PM
Really think about what you are saying. if FRNs are private script [and you can do the 12 USC 411] but do you really think they care?, And THAT BANK ACCOUNT IS TITLED in their property Name, I do not see how they CAN NOT go in there and take what they want.

It is fine that we all talk in theory, but in practice there are no "private bank accounts", they may be titled to the name, but that name is a "public trust/estate entity". So here is a minor victory for me. I was able to amend the bank agreement and signature card, as the clerk "did not understand what I did" - yes the 12 USC 411, nunc pro tunc, etc. I even had that same clerk actually notarize a copy of that agreement AND I even recorded it in public records. What a success. Do you really think the bank is honoring this? Last year I filed the 1040 [for a specific reason - no BS please] and put a notarized affidavit that I did all lawful money, the IRS ignored it. lol.

Call yourself a national, state citizen, of whatever, the only thing that does not fall under their jurisdiction is man or animal. They own all property and all you, the man to use it, with all benefit going to the state.



All bank accounts are not the property of the government. It is the 14ther that is property of the government. You think like a 14ther. I know many people who have done just that, and that is the reason they did it. However they are not 14thers, they are not property of the government, neither is the funds in their account, nor can they be confiscated. It appears to me you have not done your research on any of these topics. You may benefit from researching territorial jurisdiction as it relates to 14thers and non-14thers and how to apply it. You may run head first in to a clerk who knows not the law of this land, but you are speaking to the wrong person, who is a mere firewall. Go to someone held accountable to the law, in your correct status, and you may find you "start to feel it".

salsero
08-23-14, 12:25 PM
It is not me in the wrong capacity at all. They have left a thin thread of wiggle room. If you get that AND they do as required by law, you, the man have no issues. I fully agree, man must comprehend the law and then get out of the way and let those trustees do their job. That is what comprehending the law is about. Man has options about jurisdiction: Man's or God's. There is no in between.

I did not say THEY do not follow the law for status in the defense, ie court, taxes, etc. Where they do not follow the law, TODAY is in the offense, meaning discharging everything in that name does in all matters of commerce, not limited to cc, eclectic, car, house, court, taxes, claims, you name it, as everything done in that name is commerce. Man has only one status: man, as created by the Creator. That is man's status unless he consents to another status. Man has only one law to follow: The Royal Law. Man has no authority over other men. Man has no authority to judge other men, only God has that authority.

All some of us are looking for NOW that we rendered unto Caesar's what is Caesar's is for Caesar to take care of his property in all matters. We honor Caesar in public and in private Caesar honors the "majority of age and sound mind man" see? It is ok if you don't, as we all have our soul's path to travel upon.



I find that the govco is very precise in following their law on the statutes and codes. In their application of the statutes and codes to you, have you contemplated that maybe it is you that is in the wrong capacity? Or maybe its you that does not comprehend the meaning of the legal terms, who it applies to, the applicable jurisdiction? Or maybe its you that is making claims that do not follow the proper application of law?

I used to have your mindset, and the more I researched, the more I learned it was my fault for not comprehending the law. It was my fault for contracting with the government in the wrong capacity, accepting a personna not meant for me, and entering in to the wrong jurisdiction. I have heard from others that when you present yourself in your correct status and jurisdiction, they surely do follow the law for that status. Maybe its your perception that needs correction.

Casper
08-23-14, 09:56 PM
All some of us are looking for NOW that we rendered unto Caesar's what is Caesar's is for Caesar to take care of his property in all matters. We honor Caesar in public and in private Caesar honors the "majority of age and sound mind man" see? It is ok if you don't, as we all have our soul's path to travel upon.

Wow, you think the govco is Caesar? When did that happen? The founding fathers escaped governments that were acting as a Caesar, and you think they founded this one as a Caesar? Please tell me when that happened? The people are sovereign without subjects, read your state Constitution, and they established the state governments, which then established the federal government (federal=by contract). The federal government only has control over what they created, which is a 14th Amendment citizen/subject/officer/employee. Sounds like you bought off on that Caesar meme and are defending that out of your own ignorance. If so, then yes, you must render under your Caesar that which is Caesars. I do not have a Caesar.

Casper
08-23-14, 10:22 PM
Really think about what you are saying. if FRNs are private script [and you can do the 12 USC 411] but do you really think they care?, And THAT BANK ACCOUNT IS TITLED in their property Name, I do not see how they CAN NOT go in there and take what they want.

"I do not see" indeed. I suggest that you may gain some insight by researching Title 31: Money and Finance, Part 103 - Financial Recordkeeping and Reporting of Currency and Foreign Transactions. 31 CFR Section 103.34 (a)(3)(x) "non-resident aliens who are not engaged in a trade or business in the United States"
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/103.34

This states that non-resident aliens don't need a SS# (taxpayer identification number) to open a bank account. Non-resident aliens being a national (state Citizen). The United States (District of Columbia) is foreign to me in my state (non-federal state of the Union). Oklahoma is foreign to me, California is foreign to me, DC is foreign to me. I am a native of my state, not a foreigner who is engaged in a trade or business (public office/employee) in a foreign land (United States) and here merely as a resident. I am non-domestic to the United States. Research Foreign vs Domestic.

Really think about what you are saying, and study jurisdiction and the contracts you have voluntarily signed with your Caesar. They testify against you. There is a commercial a long time ago about the Roach Motel, the roaches go in, but they don't come out. Well you volunteered to go in, and are stuck in the Roach Motel. On a case by case basis, you make silly arguments to them, and they laugh at you because there is a way out, and you can't find it. I have provided some examples on this board and in this thread.

Note: Yes, I know of people, nationals, that walked in and used a W-8BEN, and their national passport and opened a bank account "without the United States", and without a SS#. Of course they are not the property of the government and also lawful non-taxpayers.

Casper
08-23-14, 10:36 PM
I listened to KW once and was not impressed. What I sill do not understand is how once can still be the name and not be presumed surety for that property. Any government agency only has the authority to communicate with its property. If the government can only communicate with its property and man is not that property [or under that jurisdiction], I do not see how KW claims that title and is not liable. Being an executor without an agency makes no sense. I have listened to Howard Griswald and since moved on. Remedy costs nothing if it is real.

Yes, I agree, you still do not understand. KW is not claiming the name or using it any longer. He resigned the agency and is no longer acting as a surety for that agency. That is why they can no longer serve him with tickets or lawsuits and such. He is acting Executor, and the Principal has not shown up yet to make a claim on "its" property. He has invited the Principal to step forward and close out, but afraid of the scam being exposed, the Principal hides in darkness and does not respond. KW claims equity in his property and wants to collect it. He plans to go to court to collect on his interest and equity. If they claim he was operating a state agency all these years as an employee/officer/trustee/agent, he is asking them to provide full disclosure of the details and their interests. Haha. He is backing them in to a corner of their own Roach Motel. That ol' country boy is much smarter than you give him credit for. I bet KW is a good hunter.

Casper
08-23-14, 10:53 PM
Man has only one status: man, as created by the Creator. That is man's status unless he consents to another status. Man has only one law to follow: The Royal Law. Man has no authority over other men. Man has no authority to judge other men, only God has that authority.

Through your own voluntary consent, you have stepped in to contract with your Caesar. That status is that of a human being. Human being in law is a "man or other animal". A vertabrate animal. That concept flows from the theory of evolution. That human beings evolved without a Creator, and even from apes. That is what you volunteered in to, and then you have the audacity to say you are not (in their mindset not mine). http://adask.wordpress.com/category/man-or-other-animals/

Just saying I respect who you say you are, but just trying to help you comprehend what they say you are, and what they are treating you as. You are in a spiritual battle, and do not recognize the theatre, have no situational awareness, and have not learned from your previous engagements.

Casper
08-23-14, 11:04 PM
Any government agency only has the authority to communicate with its property.

And there's your sign. Riddle me this. What have I provided in this thread as a solution to NOT be the government's property?

The people that solved this riddle, are not bothered by the government or its agencies.

Casper
08-23-14, 11:51 PM
Everybody is not a 14th A citizen or a person, taxpayer, etc. Everybody has the right to "be one of those". However, a man is not one of those. You UN-consent by asking questions. I am created in the image of God, do you rebut that?

Ed and Elaine Brown used arguments similar to this against auntie IRIS. Where did that get them? Federal prison. Read the case. The prosecutor asked them (paraphrasing) "You claim that you are not a US citizen for federal income taxes, but then you claim you are a US citizen for your Driver License and Passport. So which are we to believe?"

As I mentioned, your evidence testifies against you. Asking questions will not win when you already have testified under penalty of perjury that you are a 14th Amendment US citizen on your DL and Passport, voter registration, etc. Good luck with that strategy, you will need it. And a court judge or local official cannot change your citizenship, he just goes by your sworn evidence you have already made in your contracts with your Caesar. Do you think anybody will take your "questions" over what the State Dept. says you are? You will rightfully be labeled as one of them thar "sovern citizens" and a "tax protester" and be on your way to a Psych Eval.

As I mentioned, I have a letter from the State Dept. that everybody is a 14th amendment citizen, including me. Have you ever rebutted that?

Casper
08-24-14, 01:07 AM
As soon as you have a bill of sale in the Name and let us say it was "paid for" in silver, it comes back to how was the silver bought? Use of FRNs or private script

You have the ability to use "the name" or not. You also have the unlimited ability to contract in the manner you choose and use just weights and measures (silver/gold). In commerce, "money" and "law" go together, so choose wisely. If you do not know how to contract using valuable consideration "without the United States" that is your problem. Many people know how and do contract that way. Just because you do not have that knowledge doesn't limit others who do. The Silver and Gold Eagle is minted at the United States mint for Pete's sake. There's your sign! Why do you think they do that? It is your option.

David Merrill
08-24-14, 02:08 PM
As I mentioned, I have a letter from the State Dept. that everybody is a 14th amendment citizen, including me. Have you ever rebutted that?


The citizen as a PERSON is an IT. That is the name of an agreement or even an office - CITIZEN.

Offer that the obvious officer, at the traffic stop for example can take the office for IT's use, if that thing (0ffice) requires it. BELOVED TEACHER OF GOD.] Remember you are talking to the OFFICER (IT), not that man or woman.

In other words Congress wrote the remedy in 1913 found at Title 12 USC §411. If you focus on the remedy Congress offered you are much closer to the remedy.

salsero
08-24-14, 05:11 PM
Now I got it. He no longer uses the name or claims the name. GOT IT! So how does he ACT as an artificial entity called an executor? In my book, it states the executor is a liable entity for an estate. Which estate is KW executor of? OK, then the principal, meaning the grantor or beneficiary [neither title matters] has shown up to make a claim on that estate because basically it is held in trust and the government can not touch the principle. Agree. Well I am kinda of agreeing with a claim similar but not for the man. I do not agree that estate is MY property or that I HOLD any equitable benefit.

We agree on the full disclosure by the court LOL. Actually we are waiting for full disclosure on Benghazi, IRS, and the Vet scandal LOL. -

I am attaching a file call Comm v Estate of Field 1876 I hope it attaches, as I am not too familiar with this format on this blog Hopefully this will give you some insight about being the executor and its liabilities. Again, please know I am not that smart to have researched all this but have been open to learn and follow through.


Yes, I agree, you still do not understand. KW is not claiming the name or using it any longer. He resigned the agency and is no longer acting as a surety for that agency. That is why they can no longer serve him with tickets or lawsuits and such. He is acting Executor, and the Principal has not shown up yet to make a claim on "its" property. He has invited the Principal to step forward and close out, but afraid of the scam being exposed, the Principal hides in darkness and does not respond. KW claims equity in his property and wants to collect it. He plans to go to court to collect on his interest and equity. If they claim he was operating a state agency all these years as an employee/officer/trustee/agent, he is asking them to provide full disclosure of the details and their interests. Haha. He is backing them in to a corner of their own Roach Motel. That ol' country boy is much smarter than you give him credit for. I bet KW is a good hunter.

salsero
08-24-14, 05:14 PM
First Caesar is not mine - let us be clear on that. "Caesar" exists and planet earth. They can say or do as they like UP TO A POINT. Let us also be clear on that. I agree THEY require consent but again they always have the option to ignore and move forward. This is why we must have proper notice in place and then by all means back them in a corner.

Again, maybe I do not explain things well. So I have to take that into consideration. I sometimes have too much in that brain that I am using that I assume sometimes everyone may understand some concepts.

Here are two website for you all to take a look at. the first is by Boris: www.iamsomedude.com Boris goes into detail explanation of the WHY and the where we are under a declared national state of emergency. We are under a type of Marshal Law or military jurisdiction. To put it simply, when there is "war on the land", the CONstution is nothing but a GD useless document or whatever my hero Geo B stated. If you start off with this idea of "military jurisdiction and all of its ramifications" I think you will have a better understanding of where the remedy lies and WHY.

Here is the other website: www.notacitizen.com

Anyway, if KW resonates with you, by all means follow this path. I will take a listen and maybe there are some similar ideas in his chat that is parallel with the Peaceful Inhabitant remedy.


Through your own voluntary consent, you have stepped in to contract with your Caesar. That status is that of a human being. Human being in law is a "man or other animal". A vertabrate animal. That concept flows from the theory of evolution. That human beings evolved without a Creator, and even from apes. That is what you volunteered in to, and then you have the audacity to say you are not (in their mindset not mine). http://adask.wordpress.com/category/man-or-other-animals/

Just saying I respect who you say you are, but just trying to help you comprehend what they say you are, and what they are treating you as. You are in a spiritual battle, and do not recognize the theatre, have no situational awareness, and have not learned from your previous engagements.

Casper
08-24-14, 10:16 PM
Now I got it. He no longer uses the name or claims the name. GOT IT! So how does he ACT as an artificial entity called an executor? In my book, it states the executor is a liable entity for an estate. Which estate is KW executor of? OK, then the principal, meaning the grantor or beneficiary [neither title matters] has shown up to make a claim on that estate because basically it is held in trust and the government can not touch the principle. Agree. Well I am kinda of agreeing with a claim similar but not for the man. I do not agree that estate is MY property or that I HOLD any equitable benefit.

I will have to admit, it took me a while to comprehend what he was doing. When I finally got it, I think what he is doing is hilarious. He knows much more about the law of agency than I do, and he opened up my eyes to service of process etc. As far as Executor, it is a capacity, not an entity, don't confuse them. And he has always paid all his own bills anyway. Its like someone who becomes the Executor of your will when you pass away, to settle your accounts and distribute proceeds. He stated he, KW, who acted as agent for the legal name for 40 years, is suing his legal name (BC name), and asking the Principal and all interested parties with any legal title, to step forward to settle the accounts. He has paid for his car, house, belongings, etc, not the Principal, so he claims his equity interest. Can't wait to see how that turns out. He also wants full disclosure of any profits from the use of the name and a full accounting. His regret was that he did not file an agents lien on his property before he resigned.

I have learned much from him, but that doesn't mean I am taking his path. I do like his Declaratory Judgment idea. That proved to him he was acting as agent for the STATE agency that is his driver license/operator license to do interstate commerce as a public officer. It also told him the remedy, to resign the agency. He is no longer surety for the legal name. That was eye opening. Take a look at the change of address form at the post office and read the front and back. That is for service of process for the agent and his registered office (home address). Same with Driver/Operator License.

Casper
08-24-14, 10:22 PM
First Caesar is not mine - let us be clear on that. "Caesar" exists and planet earth. They can say or do as they like UP TO A POINT. Let us also be clear on that. I agree THEY require consent but again they always have the option to ignore and move forward. This is why we must have proper notice in place and then by all means back them in a corner.

Respectfully, I think that Caesar mess is between your ears. Somebody sold that to you and you bought off on that. That is your reality. I can't help you there. There is a democracy/statist govco within "this state". I made the choice to not "reside" in "this state".

Casper
08-24-14, 10:35 PM
In other words Congress wrote the remedy in 1913 found at Title 12 USC §411. If you focus on the remedy Congress offered you are much closer to the remedy.

I agree that is a good remedy to focus on if you are stuck as a 14ther with no other options. In my opinion, the better remedy is to not be a 14ther. Then most of those remedies and battles on a case by case basis are not needed. I think redeeming is always a good idea, no matter if you are a 14ther or not.

Casper
08-24-14, 10:43 PM
Offer that the obvious officer, at the traffic stop for example can take the office for IT's use, if that thing (0ffice) requires it. [I would offer the State's Card inside my WSA Passport so that IT must find my PERSON inside a document that identifies me correctly by Title "David Merrill" - BELOVED TEACHER OF GOD.] Remember you are talking to the OFFICER (IT), not that man or woman.

In this case I am referring to the passport process with the State Dept., in which you must rebut and overcome their presumptions, and it took them 6 months to tell me I was a 14ther even though my Affidavit stated otherwise. I am still waiting on their response to my rebuttal. This is much different than a mere cop at a traffic stop. But I agree your comment is a good idea for those that choose to have a Driver/Operator license.

Casper
08-24-14, 11:04 PM
Here are two website for you all to take a look at. the first is by Boris: www.iamsomedude.com Boris goes into detail explanation of the WHY and the where we are under a declared national state of emergency. We are under a type of Marshal Law or military jurisdiction. To put it simply, when there is "war on the land", the CONstution is nothing but a GD useless document or whatever my hero Geo B stated. If you start off with this idea of "military jurisdiction and all of its ramifications" I think you will have a better understanding of where the remedy lies and WHY.

I am aware and have read all that stuff many years ago. Geopolitics is an interest of mine. I will ask you when the govco has ever admitted that to you in writing or verbally? Will they ever admit that to you? Why not? What would be the ramifications for them to declare that? If it is not admitted or claimed, then why are you acting on it to your own detriment? That is the question.

Under what jurisdiction is this declared emergency and martial law? Within the United States, or without the United States? Remember back when they supposedly "confiscated" gold in 1933? What "person" was that law written for, and for what jurisdiction? The people who turned in their gold did it voluntarily through their own ignorance. Seek and you shall find. Most of this is between your ears, and based on deception. You are trapped in their Roach Motel and listening to the piped in propaganda that you have to live according to that paradigm.

Have you ever heard of the CAFR?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1pRPBKJQnyU

Casper
08-25-14, 12:41 AM
when there is "war on the land", the CONstution is nothing but a GD useless document or whatever my hero Geo B stated.

My 2 cents from what I have learned. GW was right when talking about that certain small 10 square mile district and its territorries and possessions, the Constitution certainly does not apply within the United States (federal zone). Only if and when they want it to apply.

However, what you fail to realize is that the Constitution does still apply to the federal government in their dealings without the United States, and within the 50 states united. The fact it still does exist in that 50 states united zone is unquestioned by their law and their deeds. Why do you think the law is all contorted and twisted? The fact they had to invent that certain place called "this state" is proof they still have to abide by the constitution when they are acting outside of "this state" but within the exterior boundaries of one of the 50 states united. Thats where I live. The US Constitution does not apply to me, because I am not a party to it (Padelford case). However, I am a beneficiary of the Constitution of my state, which I chose the one prior to the Civil War and ratified by the people. It guarantees me a Republican form of governmnet, and all power is inherent in the people. It's great here, you should join me and the others. The NDAA, Patriot Act, Real ID Act, Obamacare, Social Security, Title 26, are all not applicable here. I know because I checked for the volume, date, and page number for the implementing regulation published in the Federal Register for out in the 50 states united. None, nada, zilch.

As further proof, I have mailed a letter with a 3 cent stamp without the United States (non-domestic), and received one as well. You see, the constitution provided for a general post office, and it still exists today. However you probably have never known of it or used it. You probably have only used the United States Postal Service, a quasi-corporation govco agency. I had to train the local postal service personnel that I could do that. They were shocked at first.

pumpkin
08-25-14, 12:12 PM
Casper, I have read some of your posts, and I agree. The 14th was historically for the freed slaves with no rights. It was a way for them to obtain some rights, by being 'subject to'. How did you undo your consent? I would think recording the fact with the county would be a good start. Did you record anything with the Secretary of State of The United States also?

salsero
08-25-14, 12:30 PM
This I agree partially. The remedy of 12 USC 411 is for person. However, this does not negate the fact that WE, as man still have responsibilities "to do the best we can" and not add or create any harm, public or otherwise. I see no alternative that man HAS NO OPTION but to do commerce in today's world unless he wants to live in the mountains, island or amazon. Therefore, when man receives a check or payment in the name that is owned by the state, it truly is "money" he USES. The private script is not his nor the Name. His only option to endorse the back of that check is something like: Deposited for credit on account or exchanged for non-negotiable FRNs of face value. One can only do the best he can.


I agree that is a good remedy to focus on if you are stuck as a 14ther with no other options. In my opinion, the better remedy is to not be a 14ther. Then most of those remedies and battles on a case by case basis are not needed. I think redeeming is always a good idea, no matter if you are a 14ther or not.

salsero
08-25-14, 12:33 PM
Let us remember that affidavits are for "persons", notices are for/from man.


In this case I am referring to the passport process with the State Dept., in which you must rebut and overcome their presumptions, and it took them 6 months to tell me I was a 14ther even though my Affidavit stated otherwise. I am still waiting on their response to my rebuttal. This is much different than a mere cop at a traffic stop. But I agree your comment is a good idea for those that choose to have a Driver/Operator license.

salsero
08-25-14, 12:48 PM
Thus far 9 international and/or national trustees have not responded. I did the three notices, as recorded in public records. Therefore a contract exists, with the name that I use, by silent assent. This works on defense, as they can not RISK having their fraud exposed.

The jurisdiction is only ONE now, put simply - you the citizen are surety, we the elite are the boss. You have consented your soul away to the devil.

I do not know how you were able to look at the Boris website years ago, since it is up 6 months or so.


I am aware and have read all that stuff many years ago. Geopolitics is an interest of mine. I will ask you when the govco has ever admitted that to you in writing or verbally? Will they ever admit that to you? Why not? What would be the ramifications for them to declare that? If it is not admitted or claimed, then why are you acting on it to your own detriment? That is the question.

Under what jurisdiction is this declared emergency and martial law? Within the United States, or without the United States? Remember back when they supposedly "confiscated" gold in 1933? What "person" was that law written for, and for what jurisdiction? The people who turned in their gold did it voluntarily through their own ignorance. Seek and you shall find. Most of this is between your ears, and based on deception. You are trapped in their Roach Motel and listening to the piped in propaganda that you have to live according to that paradigm.

Have you ever heard of the CAFR?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1pRPBKJQnyU

salsero
08-25-14, 01:07 PM
I am glad he is acting in the capacity of the executor and not as an entity. Yes, we will have to see how this all works out. I guess you did not read the case law I attached. It is going to be interesting to see once he obtains his equity interest, how this works out in the end. As executor in the capacity, I do not see how he is going to get a full accounting. As executor who by definition is liable for the matters of the estate, he can obtain this info. And once provided and agreed upon, as the liable executor, he will need to account thereof and pay whatever taxes may be due.

My thinking that resonates well with me, separates man and God. All paper [fiction] belongs man and everything real belongs to God. I can either "claim my equitable interest in paper" or I can claim my Natural Inherent Rights, unlimited provided freely from my Father, to use, control, possess, and have full disposal rights over the usufruct.

For me, the answer is let them have their paper and let them take care of their property THAT I HAVE EXLCUSIVE USE. Now are they doing this today? In defense, this is working well. In offense, there is no in force cure, but it is NOW being worked on. I am able to use their DL, passport, etc without liability to me, a man.


I will have to admit, it took me a while to comprehend what he was doing. When I finally got it, I think what he is doing is hilarious. He knows much more about the law of agency than I do, and he opened up my eyes to service of process etc. As far as Executor, it is a capacity, not an entity, don't confuse them. And he has always paid all his own bills anyway. Its like someone who becomes the Executor of your will when you pass away, to settle your accounts and distribute proceeds. He stated he, KW, who acted as agent for the legal name for 40 years, is suing his legal name (BC name), and asking the Principal and all interested parties with any legal title, to step forward to settle the accounts. He has paid for his car, house, belongings, etc, not the Principal, so he claims his equity interest. Can't wait to see how that turns out. He also wants full disclosure of any profits from the use of the name and a full accounting. His regret was that he did not file an agents lien on his property before he resigned.

I have learned much from him, but that doesn't mean I am taking his path. I do like his Declaratory Judgment idea. That proved to him he was acting as agent for the STATE agency that is his driver license/operator license to do interstate commerce as a public officer. It also told him the remedy, to resign the agency. He is no longer surety for the legal name. That was eye opening. Take a look at the change of address form at the post office and read the front and back. That is for service of process for the agent and his registered office (home address). Same with Driver/Operator License.

doug555
09-16-14, 11:54 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tznokGS9FVk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tznokGS9FVk)

Kurt K - The Birth Certificate

I like Kurt's diagram of paralleling real with fiction events leading to the BC Estate... Makes it easier to see the "counterfeiting" of fiction world...

walter
09-17-14, 06:40 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tznokGS9FVk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tznokGS9FVk)

Kurt K - The Birth Certificate

I like Kurt's diagram of paralleling real with fiction events leading to the BC Estate... Makes it easier to see the "counterfeiting" of fiction world...

Thanks for posting the link doug555.
It was nicely laid out.

palani
09-20-14, 12:03 AM
A birth certificate is a passport to the benefits and obligations of a political entity. The surname is entirely commercial. The city shown (or county or township) is the political subdivision of the state. The body politic of a county are cities, villages and townships. There are no people in any county yet a county is a subdivision of the state. The state is a state capital ... a city .. to which territory is attached. The birth certificate then is a political franchise in its own right yet does not make you a member of a county because 1) again , no people in any county and 2) like joins with like ... the living do not join with legal fictions such as political subdivisions are.

From these details you may craft your own remedy.

Christopher
09-21-14, 11:28 PM
what about how COLB used to be on some type security paper, but now when people go get one it is on the bank note type paper. The old copies have a raised seal from the court while the newer copies on the bond paper have the seals pre printed on the paper and the new ones also have a cusip number on the bank note paper. My old one i have does not have a cusip number like the newer ones I have do.

Why would they change the process? It has to mean something to switch from a copy certified and embossed to a bank note paper with seals already on the paper. And also the ones I have that are no the bank note paper have a sentence at the bottom where it talks about being true and correct in half normal type, while the rest of the sentence is in all capital letters. Why would they have the last half the sentence written in all capitals?

MrZu
09-23-14, 06:42 AM
I find K.W. quite knowledgeable and want to be able to contact him hoping he might help me with my situation.
Also i was once able to access some of the recordings but the next day i was not allowed to with the server. Any one know why?

roguesupport
09-29-14, 01:40 PM
Please do not use the name "John Scott Duncan" for attribution. Use the name Scott Duncan, or Rogue Support for attribution for anything in THE TENDER FOR LAW.

This is NOT a quote from "John Scott Duncan"



" BIRTH CERTIFICATE is a PUBLIC RECORD that a CROWN ORGANIZATION was ORGANIZED on that date."

words from john scott duncan

MrZu
10-20-14, 06:05 AM
Is there a way for me to connect with K.W.?

David Merrill
10-24-14, 09:45 AM
Is there a way for me to connect with K.W.?

You might try PM?

judgedredd
12-19-14, 12:11 AM
Here is the birth certificate of someone in my family that I broke down so that one can see what is going on. The important part is the word 'informant' at the top of column 7. There is only one proper definition - in any law dictionary.

2085

David Merrill
12-19-14, 01:30 AM
Here is the birth certificate of someone in my family that I broke down so that one can see what is going on. The important part is the word 'informant' at the top of column 7. There is only one proper definition - in any law dictionary.

2085

Thanks for the image. It might be easier to read the print this way (http://imageshack.com/a/img909/643/K63Uoq.jpg).

allodial
12-19-14, 06:48 PM
I believe part of the fuss and run-around with birth certificates is that #1 its a charter document or evidence of a charter #2 the real issue is the significance of a charter or royal warrant. I'm not sure what is fraudulent about the birth certificate. The MOTHER ENTITY and the FATHER ENTITY created a joint venture or spinoff in such and such a jurisdiction called "{NAME OF CHILD} and presumingly knowingly and willingly introduced the information into a specific register. If you try to claim copyright to a name on a birth certificate in say Australia or New Zealand they will likely tell you quite frankly that the name is their property. That its their property is informative.

Note that the registrar is the registrar of births, deaths *and* marriages. A birth certificate is most always testimony of the record keeper of an entry's existence. The consequence or significance of the entry is a separate matter from which going on and about birth certificate itself might be a distraction. The certificate is *evidence of* something.

P.S. It is more likely that they created the office (or berth) entered into by the 'child' with help of 'parents'. Also being a subject of a king or queen might be a type of servitude. If someone enters into a type of servitude that leads to say, 'civil death' then perhaps the event is a birth (or entry into a berth) and a death at the same time? Minus the extreme emotionalism it might be easier to see.


cursive (adj.) 1784, from French cursif (18c.), from Medieval Latin cursivus "running," from Latin cursus "a running," from past participle of currere "to run" (see current (adj.)). The notion is of "written with a running hand" (without raising the pen), originally as opposed to the older uncial hand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncial_script).


PERSON as a corporation that can sue or be sued...


Ergo the True Name as a class action.

I suspect that if all the particulars of a birth certificate and such were known, it might not be all that useful apart from knowing oneself.

george
02-06-15, 06:01 AM
great thread! thanks everyone! I am eating up (listening to) the stuff from KW here at the moment in my media player.

I also want to add kurt kallenbach's stuff to the mix here as I havnt seen it mentioned.



The Birth Certificate “person” is a CATHOLIC VESTMENT or Holy Orders delivered by tradition! It is an official CAPACITY/GARMENT worn by all those holding CATHOLIC OFFICE.

more about that can be found here: https://trustandcontract.wordpress.com/

Michael Joseph
02-06-15, 03:54 PM
great thread! thanks everyone! I am eating up (listening to) the stuff from KW here at the moment in my media player.

I also want to add kurt kallenbach's stuff to the mix here as I havnt seen it mentioned.




more about that can be found here: https://trustandcontract.wordpress.com/

This is just the mystery religions playing out in the worship of Diana. The silversmiths [the silver chord part] have been about their Craft for a long time now.

Act 19:24 For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, which made silver shrines for Diana, brought no small gain unto the craftsmen;

Act 19:25 Whom he called together with the workmen of like occupation, and said, Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our wealth.

Act 19:26 Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands:

Commentary: Religion is an Idol.

Act 19:27 So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.

Act 19:28 And when they heard these sayings, they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.

Commentary: By Diana insert any name for any Religion today - by Ephesians is meant the entire world. You did see that great whore riding the beast at the 2015 Superbowl 1/2 time. False Religion - giving life to the beast system - by and thru the people and all their masks - person.


But I have peace in Elijah who in the Power of Yehovah, climbed the mountain and withstood the 450 priests [lawyers]. He asked them "perhaps Baal is taking a bathroom break?" Where is he?

1Ki 18:27 And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.

========

Thank you for this study but I find it to be made within the framework of a larger frame. Therefore, there is no remedy.

Remedy is made by implied and expressed trust. Declare thyself and go in and begin to possess. Remedy is not expressed in learning how to use tools that someone else fashioned FOR YOU.

In the end the question must be asked: What is it that I want? Is it to have the use of more money? Is that the remedy I seek? Is it to have access to Estates? If that is what you seek then, you have no remedy at all for Estates are DERIVED from Property. Is it to have dominion? Well if that is what you seek, then you can just stop listening to the guru's because that is NOT what they are teaching.

They teach how you can access some Estate UNDER the dominion of a higher claim. Therefore making that one subject - yet still - to the one who established said claim. Layers donkey, ONIONS have layers.

The system is predicated upon greed - I want. It is based upon the mindset of what can I get. The "it's mine" crowd.

I mean C'mon folks think about it - do you really think that a system built upon signing some chit here and there to extinguish debt is love based? That is a "get" system. Love is based in giving. The former is "self love" - symbolized by a black sun and a red moon.

Birth Certificates - what a joke. A certificate of trust is issued upon a class of beneficiaries. Trust Law folks - it gives the beneficiary an interest in the Estate [established in Claim by another - framing remember] but it does NOT give the beneficiary access to the management and control over the Trust Property. Where did you establish a claim? The only claim most ever get around making are claims in Estates that may or may not be granted according to the laws that govern the Estate. To create the Estate and have dominion over it is so far from their consciousness that the only office left for those who would claim against the Will is that of Constructive Trustee. The MAKER of the false claim has the liability for his SIN. For how can the benefits of trust flow out upon the receiver and the receiver not be obligated upon certain terms? And now the beneficiary thinks to refuse his/her obligations by making false claims - this is the very definition of DISHONOR. And therefore let him pay for his own sin! Trustee de son Tort.

Those who read the Scriptures have you not understood?

Luke 11:46 And He said, "Woe unto you also, ye Lawyers! for ye heavy laden men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch gently not the burdens with one of your fingers.

You think the two choices placed before you are your way out? Hardly. You think to gain mastery over an Estate in which you hold neither the legal or the equitable title to the property? For there is a claim on the Soul, the Estate and all Lands - the triple crown. Can you spot the falseness in the Claim which doled out the three Testamentary Trusts?

The two swords are really in the hand of one entity - it only appears to be two swords until you begin to see that the governments [a legal fiction] bear in their symbology the laurel wreath - canon law. Therefore we are back to Baal worship - mystery religion.

I had a friend who went to Mexico to an U.S. embassy and walked in with the papers referencing the ACCOUNT in the NAME, [Number of the Name] and my friend told the attendant he wanted to annul HIS United States citizenship. The response was simple "stop doing the acts that make you a citizen". Can you hear that?

Are you so confused that you actually think a piece of paper makes you anything? If I trust you then my deeds will reflect my trust. This is just so simple. If I have no trust then I am going to disappear off the radar screen. An account is open, but there is nothing to give account. It was not mine - it was never mine - it will never be mine. The trustees created a B.I.C. which evidences an interest in trust but it is up to the trustees to administrate the Trust Business.

The world is run on Trust Law. There are only two trusts that matter in this world and both are religious. For the political is just an outgrowth of the religious for there can be no political absent virtues and morals. It is easy to see where your trust lies - I just look to see what you cling to. Meaning your expressions in signature and your deeds [actions].

A great tree has been erected and many take shadow under its leaves - but it is a false tree. What makes you think that this is the only tree? Perhaps conditioning? Perhaps you might be a new planting? Maybe? If you are satisfied to undertake within and under the three city-state worldwide control matrix [vatican city, city of washington, and city of london] then learn the rules. Better get reading - you have a lot to learn.

It is better to give than receive. For the servant is greatest. up is down, yes? Good is called bad and wicked good. What a Land of Confusion - and not enough love to go around.

=========

Can't you hear the "witch language" in the music - the woman in red is always addressed - She will give you your hearts desires - Lucifer is the end game. He/She wears many masks - welcome to the theatre. Now take your seat and Choose ye this day whom ye shall worship. Will it be the two choices placed before your eyes Lucifer vs. Satan - or perhaps you will find the "straight and narrow gate" - that which your eyes don't perceive. Ask yourself "who established the choices" and "what is the agenda".

Has your life been a pre-arranged set of false choices? Delivered up before you so that you might choose one - absent thinking - you seize on what is before your eyes of perception - the twin actors dancing for you - choose me, no choose me. Which one will you choose? The Juggler or the Clown - you never understood that it ain't no good - you let other people get your kicks for you.

Do you have the courage to choose neither? Or does fear grip you into non-action - which is to say consent.


Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of blood and flesh, Himself also likewise took part of flesh and blood.....

Heb 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were through all their lifetime subject to bondage.


Hebrews 2:15 references a straight path - The Way. Unperceived because it is not offered up as a viable choice. Instead [pick your religion] the mysteries of Nimrod/Semiramis/Tammuz are taught - false Jesus. Who can find The Way? Well first one must deny the choices placed before him as the only available solutions. Why does all the world see only a man? I guess men are like that - conditioned beasts - to only react to that which they perceive by and thru their Central Nervous System - the Serpent that went down into the MIDST of the Garden. Man's rationale.

Consider yet again - Has your life been a pre-arranged set of false choices?

Your Estate huh? Perhaps you have volunteered your energy in support of that which hates you? Have you considered the twin pillars of Hegel? But oh how those Onions and Garlics can be so delicious to the flesh -

If I must choose - I pick neither. What do you choose?

Said another way - what is my intent of my deed? Is it self centered - is it in faith - or is it in Love [service and charity].

Let it be love.

Regards,
Michael Joseph

Chex
02-06-15, 04:59 PM
Thanks for this verse MJ. (http://www.godvine.com/bible/category/money)

Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.

Michael Joseph
02-06-15, 05:58 PM
Thanks for this verse MJ. (http://www.godvine.com/bible/category/money)

Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.

Check this one out...from the vault...

U.S. Supreme Court
Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983)

Briscoe v. LaHue
No. 81-1404
Argued November 9, 1982
Decided March 7, 1983
460 U.S. 325

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

Held: Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1976 ed., Supp. V) does not authorize a convicted state defendant to assert a claim for damages against a police officer for giving perjured testimony at the defendant's criminal trial. Pp. 460 U. S. 329-346.

(a) The common law provided absolute immunity from subsequent damages liability for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process. Section 1983 does not authorize a damages claim against private witnesses. Similarly, judges, Pierson v. Ray,386 U. S. 547, and prosecutors, Imbler v. Pachtman,424 U. S. 409, may not be held liable for damages under § 1983 for the performance of their respective duties in judicial proceedings. When a police officer appears as a witness, he may reasonably be viewed as acting like any witness sworn to tell the truth, in which event he can make a strong claim to witness immunity. Alternatively, he may be regarded as an official performing a critical role in the judicial process, in which event he may seek the benefit afforded to other governmental participants in the same proceeding. Nothing in § 1983's language suggests that a police officer witness belongs in a narrow, special category lacking protection against damages suits. Pp. 460 U. S. 329-336.

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

Cops don't lie - never seen one lie yet. And yet EVEN STILL folks place their trust in this house of death. What a farce. Slaves have no say so in their masters affairs. The creation is not greater than the Creator. It really is just that simple. Subjects need licenses or permission to marry. Which is to say to Contract.


Still want shade under that tree?

Christ is the ONLY way out. Thus curse which we live under has been placed in totality upon Christ. This is foretold and signaled by Moses raising up the brazen serpent in the wilderness -

Num 21:8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.


"The Way" is the straight and narrow path. It has nothing to do with religion. Nevertheless men continue to feed a system that hates them. Furthermore, the government being in and of itself a political system [a legal personality - a fiction] can only understand fictions. Yet men as brute beasts continue to lay down and die before the Alter of Baal in worship of that which they cannot obtain. So they seek to understand the Statutes, Laws and Commandments to appease their rulers - maybe that will be the way out - NOPE. Just more oppression.

One seeking to put me in a box the other day called me a Jew. I literally spit out my drink I was laughing so hard. How weak is the mind of man - confining, defining....denying the Christ. In Christ am I michael joseph.

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

quoting the writings of E. Swedenborg as follows:


And the serpent was more subtle than any wild animal of the field which Yehovah God had made; and he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?


By the "serpent" is here meant the sensuous part of man in which he trusts; by the "wild animal of the field," here, as before, every affection of the external man; by the "woman," man‘s self-centered love and his love for the world [Own]; by the serpent’s saying, "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree?" that they began to doubt. The subject here treated of is the third posterity of the Most Ancient Church, which began not to believe in things revealed unless they saw and felt that they were so. Their first state, that it was one of doubt.

The most ancient people did not compare all things in man to beasts and birds, but so denominated them; and this their customary manner of speaking remained even in the Ancient Church after the flood, and was preserved among the prophets. The sensuous things in man they called "serpents," because as serpents live close to the earth, so sensuous things are those next the body. Hence also reasonings concerning the mysteries of faith, founded on the evidence of the senses, were called by them the "poison of a serpent," and the reasoners themselves "serpents;" and because such persons reason much from sensuous, that is, from visible things (such as are things terrestrial, corporeal, mundane, and natural), it is said that "the serpent was more subtle than any wild animal of the field."

[2] And so in David, speaking of those who seduce man by reasonings:--

They sharpen their tongue like a serpent; the poison of the asp is under their lips (Ps. 140:3).

And again:--

They go astray from the womb, speaking a lie. Their poison is like the poison of a serpent, like the deaf poisonous asp that stoppeth her ear, that she may not hear the voice of the mutterers, of a wise one that charmeth charms (sociantis sodalitia ) (Ps. 58:3-6).

Reasonings that are of such a character that the men will not even hear what a wise one says, or the voice of the wise, are here called the "poison of a serpent." Hence it became a proverb among the ancients, that "The serpent stoppeth the ear."

In Amos:--
As if a man came into a house, and leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him. Shall not the day of Jehovah be darkness and not light? even thick darkness, and no brightness in it? (Amos 5:19, 20).

The "hand on the wall" means self-derived power, and trust in sensuous things, whence comes the blindness which is here described.

[3] In Jeremiah:--
The voice of Egypt shall go like a serpent, for they shall go in strength, and shall come to her with axes as hewers of wood. They shall cut down her forest, saith Jehovah, because it will not be searched, for they are multiplied more than the locust, and are innumerable. The daughter of Egypt is put to shame, she shall be delivered into the hand of the people of the north (Jeremiah 46:22-24).

"Egypt" denotes reasoning about Divine things from sensuous things and memory-knowledges (scientifica). Such reasonings are called the "voice of a serpent;" and the blindness thereby occasioned, the "people of the north." In Job:--

He shall suck the poison of asps; the viper‘s tongue shall slay him. He shall not see the brooks, the flowing rivers of honey and butter (Job 20:16, 17).

"Rivers of honey and butter" are things spiritual and celestial, which cannot be seen by mere reasoners; reasonings are called the "poison of the asp" and the "viper’s tongue." See more respecting the serpent below, at (verses 14 and 15).

In ancient times those were called "serpents" who had more confidence in sensuous things than in revealed ones. But it is still worse at the present day, for now there are persons who not only disbelieve everything they cannot see and feel, but who also confirm themselves in such incredulity by knowledges (scientifica) unknown to the ancients, and thus occasion in themselves a far greater degree of blindness. In order that it may be known how those blind themselves, so as afterwards to see and hear nothing, who form their conclusions concerning heavenly matters from the things of sense, of memory-knowledge, and of philosophy, and who are not only "deaf serpents," but also the "flying serpents" frequently spoken of in the Word, which are much more pernicious, we will take as an example what they believe about the spirit.

[2] The sensuous man, or he who only believes on the evidence of his senses, denies the existence of the spirit because he cannot see it, saying, "It is nothing because I do not feel it: that which I see and touch I know exists." The man of memory-knowledge (scientificus), or he who forms his conclusions from memory-knowledges (scientiae), says, What is the spirit, except perhaps vapor or heat, or some other entity of his science, that presently vanishes into thin air? have not the animals also a body, senses, and something analogous to reason? and yet it is asserted that these will die, while the "spirit of man" will live. Thus they deny the existence of the spirit.

[3] Philosophers also, who would be more acute than the rest of mankind, speak of the spirit in terms which they themselves do not understand, for they dispute about them, contending that not a single expression is applicable to the spirit which derives anything from what is material, organic, or extended; thus they so abstract it from their ideas that it vanishes from them, and becomes nothing. The more sane however assert that the spirit is thought; but in their reasonings about thought, in consequence of separating from it all substantiality, they at last conclude that it must vanish away when the body expires. Thus all who reason from the things of sense, of memory-knowledge, and of philosophy, deny the existence of the spirit, and therefore believe nothing of what is said about the spirit and spiritual things. Not so the simple in heart: if these are questioned about the existence of spirit, they say they know it exists, because the Lord has said that they will live after death; thus instead of extinguishing their rational, they vivify it by the Word of the Lord.

george
02-06-15, 07:13 PM
pretty interesting snake interpretation MJ! you sure have alot to say about things though ;-)

I have family who call dragonflys "snake doctors" I asked why but they dont know, they have just always called them that. its a mystery.

Im finding what Kurt has been saying about this subject fascinating. a lot of it seems to fit nicely into this puzzle but he's just another man with alot to say. however, I do think what he presents is worth further investigation.

I think I see what your saying though. seems like "blind faith" sometimes I have it without even thinking but when I try and actually use it, (this one anyway) doesnt work. hard to explain but beyond ordinary thought. it also seems to work against "me" sometimes (without thinking) so its not something to take lightly this "realm" but it seemed to work much better as a child. (literal, when very young age)

actually, its always active but theres that whole war going on too so we all deal with it differently.

Michael Joseph
02-06-15, 07:53 PM
pretty interesting snake interpretation MJ! you sure have alot to say about things though ;-)

I have family who call dragonflys "snake doctors" I asked why but they dont know, they have just always called them that. its a mystery.

Im finding what Kurt has been saying about this subject fascinating. a lot of it seems to fit nicely into this puzzle but he's just another man with alot to say. however, I do think what he presents is worth further investigation.

I think I see what your saying though. seems like "blind faith" sometimes I have it without even thinking but when I try and actually use it, (this one anyway) doesnt work. hard to explain but beyond ordinary thought. it also seems to work against "me" sometimes (without thinking) so its not something to take lightly this "realm" but it seemed to work much better as a child. (literal, when very young age)

actually, its always active but theres that whole war going on too so we all deal with it differently.

We each have a path to walk. This is what amuses me concerning the modern church - they actually think they can save. Hilarious if it wasn't so sad. These are so self-centered they actually boast that they can get the saving done. Absurd.


He breathed on them and said, Receive ye the Holy Spirit (John 20:22).


Gen 2:15 And Yehovah God took the man, and put him in the garden of Eden, to till it and take care of it.

By the "garden of Eden" are signified all things of the celestial man, as described; by to "till it and take care of it," is signified that it is permitted him to enjoy all these things, but not to possess them as his own, because they are the Lord’s. [Usufructuary - a husbandman]

The celestial man acknowledges, because he perceives, that all things both in general and in particular are the Lord‘s. The spiritual man does indeed acknowledge the same, but with the mouth, because he has learned it from the Word. The worldly and corporeal man neither acknowledges nor admits it; but whatever he has he calls his own, and imagines that were be to lose it, he would altogether perish.

That wisdom, intelligence, reason, and knowledge (scientia), are not of man, but of the Lord, is very evident from all that the Lord taught; as in Matthew, where the Lord compares Himself to a householder, who planted a vineyard, and hedged it round, and let it out to husbandmen (Matthew 21:33); and in John:--

The Spirit of truth shall guide you into all truth; for He shall not speak of Himself, but what things soever He shall hear, He shall speak; He shall glorify Me, for He shall receive of Mine, and shall declare it unto you (John 16:13, 14).

And in another place:--

A man can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven (John 3:27).

=====

Yes. A child - innocence. A child can walk naked without shame. A child is welcome in the Kingdom of God. We turn away from God and create fig leaves to cover or hid our indiscretions. We can no longer stand before perfect love and peace. Thus Adam/Eve hid themselves from Yehovah Elohim.

Before: Gen 2:25 And they were both naked, the man [Adam] and his wife, and were not ashamed.

After: Gen 3:10 And he said, "I heard Thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself."

shikamaru
02-07-15, 04:33 PM
Birth certificate .... reification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification) ...

I suspect there are occult roots to the birth certificate or its based on such principles.

george
02-07-15, 08:14 PM
I also want to add kurt kallenbach's stuff to the mix here as I havnt seen it mentioned.


more about that can be found here: https://trustandcontract.wordpress.com/

I dont know how I missed it but Doug555 did previously mention Kurt K. my bad. I may have got KK & KW mixed up. Ive been listening and reading alot from these two lately as it seems they are both on the right track and not holding out on us. I get the feeling many of the others very much are holding out quite a bit but probably they have good reason for doing so.


yes, reification! thanks shikamaru. I have the same suspicions but didnt have the word for it. my spellchecker is not familiar with it either LOL

what Im wrestling with now is finding a way to verify our suspicions. I like the process KW suggests using declaratory judgments but that only goes so far. from what Ive learned about it so far it is a fairly safe method to use also. I might follow his bread crumbs to get familiar with actually "filing"

R4C & LOR is where I would like to go also but something hasnt clicked for me on those fronts just yet but I must give DM credit because he was the most helpful to me in learning who I am.

thanks

JohnnyCash
02-07-15, 09:17 PM
Is there an unwritten rule that we must abbreviate KW's (Kurt Warner) name?

stoneFree
02-08-15, 11:52 PM
Anyone know what a Kentucky Colonel is?
And does it have anything to do with KFC?

2250

JohnnyCash
02-09-15, 02:27 AM
No, but I can see your reflection in the picture. Made me so hangry I jumped in the smart car 'n went to the drive thru window.

Clown: mmm yeah, I'd like an aspergers with cheese, some small fries for my pants, and a slap in the face with cold mackerel.

Idjit wearing a headset: You want a drink with that?

Clown: I'd like a drink before all that. You got any single malt scotch?

Idjit: No, we only have sodas and rat poison.

Clown: I see. Do you know where the nearest MickeyD's is?

Idjit: No sir. You do know you're at the Wells Fargo drive-up teller window, right?

Clown: Well... yeah. So what's your point?

george
02-09-15, 03:41 AM
Anyone know what a Kentucky Colonel is?
And does it have anything to do with KFC?

2250

no Idea but there seems to be alot of them: http://kycolonels.org/famous-colonels/


didnt see Niki Hayden (former motoGP World Champ AKA "The Kentucky Kid") listed so how good can it be?

JohnnyCash
02-09-15, 04:03 AM
Says that Colonel Sanders was commissioned a "Kentucky Colonel" by the governor in 1935. Whether it's a secret society or not I can't say. Perhaps they guard his secret recipe of eleven herbs and spices that comprise the unique taste of his chicken.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel_Sanders

stoneFree
02-09-15, 08:49 PM
Thanks guys. That's what I was after. Certificate was displayed on his wall like he was proud of it and I snapped a picture. KENTUCKY COLONELS does look like a Mason organization. Supporting the Bankster's agenda...

1933 Kentucky Colonels Will Rogers, Clark Gable, Mae West, Eddie Cantor and others produced “Parade of Kentucky Colonels” broadcast nationally on CBS radio. The “variety show” program’s purpose was to promote President Roosevelt’s National Recovery Act, part of the President’s New Deal Program.http://kycolonels.org/timeline/

And this bit about Colonel Sanders is funny...
His legal career ended after he got engaged in a courtroom brawl with his own client. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel_Sanders

edward222
04-24-15, 10:43 AM
Birth Certificate....

Certificate of your birth which means,
the evidence that you were born.

If you dont have one,
let me ask you this,
when was your birth day?

Michael Joseph
04-24-15, 01:50 PM
Birth Certificate....

Certificate of your birth which means,
the evidence that you were born.

If you dont have one,
let me ask you this,
when was your birth day?

Your question begs a framework of philosophy - that which is past, present and future is statistical - an average man. May as well number him now. But man is never average. It is like searching for the average size rock in a creek bed. Lets say the mean is 100 grams, well you might go your whole life and never find the average rock. Man is not average man is ever changing. But the man in mass society becomes a cog in the machine subject to those who keep the machine running. Man consents to be a member of said society else he would do what was needed to remove himself from a presumption.

But a presumption upheld is no longer a presumption. Therefore in choice man chooses to become that number whereof he argues concerning codes that govern the machine.

We were born before the wind - before matter came to be - the thought preceded that which is now. The time is now to throw the Jonah within you overboard! For any certificate begs a certificate giver [grantor]. Begging the question, did that certificate come with any obligations?

Begging the question: Is this the first time around the wheel? I don't know and religion can't help either. In fact if one were to cut open my skull to examine my brain I highly doubt they would ever find any of the thoughts which once delighted and tormented me in this life. Thoughts such as "when was I born" cannot be found in space or time. For begging the philosopher I asked "wherein this room can my thoughts be found?"

Man is nothing without consciousness. Nevertheless the men in the Ship will always row row row in order to bring the ship to shore safely - which is to say - my lower conscious mind will always seek to rule the house. My mom and dad informed me of the day of my birth into this world. No birth certificate can replace their word.

My word assures my deeds. Consider now the term "Sacred Honor". Yet many will argue within the shell framed nicely as their prison. Yet I find God is not an American - or any respecter of persons. Certificates are fences! Some have made them into prison walls.

Regards,
Michael Joseph

Sealhunter31
04-24-15, 03:22 PM
To Man: "Know thyself, and you shall know the Universe."

ag maniac
04-24-15, 03:49 PM
Birth Certificate....

Certificate of your birth which means,
the evidence that you were born.

If you dont have one,
let me ask you this,
when was your birth day?

Tell me edward, what evidence have you that the birth certificate identifies you?

And other questions for you....when was the birth of the birth certificate? ....and for what purposes?

walter
04-24-15, 06:00 PM
Tell me edward, what evidence have you that the birth certificate identifies you?

And other questions for you....when was the birth of the birth certificate? ....and for what purposes?

The evidence that edward has is his testimony.
Ever watch CSI shows on the TV?
Do they ever go to trial? No.
The defendant always waves his rights to remain silent and testifies.
No court is ever needed for judgement, just the sentencing.

Edward, have you ever seen anyone get asked for ID in court?
No right?
Have you ever seen anyone answer to the NAME on the BC in court?
Why yes, all the time. Right?

What happened there?

Did someone stand up as surety for government property?
Did someone take an "assignment" that was created by another entity and claim it as theirs?
Was something pledged?
Third party contracts.

The birth certificate grants you judicial rights created by man by legislation.
These rights can and will be removed to suit the flavour of the day.
You are walking around placing value and equity in a NAME that your mom and dad did not give you?
Them you claim the property as yours.
Them you defend the claim.
What a good "surety" you turned out to be.

When one starts to claim rights they better know what rights they are trying to claim.
You claim the wrong one and you grant jurisdiction.

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

shikamaru
04-26-15, 04:29 PM
Birth Certificate....

Certificate of your birth which means,
the evidence that you were born.

If you dont have one,
let me ask you this,
when was your birth day?

Who requires the evidence? Evidence for whom?
Does the God of creation and nature require a birth certificate?

A birth certificate is evidence of incorporation into a corporately organized society.

It is the beginning of the creation of an account in which to assess credits and debits across multiple sub-systems of that corporately organized society.

This corporately organized society happens to be the state.

xparte
04-27-15, 12:35 PM
When a warrant is issued for the accused ? The NAME on that certificate indicates a person only a person arrests a person or paper vs paper. Fighting a warrant for ones arrest is declining any offer to settle a charge that is on paper 72hrs in jail seems to be the only way any man using his true name can properly excuse a person from all charges No one claims it the NAME after 72hrs a Man is resurrected its biblical as hell the book the hook Christ fought tax and trust laws his spirit of fairness with protest to being a DECEDENT was 72hrs rise from the paper birth and death certificates are written on stone visit a grave yard this is what they own?

walter
04-28-15, 01:01 AM
Another point of interest.

The Name on the BC is ...DOE JOHN JR.
But when you order one up it gets sent to ...JOHN DOE
Two different persons. Which one are you?

Chex
04-28-15, 04:35 PM
"Ma'am, you must not understand, I am not MARTIN FISHER and that paper does not have my name on it, I cannot accept it. On and for the record, do you have the right to tell me who I am?" (http://www.rense.com/general85/form.htm)

In any court of law (if there is one) how do you go about telling the judge and you have no jurisdiction over me? Oh you say you do prove it.

Michael Joseph
04-28-15, 10:16 PM
"Ma'am, you must not understand, I am not MARTIN FISHER and that paper does not have my name on it, I cannot accept it. On and for the record, do you have the right to tell me who I am?" (http://www.rense.com/general85/form.htm)

In any court of law (if there is one) how do you go about telling the judge and you have no jurisdiction over me? Oh you say you do prove it.

It seems we keep coming back to this concern. An estate begs an actor in and for it. Look up CHARGE in John Bouvier. Then look up LEGAL. Then observe trustee de son tort - constructive trustee.

If you are not answering in and for that name which you are authorized to answer to, then you are practicing law without license in a private law boundary.

Replace JOHN DOE with the FRIENDLY TRUST COMPANY. If you are trustee then you are authorized to speak for the trust, if not and no trustee has appeared then you had best be a licensed attorney.

Chex
04-29-15, 11:19 AM
I completely agree with you MJ, you had me did up some of my old notes. (no pun intended)

Please understand that EVERY time you get paid with PROMISSORY NOTES, such as FRNs, there IS A new mini TRUST formed at that moment, as you HAVE NOT received a full payment.

Funds are being held or exchanged in an account. “in trust”.

If you got paid with silver or GOLD MONEY, then you would receive payment in FULL, and there would be NO TRUST necessary.

So if you get paid with FRNs, which are not redeemable in anything real, like the reserves the central banks have like gold (money), then you're a GRANTOR/DONOR of that trust, and as such should have authority to instruct the trustee (Fed Reserve or the U.S. corporation A,B,C (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002)) to SETTLE any public debts that the JOHN DOE trust has or develops.

That's how A4V works in theory, but that rarely works alone, because some status paperwork and operation understanding are needed first, to rebut their presumption that you are making false claims to “the name” vs. operating properly as agent or executor of that estate officially and with competence.

SOMEONE else gets the REAL GOLD money that you earned by your labor, so they must give you something in return.

Since it is not you, it's the person(s) who gives you paper "money", which is the Federal Reserve and U.S. corporation.

The Fed Reserve and U.S. Corporation who are the TRUSTEES of the trust, of which you're a grantor.

You are also the beneficiary (the one who received benefits) unless you give that position away, as people easily do.

This also made clear by the courts, as they have ruled that FRNs are OBLIGATIONS of United States, which mean there is a trust formed to serve that obligation.

The courts don't spell it out in language average people can comprehend easily, but it means that the U.S. corporation is the TRUSTEE for the trust involving FRNs, and as they won't redeem those in gold money.

You are the grantor with power of appointment, and can order settlement of public charges as your remedy to public debts or “charges”, until such time when they DO redeem FRNs in gold money.

This is also how your birth estate functions; aka ALL CAPS NAME estate.
n. 1) a person to whom title to property or a business interest is transferred for the sole purpose of concealing the true owner and/or the business machinations of the parties. Thus, the straw man has no real interest or participation but is merely a passive stand-in for a real participant who secretly controls activities. Sometimes a straw man is involved when the actual owner is not permitted to act, such as a person with a criminal record holding a liquor license. 2) an argument which is intended to distract the other side from the real issues or waste the opponent's time and effort, sometimes called a "red herring" (for the belief that drawing a fish across a trail will mislead hunting dogs). http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Straw+Man

Michael Joseph
04-29-15, 03:53 PM
SOMEONE else gets the REAL GOLD money that you earned by your labor, so they must give you something in return.

Since it is not you, it's the person(s) who gives you paper "money", which is the Federal Reserve and U.S. corporation.

The Fed Reserve and U.S. Corporation who are the TRUSTEES of the trust, of which you're a grantor.

You are also the beneficiary (the one who received benefits) unless you give that position away, as people easily do.

This also made clear by the courts, as they have ruled that FRNs are OBLIGATIONS of United States, which mean there is a trust formed to serve that obligation.

The courts don't spell it out in language average people can comprehend easily, but it means that the U.S. corporation is the TRUSTEE for the trust involving FRNs, and as they won't redeem those in gold money.

You are the grantor with power of appointment, and can order settlement of public charges as your remedy to public debts or “charges”, until such time when they DO redeem FRNs in gold money.


The CQT is interesting because you have to look at all the parties of the trust.

Settlor - Not me - Some Lawyer working for principal - State or Kingdom
Trustor/Creator = State or Kingdom which established the Use in some cases the Cestui Que Use
Grantor = State/Kingdom and man or woman

One will ask how does the State/Kingdom grant and what exactly is granted? Rights, Titles, Interests where are established by Contract which preceded the formation of the CQT.

The man/woman or corporation of men and women may grant equity held in trust in the name of the CQT.

Trustee = State and man/woman actually co-trustees
Beneficiary = State and man/woman actually co-beneficiaries

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

The State itself can be placed into Trust to protect the interest of the Settlors and Beneficiaries. The Trustees of that trust act in Corporate status establishing the POLICIES or bylaws acting as a Board of Trustees and its many members. A Board of Directors might be established and the minutes of these two boards are recorded in some Registry.

The Corporate Trust may not be subject to the Contract which preceded its formation and establishment and said trust may effect its own internal policies to govern its own private affairs. Many do not understand this law boundary and as such commit adultery as they try to mix different venues in their ignorance.

A choice simply has to be made concerning the business affairs of an individual. Noone forces me to use a SSN. I can if I desire if I desire the benefits that come within that trust structure but if I receive those benefits I may be with some obligations - so with everything a choice exists. I find that most just want all the benefit and no obligation. Who wants an obligation anyway?

Gold is for international contracts without the private trust boundary which is run by corporate policies [statutes and codes]. Have you ever noticed that the many parts that make up a truck are most likely copy protected thru patent? What then is purchased when I buy a truck? Do I now have full ownership and dominion to do with all of those parts as I please? Can I go now and create a factory and mass produce any of those parts just because I purchased the truck? OR, did I only purchase a LICENSE to USE that truck? In fact it is a conditional license.

I know I am just winning friends here but that is the cold hard fact. I can make a conditional use of that truck. Therefore who will govern the conditions and ensure no trespass occurs upon intellectual copy protected patented parts? Is that not fair? Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot. You create a great widget that gets put in millions of homes. Some clown claiming he paid off his house now owns that widget and begins to mass produce it as your competitor. That is plain and simply theft. That clown did not put in the hours of hard work to develop the widget, he just stole a grand idea and started making that which was patented.

Now the question is begged how does the enforcement arm get the ability to enforce the patent laws? I mean just because I walk into Walmart does not make me subject to its policies. I become subject to those policies when I enjoin myself in trust or employment. And I might do such a thing if it is to my benefit or to the benefit of others, in charitable giving.

Presuming I have enjoined myself to the Corporate Trust, by way of making a Use of the means and methods [statutes and codes], then I have implied trust and perhaps express trust in signature. This means I have placed my TRUST IN the Corporate Scheme. If I have lodged my trust in you and I begin to benefit from your stewardship of my estate, then I am subject to the bylaws and policies of our agreement. I cannot pick and choose that which I do not wish to obey.

Should I choose to revoke that trust I am able to do so and this is made plain upon a candid world by and thru the RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATION. The Corporate Trust may do what it needs to do according to the Law of Necessity in order to protect a higher mandate of Order. Who can't see this happening all around us?

After years of studying codes, statutes, laws, ancient laws and international law, I have come down to a simple premise - it is honorable to keep my word. If I contract, I bind myself freely to that contract. In the end I hope that war does not come to my land. Because I lack an army to defend against the interests of the mass. Therefore the public ruler of the mass defines the policy of the mass and that is the way the world works. At least for my entire life.

It seems to me that everything works by contract. There are of course levels as states or kingdoms contract with each other. But don't be fooled - no Ruler ever ruled absent the power of the Church! The two swords are really in the hands of the Church but the temporal sword is placed in the hand by GRANT of the Church to a King [as Beneficiary] who then undertakes upon the grant as GRANTEE/TRUSTEE. Polices are made to govern the grant and all of its many uses. Each use is subdivided and polices are then developed to govern its subdivisions according to agencies and departments. And all of the foregoing is supposedly set up by the Shepherd of this World [look hard to see if you can spot them] in Corporation Sole acting in benevolence to keep the Peace and Order.

Unfortunately the Shepherds are mostly fundamentalist religionists who maintain they are on a mission from God. And it is okay to kill all of those heathen who don't agree. All of this is interconnected. Don't think you can separate from this worldwide network of Finance, Politics, Education and Religion absent any persecution. For even family, friends, neighbors, assocations, affiliations, bystanders will hate you for taking a stand against the common will of the ignorant mass. ESPECIALLY if you challenge their meager view of Salvation.

Whist the mass has their hands out - like lame beggars at the gate - they lack any "vow" there is no "pledge" and therefore "no honor". Society is a fickle bird. There are no easy answers. For even if you obey the codes and statutes to a tee - the Law of Necessity may still overrule.

Like I said, it is simple in reality keep my word in contract. Contracts exist which govern the CQT which we are not even aware of and yet they nevertheless exist. So then a global ignorance exists of the Law. And yet the masters of war will say "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Seeing that I can never have enough insurance and I do not have enough time to know the Law - I like to keep it simple - "I have no trust in you" - and I am trying damn hard not to trespass upon you and yours.

Back to Jurisdiction: Say that deed you did for another, did you receive any money for that? Bingo - Jurisdiction solved.

Regarding a strawman it is a DUMMY and what do you think that makes the one acting in and for it? I think Blacks 5th or 6th has the meaning of DUMMY.



Shalom,
Michael Joseph

P.S. What is very interesting is that we see Canon Law governing the worlds estates and the so called Shepherd supposedly overseeing the worlds estates in benevolence and yet Jesus Christ said the Kingdom of God which the fundamentalists will agree with one voice is in our midst - is it now? - Jesus said the Kingdom is found WITHIN us individually - personally. Yet again to reiterate the fundamentalists rule with their iron rod with their perception of being on a mission from God.

Hag 1:8 Go up to the mountain, and bring wood, and build the house; and I will take pleasure in it, and I will be glorified, saith the LORD.

Hag 1:9 Ye looked for much, and, lo, it came to little; and when ye brought it home, I did blow upon it. Why? saith the LORD of hosts. Because of mine house that is waste, and ye run every man unto his own house.

Everyman indeed runs into his own house - of State of Religion of Education etc. And look around you what do you see? Looks like a drought to me! And this war is an internal war within each man - but that which is internal plays out in society and it is the rulers of the mass which manipulate the Beast - which is to say the carnal minds of the human species - these perpetuate Hell on Earth and in Earth.

2553

2552

xparte
04-29-15, 05:46 PM
a warrant being administrated bye A peace officer or sheriffs deputy is one with discretion as the True Name is upper lower case and family NAME is always upper its a offer to come to court as the NAMED very polite and civilized. with a warrant from a clerk 72 hrs is the time your holders have to identify you Police bring you in front of clerk within 24hrs to answer for the NAME if you refuse that NAME sent back until no claim for that NAME has been established in assuming the true name one cant be identified as a person or has identified himself as a Man with courts seizing persons and property Identity is a Man,s trust and cant be breeched remaining silent or silenced is exactly what happens in a court that cant see or hear a Man. any and all witlessness need to identify a Man not a name

Chex
05-01-15, 05:23 PM
The CQT is interesting because you have to look at all the parties of the trust.

Settlor - Not me - Some Lawyer working for principal - State or Kingdom
Trustor/Creator = State or Kingdom which established the Use in some cases the Cestui Que Use
Grantor = State/Kingdom and man or woman

Legal Word of the Day
Criminal Intent: The intent to commit a crime: malice, as evidenced by a criminal act; an intent to deprive or defraud the true owner of his property. People v. Moore. 3 N. Y. Cr. R. 458. (source: Black's Law Dictionary).

Here's a few to get the ball rolling, feel free to expand on these and add your own!

Society

1. A society is a number of persons united together by mutual consent.
2. Societies are either incorporated and known to the law, or un-incorporated, of which the law does not generally take notice.
3. By civil society is usually understood a state, a nation or a body political.
4. In civil law, by society is meant a partnership.

Statute

1. Legislative act: an act passed by a legislative body.
2. A formal written enactment of a legislative authority that governs a county, state, city or county
3. Legislated rule of society which has the force of Law

Person

1. A corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages unless there is a statute authorizing the award of punitive damages.

Here's what wiki says.

"Statutory law or statute law is written law (as opposed to oral or customary law) set down by a legislature or other governing authority such as the executive branch of government in response to a perceived need to clarify the functioning of government, improve civil order, to codify existing law, or for an individual or company to obtain special treatment. Examples of statutory law comprehend traditional civil law and modern civil code systems in contrast to common law. In addition to the statutes passed by the national or state legislature, lower authorities or municipalities may also promulgate administrative regulations or municipal ordinances that have the force of law — the process of creating these administrative decrees are generally classified as rulemaking. While these enactments are subordinate to the law of the whole state or nation, they are nonetheless a part of the body of a jurisdiction's statutory law."

(Common law) "Legislated rule of society which has the force of law "

A strawman is defined by Black’s Law dictionary 8th Edition as STRAWMAN?

A strawman is defined by Black’s Law dictionary 8th Edition as
1. A fictitious person, esp. one that is weak or flawed.
2. A tenuous and exaggerated counterargument that an advocate puts forward for the sole purpose of disproving it. – Also termed straw-man argument.
3. A third party used in some transactions as a temporary transferee to allow the principal parties to accomplish something that is otherwise impermissible. Cf.

DUMMY. 4. A person hired to post a worthless bail bond for the release of an accused. – Also termed stramineous homo.

See MEN OF STRAW.

The Social Security “strawman” is a grantor trust. Whenever you make application on a government form you are tendering an offer to contract.

The government just accepts your offer to contract or to enter an agreement.

The differences between the two can be found in the first article of the UCC – agreement vs. contract.

You will find that the difference between the two is the entry and acceptance methods.

However, the end result is the same.

In the Social Security trust you are the grantor since you (or your parents, it matters not) “made application” on Form SS-5 and then you assented when you filed your first Form 1040 with the IRS.

The First Annual Report on Social Security dated 1936 states on page 20, “Title VIII of the Social Security Act imposes an income tax upon the employees covered by the old-age benefits sections”.

Covered by?

Coverage.
Coverage denotes an assurance plan. Assurance denotes a limited liability plan. Admiralty / Maritime law only has four areas of concern; maritime wages, bottomry, salvage and limited liability.

Benedict on Admiralty covers workman’s compensation principles quite well and it states that you cannot enter into an admiralty/maritime agreement on land for covered employment without first going through equity.

A cursory study of equity law will illustrate we are discussing trust law.

In the Social Security relation you are the grantor, the co-fiduciary (with the USAG as Trustee in his capacity as Alien Property Custodian, 50 USC Appx 12) for tax form filing purposes, and a co-beneficiary.

Any time the same party is grantor and beneficiary you have a grantor trust.

This is also why “willful failure to file” is a felony because it is fiduciary misconduct as a fiduciary book keeper for a trust that you do not own.

Blackstone’s Commentaries volume 1, chapter 18 discusses trusts and corporations to be one in the same.

The United States Supreme Court still uses Blackstone’s Commentaries as an authoritative reference for determinations in law as our legal system is based upon the British (“Brit” is covenant in Hebrew and “ish” is Hebrew for man) legal system.

Therefore, the “strawman” in a Social Security relation is a grantor trust.

Therefore, the grantor trust is a corporation for the purposes of taxation.

Will you find that the trust is domiciled in the U.S. Virgin Islands?

Herefore, the grantor trust is foreign to the several states doing business as a foreign entity to the several states.

After all, a trustee holds legal title.

The legal title holder in any trust holds decision authority over the property in question – i.e. everything the “strawman” touches.

The beneficiary holds equitable title.

The equitable title holder gets to use the property held in trust as determined by the terms and conditions of the trust agreement.

Have the terms and conditions of the trust agreement ever been disclosed to you?

The reason anyone creates a trust (of any kind) is to promote domestic tranquility in his relations, whatever they may be.

In a grantor trust if the trustee breaches the principles of domestic tranquility the grantor may revoke legal title from the trustee and revest it in the grantor.

Well, if the grantor already holds equitable title (co-beneficiary or not) the trust collapses because now the trust assets are held by the same party, hence there is no one left to trust.

Michael Joseph
05-01-15, 06:03 PM
Legal Word of the Day

After all, a trustee holds legal title.

The legal title holder in any trust holds decision authority over the property in question – i.e. everything the “strawman” touches.

The beneficiary holds equitable title.



The form of the trust you describe is a SIMPLE TRUST by name and is revocable and therefore is part of the Grantor's Estate unless specifically expressed to be in charity to another corporation of men and women [heirs] or a singular man or woman.

There are many, many other trust formations whereof the Trustee holds BOTH the legal and the equitable titles in allodium fee simple - and the beneficial interest holders have only interest in the promises made in the contract. The ownership, management and dominion of the property and therefore estate is in the Board of Trustees. That is an irrevocable trust.

Now pray tell look around treating of government which do you suppose exists?

In the latter formation the beneficiary has claim in breach of trust or a tort in defamation which is to say libel or slander. But the beneficiary has no say in how the estates are managed and for the beneficiary to claim against that Will is "trustee de son tort" - and a Constructive Trustee is created. Meaning - "if he wants the liability, then give it to him."

In the latter formation, a beneficiary does not even have the ability to require the Board of Trustee to give account of the Trust Affairs UNLESS that requirement is written into the bylaws or trust minutes. In regard to government trust minutes are kept carefully in what is called the Congressional Record.

I can think of hundreds of examples whereof an irrevocable trust such as the foregoing is very advantageous. We are only limited by our own thinking. An interest in estate or an estate in property or a right in property or dominion over property are all legal formations and are subject to trust.

The entire universe runs on trust law.

doug555
05-01-15, 06:45 PM
Legal Word of the Day
Criminal Intent: The intent to commit a crime: malice, as evidenced by a criminal act; an intent to deprive or defraud the true owner of his property. People v. Moore. 3 N. Y. Cr. R. 458. (source: Black's Law Dictionary).

Here's a few to get the ball rolling, feel free to expand on these and add your own!

...

Blackstone’s Commentaries volume 1, chapter 18 discusses trusts and corporations to be one in the same.

The United States Supreme Court still uses Blackstone’s Commentaries as an authoritative reference for determinations in law as our legal system is based upon the British (“Brit” is covenant in Hebrew and “ish” is Hebrew for man) legal system.

Therefore, the “strawman” in a Social Security relation is a grantor trust.

Therefore, the grantor trust is a corporation for the purposes of taxation.

Will you find that the trust is domiciled in the U.S. Virgin Islands?

Herefore, the grantor trust is foreign to the several states doing business as a foreign entity to the several states.

After all, a trustee holds legal title.

The legal title holder in any trust holds decision authority over the property in question – i.e. everything the “strawman” touches.

The beneficiary holds equitable title.

The equitable title holder gets to use the property held in trust as determined by the terms and conditions of the trust agreement.

Have the terms and conditions of the trust agreement ever been disclosed to you?

The reason anyone creates a trust (of any kind) is to promote domestic tranquility in his relations, whatever they may be.

In a grantor trust if the trustee breaches the principles of domestic tranquility the grantor may revoke legal title from the trustee and revest it in the grantor.

Well, if the grantor already holds equitable title (co-beneficiary or not) the trust collapses because now the trust assets are held by the same party, hence there is no one left to trust.

Thanks for your post, Chex.

It matches what I have at http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/p/usufruct-merger.html (http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/p/usufruct-merger.html) about "merger".

See "Divestiture Facts" section excerpt, page 407, item III, about when a usufruct ends, and revests to naked owner.


"... III. And by not using it in a proper way and time"

Chex
05-02-15, 02:07 PM
The man-child is the "naked owner", having the reversionary interest in the usufruct as the holder of the Certificate of Live Birth receipt for the infant, and upon proof of life of the infant not being a decedent. http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/p/usufruct-merger.html

All one should ever need do is "redeem" the "trust receipt" with the "issuer" (Registrar or Bankruptcy Trustee) because until the living dude shows up with "equitable interest claim" via the "trust receipt", that account is held in trust for use by the Fed Res and Treasury for "care and maintenance" of the "estate" held in "trust" which is just the "usufructuary interest" of the "child" associated with the "event" and "the administrator and "usufructuary" of the "agricultural estate" (BC) have "monetized" the "account receivable" (Live Birth cert) and now need to "service" the "account payable" (Live Birth cert) of the usufruct because usufruct is inherently a "dual bookkeeping system" ... account receivable ("fruit harvested") + account payable ("usufructuary duties") = "usufructuary interest" http://www.iamsomedude.com/equity_set-off.html

What (trust) law made this possible?

Who did this?

Where did it all start for all of us? There has to be a starting point.

What gave them the right? Where is our consent?

And where is the law that said they can do this?

Other than the “Mother Of All Black Ops": What Edward Mandell House said to Woodrow Wilson (President) [1913-1921] http://www.illuminati-news.com/0/House.htm

Where is the contract?

doug555
05-02-15, 02:47 PM
The man-child is the "naked owner", having the reversionary interest in the usufruct as the holder of the Certificate of Live Birth receipt for the infant, and upon proof of life of the infant not being a decedent. http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/p/usufruct-merger.html

All one should ever need do is "redeem" the "trust receipt" with the "issuer" (Registrar or Bankruptcy Trustee) because until the living dude shows up with "equitable interest claim" via the "trust receipt", that account is held in trust for use by the Fed Res and Treasury for "care and maintenance" of the "estate" held in "trust" which is just the "usufructuary interest" of the "child" associated with the "event" and "the administrator and "usufructuary" of the "agricultural estate" (BC) have "monetized" the "account receivable" (Live Birth cert) and now need to "service" the "account payable" (Live Birth cert) of the usufruct because usufruct is inherently a "dual bookkeeping system" ... account receivable ("fruit harvested") + account payable ("usufructuary duties") = "usufructuary interest" http://www.iamsomedude.com/equity_set-off.html

What (trust) law made this possible?

Who did this?

Where did it all start for all of us? There has to be a starting point.

What gave them the right? Where is our consent?

And where is the law that said they can do this?

Other than the “Mother Of All Black Ops": What Edward Mandell House said to Woodrow Wilson (President) [1913-1921] http://www.illuminati-news.com/0/House.htm

Where is the contract?

Good questions...

Present and actual "Transfer of res" is an essential element of trust.

Does not a "delivery" occur in the "delivery room" when the mother delivers her baby-child from her womb?

Then, does she not "inform" of this event on a piece of paper which she signs, as the "informant"?

Then, is there is no proof of legitimacy of this event by a registered marriage, does not the presumption of illegitimacy stand as fact after 7 years of not being rebutted (no claim made on the child being legitimate, and not a decedent)?

Does the state not rightly assume liability and ownership of such unclaimed property (the estate of the child)?

Yet, does not this property revest when the proper owner appears?

See: http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/p/usufruct-receipt.html (http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/p/usufruct-receipt.html)


Commentaries on the Laws of England, by William Blackstone
BOOK 2, CHAPTER 7
OF FREEHOLD ESTATES, OF INHERITANCE

... of which Titius is seized in his demesne as of fee. The fee-simple or
inheritance of lands and tenements is generally vested and resides in some
person or other; though diverse inferior estates may be carved out of it. As
if one grants a lease for twenty one years, or for one or two lives, the fee simple
remains vested in him and his heirs; and after the determination of
those years or lives, the land reverts to the grantor or his heirs, who shall
hold it again in fee-simple. Yet sometimes the fee may be in abeyance, that
is (as the word signifies) in expectation, remembrance, and contemplation
of law; there being no person in esse, in whom it can vest and abide;
though the law considers it as always potentially existing, and ready to vest
whenever a proper owner appears.


Now, how can one appear on the record as grantor, or heir thereof, of the property in question?

Would not a record such as this (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8BdR0w2oZY_cm83TVY5dGNraXc/view?usp=sharing), or one that is similar in substance of form, suffice?

walter
05-02-15, 03:01 PM
What (trust) law made this possible?

Who did this?

Where did it all start for all of us? There has to be a starting point.

What gave them the right? Where is our consent?

And where is the law that said they can do this?

Where is the contract?

In order to have a trust there must be first something of value placed in an account.
The right they use is international law, law of the nations.
Since we have not made a compact we jump onto the governments and claim theirs.
We all have the ability to self determinate like the nation did but we don't want to bother moving our lazy ass's.
The right and consent is we are holding and using their property for financial gain.
We place value into their creation and call it ours.
We are not the holders in due course on the BC.
But we act as if we are.
The BC is the contract.
We are transferring it for the government.
Because it is in transfer we are in a commercial venue until we fulfill our obligation.

Michael Joseph
05-02-15, 10:01 PM
In order to have a trust there must be first something of value placed in an account.
The right they use is international law, law of the nations.
Since we have not made a compact we jump onto the governments and claim theirs.
We all have the ability to self determinate like the nation did but we don't want to bother moving our lazy ass's.


My promise and obligation to perform my promise has value. Therefore for the consideration of promises herein....and upon the uses established....

Excellent walter - right on.

This game has been in place for a long long time. Most folks are just unaware of it and think they were born into disney land and all the rides are free. Therefore they claim against the usufruct which are the rights in the land held by another but they have yet to make a claim of dominion over certain uses of the land in order to establish such rights for themselves. The next question is how - but that takes many words.

Choices remain therefore the system is voluntary.

walter
05-03-15, 07:05 AM
My promise and obligation to perform my promise has value. Therefore for the consideration of promises herein....and upon the uses established....



https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-103#Promise

§ 3-103. DEFINITIONS.
(12) "Promise" means a written undertaking to pay money signed by the person undertaking to pay. An acknowledgment of an obligation by the obligor is not a promise unless the obligor also undertakes to pay the obligation.

Michael Joseph
05-03-15, 05:30 PM
https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-103#Promise

§ 3-103. DEFINITIONS.
(12) "Promise" means a written undertaking to pay money signed by the person undertaking to pay. An acknowledgment of an obligation by the obligor is not a promise unless the obligor also undertakes to pay the obligation.

Thank you and as you are aware that meaning you provided of promise is framed within the construct of negotiable instruments. I can think of other frameworks wherein promise carries a different meaning other than that concerning money.

Promise and equity walk together.

Shalom
Mj

allodial
05-06-15, 03:01 AM
http://macquirelatory.com/Birth%20Certificate/birth%20certificate%20for%20Farrow.jpg

(As I've made clear ---- times) A master is said to be liable for the debts his servant(s) incur. Evidence of that relationship might have value.

Michael Joseph
05-06-15, 03:21 AM
Thank you and as you are aware that meaning you provided of promise is framed within the construct of negotiable instruments. I can think of other frameworks wherein promise carries a different meaning other than that concerning money.

Promise and equity walk together.

Shalom
Mj

If the servant usurps the Masters obligations then the servant takes the liability upon his own head. But instead of Master/Servant I think Trustee/Beneficiary. There are primary beneficiary and 3rd party beneficiaries. If a 3rd party beneficiary does the deed of a trustee then the obligation of discharge is left with the usurper in Tort - "Trustee de son Tort"

Explained the court, “a trustee de son tort [is] a person who is treated as a trustee because of his wrongdoing with respect to property entrusted to him or over which he exercised authority which he lacked.” - King v. Johnson, 2009 DJDAR 15871 (Nov. 9, 2009)

The appellate court explained that, “As a general rule, the trustee is the real party in interest with standing to sue and defend on the trust’s behalf. Conversely, a trust beneficiary cannot sue in the name of the trust.”

“A trust beneficiary can bring a proceeding against a trustee for breach of trust. Moreover, it is well established that a trust beneficiary can pursue a cause of action against a third party who actively participates in or knowingly benefits from a trustee’s breach of trust.”

A trustee de son tort is a CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTEE - with the liability of his/her mis-deed.

allodial
05-06-15, 03:25 AM
Your post tends to cloud the truthful point (no offense intended). The entity named on the birth certificate (John Henry Doe) is not the resident (John H. Doe). The resident is the one that can be regarded to be executor de son tort or overstep, the birth certificate person is not presumed party by them to proceedings against the resident. That is your post doesn't reveal that the baby and the babysitter aren't the same person. You are speaking of the babysitter's potential liability which is a wholly separate matter. Post # 165 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1161-Birth-Certificate-What-it-is&p=17740&viewfull=1#post17740)is a huge hint.

Michael Joseph
05-06-15, 03:43 AM
Your post tends to cloud the truthful point. The entity named on the birth certificate (John Henry Doe) is not the resident (John H. Doe). The resident is the one that can be regarded to be executor de son tort or overstep, the birth certificate person is not presumed party by them to proceedings against the resident. That is your post doesn't reveal that the baby and the babysitter aren't the same person. You are speaking of the babysitter's potential liability which is a wholly separate matter.

I see your point. I like to think as the NAME as a party to a Trust Organization. That name can hold interests and those interests may be granted into that estate by a man or woman who most times is operating conveniently or inconveniently, depending on perspective, in that same name. So if you like to model as an numbered account that gets it done too. I may have an interest in an account but the account does not belong to me. I may grant and may even inherit from that account - still it is not my account. It may be held by another for my benefit. The account is therefore the liability of the owner.

With that in mind - is the account mine? No. But I have interests in that account subject to the Trust Bylaws that govern its existence.

There is no reason to fish out of that boat.

allodial
05-06-15, 03:51 AM
If you are holding the certificate you are deemed to be a trustee. Also another hint is this: the state cannot sue itself therefore there is a system for 'staging' things so that equity can be done but such an equity must follow law or it is not equity.

How about this: press gang (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/press+gang).


I was taught that back "in they day" they would literally press a silver coin into someone's hand or drop it into their drink (at a pub, bottoms up --to your lips would slide the consideration) and bind them into service (i.e. impressment). I had a driver license issued by royal/crown prerogative directly but the cop was curious if I had ever applied for a "State issued" license. When it was discovered that I did not, then he asked me about a birth certificate. So imagine the State issued ID or DL or birth certificate taking the place of the coin--as in possession or holding as a kind of self-impressment. Instead of giving you a coin for commencement of services, they give you a birth certificate. Of course, being in their service (as a soldier) they'd be liable for debts that you incur.

From direct experience, I'm far from being speculative. Any one with "two clicks" should be able to figure it out from here. The system is very workable. While some might suggest the miseducation system and the "lamestream" media to be part of the problem--perhaps so many people believing lies and misinformation might be the real problem? (Another aspect of a sorting process?)

So the Canadian government minister might have been honest about a birth certificate not having value--something priceless or indeterminate as to value in a sense has no monetary value (monetary afaik is always sum certain).

Related:
Impressment (wikipedia) ([/URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressment)

allodial
05-06-15, 04:20 AM
Of course, the Butterworth's Law Dictionary definition of party is worth noting in that one must be "willing" in order to be considered a party to a contract or the like.

walter
05-06-15, 03:52 PM
If you are holding the certificate you are deemed to be a trustee.

Michael Joseph Quote:
“As a general rule, the trustee is the real party in interest with standing to sue and defend on the trust’s behalf. Conversely, a trust beneficiary cannot sue in the name of the trust.”

major conflict here.

If I hold the BC and walk into court answering to the Name I would have no standing.
A real trustee would have standing.
Holding the BC doesn't make me a holder in due course.
It makes me a surety.

allodial
05-06-15, 04:03 PM
major conflict here.

If I hold the BC and walk into court answering to the Name I would have no standing.
A real trustee would have standing.
Holding the BC doesn't make me a holder in due course.
It makes me a surety.

1. If you answer to the name of the defendant of the case (most always going to have the status of 'resident' (i.e. office of resident)) that could make you a surety or accommodation party (http://usa-the-republic.com/revenue/ucc%20connection.html) for the defendant (has NOTHING to do with the birth certificate).
2. The holding of the birth certificate is a totally separate matter from a case--completely unrelated unless you make it related.
3. The birth certificate itself is evidence ..of ..something.

Louis Holger
05-06-15, 05:03 PM
PERSON as a corporation that can sue or be sued...


Ergo the True Name as a class action.

"To Man. Know thyself and you shall know the Universe"

allodial
05-06-15, 09:04 PM
re: trusts
For clarification, there are regarded to be at least there parties to a trust:

1. Grantor
2. Trustee
3. Beneficiary.

However, there is a key element of a trust that is hardly ever discussed in most forums and that is...

re: trust corpus or trust estate
The trust estate (aka trust corpus). State in Spanish is "Estado". Without a trust estate or trust corpus, it is probably impossible for a trust to exist. Even the right to receive a future production could be an intangible part of a trust estate. (Derivatives...futures trading anyone?) The trust estate or trust corpus can be said to contain property held in trust (i.e. per a trust agreement or a trust declaration). If A gives B a watch for the benefit of C, the trust estate consists of the watch and possibly also of the instructions as to what to do with the watch.

All of the who can sue and cannot sue and who can claim this or that is moot without the trust corpus. Without a trust corpus what is there to sue about? Without something entrusted, how can there be a trustee or a beneficiary?

Related terms: bailment (a species of trust where title does not transfer to the trustee or bailee), trustee, trust estate, possessory interests, future interests, beneficiary, beneficial interest, in rem proceeding, Estados Unidos de América.

[Where you born in the united estates?]

Michael Joseph
05-07-15, 02:46 AM
If I hold the BC and walk into court answering to the Name I would have no standing.
A real trustee would have standing.
Holding the BC doesn't make me a holder in due course.
It makes me a surety.

It makes you a Constructive Trustee. And therefore you are with the liability of your misdeed.

Michael Joseph
05-07-15, 02:48 AM
"To Man. Know thyself and you shall know the Universe"

The Kingdom of God is WITHIN you - and in another place - the Earth is my footstool and the Heaven's my Throne. Amen brother.

Heaven and hell exist in the mind of man.

allodial
05-07-15, 03:31 AM
It makes you a Constructive Trustee. And therefore you are with the liability of your misdeed.

How would it be constructive if one willingly applies for it? How would it be constructive if one goes to the County Vital Statistics Office and applies for a "birth certificate"? It seems that it would be resulting or actual rather than constructive. Impressment is one thing, self-impressment is another.


The account is therefore the liability of the owner.

If its their account, they probably know it.

Michael Joseph
05-07-15, 03:42 AM
If its their account, they probably know it.

Oh they know it. I was told about five years ago by two separate DAs that the court could do justice upon only matter in that NAME. I just smiled and said I Have no Trust in this system.

I informed one DA that I showed up upon my honor else I would not be compelled to come for justice upon the basis of an inference. She smiled and said have a nice day.

Best regards
MJ

xparte
05-07-15, 03:50 AM
How is it the judge becomes the NAME, then administered this trust account if no standing why is the beneficiary NAMED without standing?

xparte
05-07-15, 04:06 AM
The NAME is them the matter is Me It is extremely rare that one person is completely right and one person is completely wrong. Honestly confront your own faults, even if you think you are only one percent wrong and the other person is ninety-nine percent wrong. You being a hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye,or my eye and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. (Matthew 7:3-5) well is a hypocrite a NAMED PERSON with a BEAM/plank platform IN HIS/HER EYE Administrators see only persons YOU are that speck of a person That a Man must deny In a court what's any Man but a hypocrite

Chex
05-07-15, 11:34 AM
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

Michael Joseph
05-07-15, 03:05 PM
How is it the judge becomes the NAME, then administered this trust account if no standing why is the beneficiary NAMED without standing?

Consider a Mass. Business Trust. Most times it is run completely by the Board of Trustees subject to the power of direction which too may be vested in a Board of Directors or the Board of Trustees itself.

Certificates are issued upon the Beneficiaries evidencing their interest in the Trust Corpus - which includes all promises and obligations to perform, as well as, use rights. In this particular trust, the beneficiary has no standing to Administrate the Trust or to act in and or the Trust. If the Beneficiary does such a thing, then the Beneficiary can be deemed a CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTEE and therefore the tort also brings the liability.

A proper response is I do not seek to trespass upon the office of the trustee in tort. Let the trustee perform his/her office. Otherwise there is another survey formed by CONSTRUCTION and what is running around are [Constructive] Trustees. This can also be termed "taking against the Will".

Those bylaws are liabilities or obligations upon the Trustee [dejure or constructive]. He who acts and does not have the office incurs the liability of his mis-deeds. Therefore the statute is a liability.

Michael Joseph
05-07-15, 03:07 PM
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

Foghorn Legghorn: You gotta keep your eye on the ball, boy. Get it? - EYEBALL. That one got under your glove didn't it boy? :)

xparte
05-07-15, 03:38 PM
Persons get what they ordered and claimed I surrender BC and DL as a Man on the matter of ownership judge enters a not guilty plee for NAMED she keeps docs as evidence of who,s identity Hers i submit I am confined to what is on paper all warrants are on paper in fairness that plank is in the eye of the beholder COURT is beholding to Court plank for plank eye for eye All honour is a speck and only irritation in the courts eyes.

Michael Joseph
05-07-15, 05:47 PM
Persons get what they ordered and claimed I surrender BC and DL as a Man on the matter of ownership judge enters a not guilty plee for NAMED she keeps docs as evidence of who,s identity Hers i submit I am confined to what is on paper all warrants are on paper in fairness that plank is in the eye of the beholder COURT is beholding to Court plank for plank eye for eye All honor is a speck and only irritation in the courts eyes.

Not to argue but consider the Tower of Babel that has been erected in Trust Estates. Every time one mentions property then one must ascribe that property by survey. So within what survey is the property rights bound? If you stop for a moment and think then your mind has to go quickly to origins. The question remains - who created the founding trust? Who established? Who is the Creator?

How was the Estate formed? The answer is in Claim. Now then all those who argue property rights are subject to the first claim. That claim is subject to Administration thus the one who Claims then upon acceptance from the general public - by common deeds and no opposition - is Grantor who grants out certain use rights as Benefit upon a Grantee [kingdom] whereof said kingdom undertakes in Administration of those use rights subject to the Grantor or the Grantor's office in succession. If the Grant was made in an Office then as long as the office is occupied, then the Dominion continues.

A license is so far down upon the "Tower" as to be almost a servant. A slave is not allowed to marry absent the consent of his/her master. Thus the union must be licensed. In fact all of the slaves deeds must be licensed. Yet at international law lies silent the Right of Self Determination. Knock Knock.

Shalom,
MJ

allodial
05-07-15, 07:44 PM
Sweeping generalizations are at times used to confuse or deceive. I avoid making them. After all, what is your or my circumstance is not necessarily everyone else's. Estates are often formed by declaration or by agreement and may arise directly or indirectly or expressly or implicitly from such declaration or agreement. A claim at the least is a declaration or a notice.

At Least Two Types of States
There are at least two types of "state" as relates to The United States of America.

1. the type of state which formed the United States of America (something tells me that there are not fifty of these--the United States did not form these and thusly does not have the authority a creator has over its creations--its the other way around here)
2. the type of state which was formed by the United States (the Federal Government) for administrative purposes.

Re: type #1
Type #1 is without the United States, is foreign to the United States. These are 'several' rather than wholly united into a Union. AFAIK, never did George Washington as President or as Commander In Chief of the United States have authority here.

Re: type #2
Type #2 aka a "Federal State" is within the United States and might be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (NDAA, Patriot Act, Federal Reserve system, Social Security Administration, U.S. military bases, persons born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, plenary power, IRS, the 50 States of the Union, etc.). U.S. Congress and the President of the United States might be construed to be like unto King and Parliament here--and this area is very much limited.

Ignorance or lack of knowledge about the foregoing distinctions has been greatly exploited--not to mention ignored as if not worth learning. The United States itself is a Federal (Territorial) State--it is very much limited in size and scope. The singularity known as the United States is a creature of other states. Some suggest it to have been the creature of the People of the original Thirteen Colonies--but they weren't "People of the United States" and were instead People of Maryland, Virginia, etc. respectively. For example, U.S. State of California is not the same as the de jure California republic (lower case). The 's' at the end just wants to be plural but is more often than not these days a singularity.

Thus the importance of being able to recognize administrative law when you see it. Whenever U.S. Congress passes a "law" (regulations might be called laws at times) that is in any way contrary to "the Constitution", they are acting in an administrative capacity with respect to the the Territory of the United States (type #2)--they lack power to do so otherwise. SCOTUS might know but they aren't going to batanatly say so but such can be readily determined by the language, context and syntax of the "law". America is not the United States. America is not the United States of America.

Related: Matroska doll.

Michael Joseph
05-07-15, 08:33 PM
Sweeping generalizations are at times used to confuse or deceive. I avoid making them. After all, what is your or my circumstance is not necessarily everyone else's. Estates are often formed by declaration or by agreement.

At Least Two Types of States
There are at least two types of "state" as relates to the United States:

1. the type of state which formed the United States of America
2. the type of state which was formed by the United States (the Federal Government) for administrative purposes.

Re: type #1
Type #1 is without the United States, is foreign to the United States.

Re: type #2
Type #2 aka a "Federal State" is within the United States and might be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (NDAA, Patriot Act, Federal Reserve system, Social Security Administration, U.S. military bases, persons born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, plenary power, IRS, the 50 States, etc.). U.S. Congress and the President of the United States might be construed to be like unto King and Parliament here--and this area is very much limited.

Ignorance or lack of knowledge about the foregoing distinctions has been greatly exploited--not to mention ignored. The United States itself is a Federal (Territorial) State--it is very much limited in size and scope. The singularity known as the United States is a creature of other states. Some suggest it to have been the creature of the People of the original Thirteen Colonies--but they weren't "People of the United States" and were instead People of Maryland, Virginia, etc. respectively. For example, U.S. State of California is not the same as the de jure California republic (lower case). The 's' at the end just wants to be plural but is more often than not these days a singularity.

Thus the importance of being able to recognize administrative law when you see it.


a trust is a trust. Call it whatever name you choose - like begets like. A butterfly may have white wings and another black - but the kind remains unchanged. The corporation is a subset within a larger set. The Tower is erected upon the principle of Legal.

My scope is larger than something called United States or United States of America - those are mere leaves on the tree. And what of the roots.

de-jure or de-facto : frame the argument. Perhaps one finds he/she argues concerning a limb of a tree but this one has no understanding of the roots upon which the tree relies.

Seek ye the realization of the presence of I AM; Fear not for I AM with the... and then one will walk in the Grace of I AM and not under his/her own labor. For God Is. And there is no want of supply with God.

I can see that you comprehend law boundaries and the People of "name" [a corporation] are not the People of "another name" another corporation.

Shall we walk on and find Providence upon our lives in Grace?

See how some commit adultery? Thinking that they supply out of their OWN strength - they never find the I AM within. I AM the Way. I live by and thru Christ within. Be still and hear FEAR NOT - I AM with you. Take your monopoly game and go play with yourself. I have no trust in man who has breath in his nostrils.

Isa_2:22 Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of?

Will you consent to any of those trusts and become subject to their Administration? Knowledge of how to spot a trust and its formation is quite valuable.

When you recognize The Word became Flesh and dwelt with man - then you will see that Immanuel - God with me and you and everyone.

Will you follow the "I" within or some other man made "golden calf"?

Here where I AM - God Is. And to the son that returns a "new robe" was placed upon him [new understandings] and Father said "all that I have is thine". There is no lack of supply with God. There is only lack of faith with man. As man is led like sheep into the carnal and enticed to stay without the Garden of Eden - Within.

Therefore, man learns to lean on Egypt [a shaky reed]. EVERYTHING concerns Trust. But in realization that I the temple of God - sanctify the Gold. I am never apart from God - we are one.

I pray wisdom, I pray courage, I pray understanding, I pray God Is. I need not for God Is. Amen. If you comprehend, then you will see that what I have propounded herein has in no way strayed from the subject. For the created are the liability of the Creator.

Who shall benefit God? Answer that one and you will see. And who shall define or confine God? For God Is. However, in my carnal mind, the self may choose to undertake in my own labor [my own liability] in tort against God. For God Is. So it is my carnal mind that is the Satan. Many would like to personalize Satan - as religion has blinded the eye. Oh they have their literal stories - but clearly the Temple of God is consciousness of man - and therefore what entity might stand in consciousness?

Do you claim all that there is in God? Claim your use rights upon the Earth. Go forth and undertake as a steward but are you forcing me to consent to your dominion? In my experience this is never the case. I AM just as much as the I AM in you. For my part - I hope never to trespass upon God, thus the fictional world of the dead requires that Alice become small.

Girl from the North Country
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PfDSQSWuGI)

Leah is very attractive indeed and alluring us to come away from that which we once had. And Rachel sits alone weeping by the well. Understanding that which is within reveals that which is without.

Trust I. Need not I an access easement into Hades. For I in the Living.

Shalom,
MJ

allodial
05-07-15, 11:37 PM
A trust is a type of agreement rather than a "legal entity". It is an agreement whereby one agrees to be bound to hold something for the benefit of another. Trusts are not generally regarded to be an entity in and of themselves. AFAIK, this thread is about Birth Certificates.

Although chemistry and printing presses might be on topic to a discussion about Monopoly game rules, there is a limit. When the diversion obstructs or makes difficult the discussion or discovery of truth then what good is it? Saying "there is no spoon" or "there is no contract" hardly helps people who are bound to a type of voluntary servitude as far as they are concerned. Saying Man to be God doesn't dismiss the significance even the OT places on valid contractual obligations. Encouraging people to err with gross generalizations hardly seems mature or wise.

There are lots of people who play Monopoly and know a lot about chemistry, metallurgy, papermaking, etc. and who know that there is more to life than Monopoly but nonetheless they are playing Monopoly and know it. In a discussion about Monopoly, I could conceivably go on and on about Chemistry and Metallurgy and claim to be on topic because the pieces are made of metal or the inks in making up colors on the board have to do with chemistry but...how far would that go before someone called a mod on me? Of course, I wouldn't do such a thing --because it would tend to hinder getting at the truth. Even though I might not be bound to Monopoly rules in actuality, I would refrain from being condescending to the plight of others who might be--or who might believe themselves to be.

The thread is "Birth Certificate - What it is". No doubt when discussing law or even board games some of philosophy of law might arise and be discussed and even further the discussion of roots of such philosophy whether in the OT or the NT or otherwise might be discussed. But there is a limit. How does the thread relate to Leah?

Related:
Contracts and Covenants by Richard Anthony (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1567-Contracts-and-Covenants-by-Richard-Anthony)

Michael Joseph
05-08-15, 01:04 AM
A Certificate is an issue of a trust.

Leah is the emotional intellect which only serves that which is natural. That which the brute beast can see feel and touch. Or to put it mildly put in his hand and observe that he has some sort of Certificate.

Rachel is the Spirit which is unconcerned about such non-sense.

Leah is concerned with flesh, politics, religion and all the rest of the things that keep man preoccupied and without the Straight and Narrow gate. We all have that side of us and we need that side - for it is Leah that likes movies, popcorn and the fleshly things in life. But those who are unbalanced only intercourse with Leah and that is all that they unfortunately can see. Thus looking up from the bottom of the barrel they hold some certificate in their hands and say this somehow defines my existence. It doesn't.

No doubt a trust is a relationship. It can be a noun and a verb. I teach that which is inside a man - know thyself and you shall understand that which is without. Of the two women which one will I trust. Most choose the left hand [leah] which is weak and weary. Some choose only the right arm [Rachel] which is strength. But both are wrong. Jacob served 7 years for both. Balance is the key.

Thus the question is begged why do I care about some certificate, when I have proved to myself that I can travel - even on a Jet plane absent any State issued ID. Convenience one will say - to which I respond "thank you Leah". it comes down to a simple premise does something benefit me or not - if so, can I live with the obligation?

allodial, the term Legal begs a trust. For it begs title and therefore a trust. Law begs a trust for it has a Creator and it is a benefit to those who make its use.

I once Created a trust for certain purposes. I contracted,as Creator with a Board of Trustees to undertake according to the purpose and intent. The B.O.T. purchased the Estate and I transferred the Estate as Grantor. I quit my interests in totality as Creator/Grantor. The B.O.T. issued Certificates upon those who I declared, as Creator, to benefit. The beneficiaries were pleased to find that they knew nothing of what had occurred and they did not have to run the trust affairs but that they would benefit from the stewardship of the B.O.T.

The Beneficiaries hold the Certificates but have zero standing to run the affairs of the Trust. The trust business is run by the trust Officers according to the terms that I Created and were accepted by a Board of Trustees.

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

I was not born an American. I was programmed that I was an American. I was programmed that all of this stuff which depends on my thought is real. I was programmed to fear. I was programmed to accept that government is needful. I was programmed that I needed to rely upon other men and trust other men to handle my affairs for me in what is called society. I was programmed to think that some certificate actually has value.

Then I realized that value is a societal perception. Something is valuable if the receiver THINKS it is valuable. Thus I found that i was not able to get State issue licenses for that required my trust. Now my trust is valuable to me and does not require any other to determine its worth. I know its worth.

Therefore I do not lend it or freely grant it in exchange for some piece of paper and some perception of freedom that is only an illusion perpetuated by those within the societal womb fast asleep. Therefore the so called B.C. is moot to me and in fact I know one exists but I could not tell you where it is.

So what is a B.C.? It is a certificate of trust. A noun. Which creates a relationship. But there is man again leaning on that shaky reed [Egypt] - Left Arm - Leah.

Regards,
MJ

allodial
05-08-15, 01:12 AM
A Certificate is an issue of a trust.

Leah is the emotional intellect which only serves that which is natural. That which the brute beast can see feel and touch. Or to put it mildly put in his hand and observe that he has some sort of Certificate.

Rachel is the Spirit which is unconcerned about such non-sense.

Leah is concerned with flesh, politics, religion and all the rest of the things that keep man preoccupied and without the Straight and Narrow gate. We all have that side of us and we need that side - for it is Leah that likes movies, popcorn and the fleshly things in life. But those who are unbalanced only intercourse with Leah and that is all that they unfortunately can see. Thus looking up from the bottom of the barrel they hold some certificate in their hands and say this somehow defines my existence. It doesn't.

No doubt a trust is a relationship. It can be a noun and a verb. I teach that which is inside a man - know thyself and you shall understand that which is without. Of the two women which one will I trust. Most choose the left hand [leah] which is weak and weary. Some choose only the right arm [Rachel] which is strength. But both are wrong. Jacob served 7 years for both. Balance is the key.

Thus the question is begged why do I care about some certificate, when I have proved to myself that I can travel - even on a Jet plane absent any State issued ID. Convenience one will say - to which I respond "thank you Leah". it comes down to a simple premise does something benefit me or not - if so, can I live with the obligation?

allodial, the term Legal begs a trust. For it begs title and therefore a trust. Law begs a trust for it has a Creator and it is a benefit to those who make its use.

I once Created a trust for certain purposes. I contracted,as Creator with a Board of Trustees to undertake according to the purpose and intent. The B.O.T. purchased the Estate and I transferred the Estate as Grantor. I quit my interests in totality as Creator/Grantor. The B.O.T. issued Certificates upon those who I declared, as Creator, to benefit. The beneficiaries were pleased to find that they knew nothing of what had occurred and they did not have to run the trust affairs but that they would benefit from the stewardship of the B.O.T.

The Beneficiaries hold the Certificates but have zero standing to run the affairs of the Trust. The trust business is run by the trust Officers according to the terms that I Created and were accepted by a Board of Trustees.

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

I was not born an American. I was programmed that I was an American. I was programmed that all of this stuff which depends on my thought is real. I was programmed to fear. I was programmed to accept that government is needful. I was programmed that I needed to rely upon other men and trust other men to handle my affairs for me in what is called society. I was programmed to think that some certificate actually has value.

Then I realized that value is a societal perception. Something is valuable if the receiver THINKS it is valuable. Thus I found that i was not able to get State issue licenses for that required my trust. Now my trust is valuable to me and does not require any other to determine its worth. I know its worth.

Therefore I do not lend it or freely grant it in exchange for some piece of paper and some perception of freedom that is only an illusion perpetuated by those within the societal womb fast asleep. Therefore the so called B.C. is moot to me and in fact I know one exists but I could not tell you where it is.

So what is a B.C.? It is a certificate of trust. A noun. Which creates a relationship. But there is man again leaning on that shaky reed [Egypt] - Left Arm - Leah.

Regards,
MJ

If I find a thread lacks my interests or is about something I disdain, I have tended to simply not get involved. It might be of high importance to those who participate so refraining from cluttering up the thread is quite an easy courtesy to afford IMHO. If the thread is nonsense why are you participating? That is technically called trolling.

Believe me, to a man who has 5 kids, is working three jobs to pay child support, has a felony arrest and is checking out the site looking for a remedy you are just getting in the way but you think you are helping. There are two threads for religion.

If you have accomplished something with or without a birth certificate that could help others why not post a thread about it under success? If your reply is basically that you reply and don't care about trashing the thread because its about "non-sense" in your opinion to you then you there are many who would consider you to be trolling. If you are not posting to help others, then obviously you would refrain from posting to help but instead would instead post with yourself in mind.

In Gnosticism what is said of a dragon that has wings but has no feet? For some reason, that imagery has come in mind many times when contemplating your posts.

Chex
05-08-15, 01:21 AM
I believe what is happening is no one in their right mind would ever think that because of a birth certificate there is someone out there with control of your estate and controlled by a judge.

A judge better have a good insurance policy if one thinks they control your estate.

Where is the proof?

As I asked before where is the contract?

What gives you the right to anything that belongs to me?

Whose name is on it other than mine?

Who gave you control?

Show me the agreement.

allodial
05-08-15, 01:25 AM
I believe what is happening is no one in their right mind would ever think that because of a birth certificate there is someone out there with control of your estate and controlled by a judge.

A judge better have a good insurance policy if one thinks they control your estate.

Where is the proof?

As I asked before where is the contract?

What gives you the right to anything that belongs to me?

Whose name is on it other than mine?

Who gave you control?

Show me the agreement.

I suspect most of us are aware of the prospect of absurdity. But the thread is about getting at what it is--rather than sneering at about how dumb the thread is. However, how much of an absurdity is it to people who have their kids taken from them on a whimsy with the BC as the nexus? There are those who are "in the system" and "in the box". Of those who have posted, who has a vested interest in hiding the truth from them?

Say you post something very insightful and so does someone else then along comes someone who posts three long posts which buries it so that people have to dig backwards and filter through substance to find solid, practical information vs. you don't like the thread or the topic and you just dont post or keep your posts brief as in make your point briefly and get out (otherwise is it not trolling?)

Michael Joseph
05-08-15, 01:29 AM
If I find a thread lacks my interests or is about something I disdain, I have tended to simply not get involved. It might be of high importance to those who participate so refraining from cluttering up the thread is quite an easy courtesy to afford IMHO. If the thread is nonsense why are you participating? That is technically called trolling.

Believe me, to a man who has 5 kids, is working three jobs to pay child support, has a felony arrest and is checking out the site looking for a remedy you are just getting in the way but you think you are helping. There are two threads for religion.

Some come for wisdom others just want the free fish sandwich [five loaves/two fishes]. Some will see that they can rise above and others just want out of the pit they created for themselves. To the point the remedy is that of a concern of trust.

Remedy is between the ears. Whereof is my trust resident? That requires my action or inaction depending on perspective. If I have lodged my trust in another well it will not be hard to see. Accounts will exist everywhere, voting rolls, county registry, etc. My deeds will reflect my trust in implication and my signature may be found in expression. Therefore again the question is begged where is my trust lodged?

Remedy you say? Remedy lies in understanding trust. Trolling you say? Perhaps you are not hearing that which you desire however, I will follow I. Thank you for your contemplation and your patience. There are others who read hereof who are not in that boat. I hope you can appreciate that statement.

I remember meeting a man named Rod Class on North Carolina one day for two hours. He went on and on about this statute and that statute concerning this remedy or that remedy. I sat patiently and listened and after two hours I told him I was unconcerned about statutes and that all of what he spouted might be remedied by a man who understands six simple words "I have no trust in you". To that end, our meeting ended. So be it.

I will step away from this thread. Thank you for letting me know that there is someone who desperately needs to learn about a Birth Certificate.

Shalom,
MJ

allodial
05-08-15, 01:33 AM
Some come for wisdom others just want the free fish sandwich [five loaves/two fishes]. Some will see that they can rise above and others just want out of the pit they created for themselves. To the point the remedy is that of a concern of trust.

Remedy is between the ears. Whereof is my trust resident? That requires my action or inaction depending on perspective. If I have lodged my trust in another well it will not be hard to see. Accounts will exist everywhere, voting rolls, county registry, etc. My deeds will reflect my trust in implication and my signature may be found in expression. Therefore again the question is begged where is my trust lodged?

Remedy you say? Remedy lies in understanding trust. Trolling you say? Perhaps you are not hearing that which you desire however, I will follow I. Thank you for your contemplation and your patience. There are others who read hereof who are not in that boat. I hope you can appreciate that statement.

I remember meeting a man named Rod Class on North Carolina one day for two hours. He went on and on about this statute and that statute concerning this remedy or that remedy. I sat patiently and listened and after two hours I told him I was unconcerned about statutes and that all of what he spouted might be remedied by a man who understands six simple words "I have no trust in you". To that end, our meeting ended. So be it.

I will step away from this thread. Thank you for letting me know that there is someone who desperately needs to learn about a Birth Certificate.

Shalom,
MJ

No offense intended: I'm not sure how often you might contradict yourself even in the same post. If the birth certificate is evidence of someone having trust in the very thing you trivialize then why not say it and be done? And then if someone makes that point you post long long posts which obfuscates getting to the very point you claim to be making but yet you do not make that point. If its silly for someone to be desperate to learn about birth certificates then why are do you appear to be running interference?

You assert that a NAME or an ACCOUNT belongs to them. I agree and rather than staying on the course of topic, you obfuscate and diverting from the practical and pragmatic. Maybe because you feel you are protecting the truth and keeping others from arriving at the truth because you feel them not to deserve it?

If someone explains to them in terms of statutes, states --maybe that is in terms that they can comprehend and that will lead them to consider the philosophy of law which will then lead them to the truth. Babies drink milk before they get to meat or more solid foods. I knew of a so-called pastor who just about killed so many because he was always serving up steaks (stakes) even to babes--never listening always talking always standing on his Uber Soap Box. He quoted some verse about meat. I replied "But who gives meat to babies?" His eyes watered up and started to break out in tears. For some reason, that came to mind.

Also, I suspect that it helps knowing when you are preaching to the choir and when you aren't.

Re: the topic
If the NAME is theirs and the ACCOUNT theirs maybe they want you to minister to them that it is theirs so that the remedy can be had. Maybe it is that way by design. Hmmm just maybe they provide birth certificates for some other reason than what Jordan Maxwell says.

xparte
05-08-15, 03:52 AM
I recently got a John H Doe in the Mail not JOHN HENRY DOE or John Henry Doe all three are styled for a reason all caps is a bill charge upper lower is private person or common law supposedly and my favourite has to be the vacant office upper lower middle initial scam.when one gets this send it back as its a residency check as Lodi has imparted John H DOE;S A DONT,S a warrant or the offer to settle all those NAMED charges because jurisdiction is lost due to no trust or never claiming and appearing for a NAME warrant first if that gets the court back up and running those same charges start fresh if this fails a letter with a middle initial letter INITIATES THE PROCESS again ONCE YOU THINK ITS YOU or know its them if they convinced themselves that that NAME is you so what send it back as its undeliverable as MJ has more than once suggested. For Me once its on paper its transparent . important is the act and avoidance of becoming that paper accept how Me is the matter and who,s NAMED BRINGS THE CHARGE/ WORDS WHO casts the spell has the spelling and the style of that TRUSTED proceeding massage the words oil the tongue

allodial
05-08-15, 04:03 AM
Refusal for cause is about sending it back preferably within 72 hours. As David Merrill puts it, the UPPERCASE is a type of 'slang' to show the kind of entity or personae being dealt with. However I've heard the term "clarifying" used to describe making a name uppercase (in that sense it really means to 'kill' or "eliminate" (distinction). ? *shrugs*)

Right of avoidance of contract is fundamental even as pertains to law of the flag. However, the contract/application for the license, permit, etc. might be of import.

It might help to start looking at names paper in the sense of presumed orders-of-precedence of fiduciary relationship.


ACME TAX SERVICE
100 TAKINGS LANE
REVENUEVILLE, XX 60606

BOB COSTINGS .. .. .. .. .................................................. .......... SSN 123-45-6789
100 HOST LN
SOURCE, TX 75000

Bob:

{Commands, suggestions, instructions, notices, declarations...}

{Signature}

Do you notice that the name Bob is underneath (underwritten/underwriting) the symbols/names above it? If you accept the letter then perhaps you are also accepting the 'order of affairs' illustrated therein. Alfred Adask gives some interesting insight concerning letters.

Also, marking a bill and putting "property of the U.S. Treasury" or whatever has been suggested (David Merrill knows) is just the same concept of "its yours"--they know its theirs. But you can volunteer if you wanna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accommodation_party)!

Related:

My Evil Twin (Adask) (http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Media/Antishyster/V08N1-MyEvilTwin.pdf)
Doppelgänger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppelg%C3%A4nger)
Legal Personality (Adask) (http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Media/Antishyster/V12N1-LegalPersonality.pdf)
Allegiance and Birth Certificates (Adask) (http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Media/Antishyster/V11N1-AllegAndBirthCert.pdf)
Divorcing the Corporate State (Adask) (http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Media/Antishyster/V10N1-DivorcingCorpState.pdf)

xparte
05-08-15, 05:57 AM
I sent it back on the premise who is the Court trying to identify R4C is a issue after its been read i never open it as it has residence remedy for jurisdiction theirs I know less then most and my humility allows me this post if anyone has made a clean break with the Courts the views and interest for this site might be moot the fact each and everyone shares in his or hers mistakes keeps it current The truth is 72hrs in a lockup over child support payments is a valid reason to find a thread or forum and its no place for remedy is never a desired discourse but how life works is anyone or not Me MJ mentions tower of babel well to me it adjusts The reason why a confounding of language was necessary in the first place Noah docks a boat God tells him now fill the world not a chance instead sons of god sons of adam are that Fckin BABEL the law givers Abe begot moe and planks up the ass tears in Christ eye. and it wont be wrong if a intelligent Man says beating a burning bush or jumping of the tower speaking intellectually or insistently yet never speaking remedy is the courts pagan persons file and once a week the meek get styled its frustration when arrogance is remedy for ignorance the path is narrow its a shame how wide we make i been that person and its a story you cant sell. if one cant one does without offending and codec-ending what guys do

allodial
05-08-15, 06:04 AM
I sent it back on the premise who is the Court trying to identify R4C is a issue after its been read i never open it as it has residence remedy for jurisdiction theirs I know less then most and my humility allows me this post if anyone has made a clean break with the Courts the views and interest for this site might be moot the fact each and everyone shares in his or hers mistakes keeps it current The truth is 72hrs in a lockup over child support payments is a valid reason to find a thread or forum and its no place for remedy is never a desired discourse ...

Nihilism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism) (and despair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism#Nietzsche))?

xparte
05-08-15, 07:47 AM
Sounds like fredricks BC & DC

Chex
05-08-15, 01:23 PM
Here is an example of a functioning trustee and agent. (http://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/120903.asp)

walter
05-08-15, 03:48 PM
1. If you answer to the name of the defendant of the case (most always going to have the status of 'resident' (i.e. office of resident)) that could make you a surety or accommodation party (http://usa-the-republic.com/revenue/ucc%20connection.html) for the defendant (has NOTHING to do with the birth certificate).
2. The holding of the birth certificate is a totally separate matter from a case--completely unrelated unless you make it related.
3. The birth certificate itself is evidence ..of ..something.

1. The job of the prosecutor is to find a surety for the charges.
The charges are placed on a registration.
We show up to court because we think the registration which holds the chargers is in fact us.
A third party (us) appears in court. Prosecutor is very happy that they found a surety other wise they will be the surety. After all who brought the chargers to the court?
Judge is the banker making sure that the books are balanced.
He is trusted to managing their accounts.

2. I strongly disagree with that statement. It has everything to do with the case.

3. I agree with this statement. Its evidence of a certificate.
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page?id=2486E68DD51E4C7ABFA711E890A016FA
Birth Certificates

Your birth certificate is an important legal document that establishes who you are, and when and where you were born. A birth certificate is required for many important applications like passport, the medical services plan, social insurance number, and school enrollment.

You see what the BC is evidencing? Who you are.
It makes you a third party to their affairs.
A cling-on.
Why do they want you in this position?
Because they need a surety.

walter
05-08-15, 04:09 PM
How is it the judge becomes the NAME, then administered this trust account if no standing why is the beneficiary NAMED without standing?

The judge doesn't become the name.
Even the prosecutor has no standing unless certain requirements are met which most of the time they are not.
Beneficiary's can not sue in the trust name.

walter
05-08-15, 04:15 PM
There is talk in this thread of giving the BC back.
That's great but did you cancel it?
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/DownloadAsset?assetId=FA3E7972ADF04D42852281F8AABC 86ED&filename=vsa410b_fill.pdf

xparte
05-08-15, 05:31 PM
If a CLERK calls the NAME its 3RD party if otherwise tell me my court calamity is i am no person convey that and how a judge is inclined to re-present the NAME then enter a plea based on WHAT AUTHORITY i gave this 3rd party person their bc a dl a hydro bill it was kept and entered as evidence of what to me evident a person exists on paper only, if i regret writing a SUICIDE note yet as the author i am its highest AUTHORITY once im deceased no standing is evidence based on the note alone forget a body giving 3rd dimension testimony a honey badger gets both in nature 3rd party gets stung

allodial
05-08-15, 07:02 PM
2. I strongly disagree with that statement. It has everything to do with the case.
....

Your birth certificate is an important legal document that establishes who you are, and when and where you were born. A birth certificate is required for many important applications like passport, the medical services plan, social insurance number, and school enrollment.

You see what the BC is evidencing? Who you are.
It makes you a third party to their affairs.
A cling-on.
Why do they want you in this position?
Because they need a surety.

Are you so sure? What name is on the Birth Certificate? What name is on the driver license? What name is on the phone bill? What name is on the passport (word and letter order matters)? Who has the competence to tell the difference between "John Henry Doe" and "John H. Doe" and "Doe John H." and "Doe John Henry" (Hooked On Phonics, anyone)? Who is lacking reading skills to the extent they might not be able see that those are all different names? In legal style in the USA and most all English-speaking jurisdictions, "H" would drop out. Abbreviations only hold up for popular acronyms like USA or NHL or UK. What if it is instead that John H Doe is at the DMV identified as the person holding the birth certificate?

2576

(Rarely are birth certificate 'names' shown with any abbreviations. Note the uppercase nonetheless.)

2578

Evidence of an entry in a register? What is the significance of 'being in that register'?


Your birth certificate is an important legal document that establishes who you are

[ Don't I establish who I are/is?]
What if presenting it instead of establishing your identity serves the purpose of establishing the particulars of the person whose estate you are administering? What if presenting the birth certificate is not at all different than presenting a Certificate of Incorporation from the Secretary of State?

I reiterate, the person named on the birth certificate is not likely ever presumed party as defendant to any court proceeding.


You see what the BC is evidencing? Who you are.
It makes you a third party to their affairs.
A cling-on.
Why do they want you in this position?
Because they need a surety.

They call the name JOHN H DOE not the name on the birth certificate. Simply put and restated (from above): if you answer in a "court" to the name John H Doe you will be taken to be surety or accommodation party for that person.

***

Even if John H Doe is called for a child support case, the birth certificate they are looking at is that of the CHILD. Then they will look at the FATHER's (almost always the lowest name on the birth certificate--first in line surety--so much for "gender equality", eh?). Then they will look to find out who is the administrator for that FATHER person (psst! the DMV might have a clue).

If you really want to know who the birth certificate belongs to, you can ask the appropriate State official.

P.S. In many jurisdictions there is writing on a birth certificate that it is not to be used for ID --SS card was (and maybe still is) the same.

P.S.2: Vanity can be a liability.

walter
05-08-15, 07:03 PM
If a CLERK calls the NAME its 3RD party if otherwise tell me my court calamity is i am no person convey that and how a judge is inclined to re-present the NAME then enter a plea based on WHAT AUTHORITY i gave this 3rd party person their bc a dl a hydro bill it was kept and entered as evidence of what to me evident a person exists on paper only, if i regret writing a SUICIDE note yet as the author i am its highest AUTHORITY once im deceased no standing is evidence based on the note alone forget a body giving 3rd dimension testimony a honey badger gets both in nature 3rd party gets stung


A judge does not re-present the name.
The prosecutor does.
After all who brought the claim to court?

The judge enters a plea on the authority of administrator.

allodial
05-08-15, 07:37 PM
IMHO you're better off seeing the judge as a referee or arbiter (although membership on the Bar with the prosecuting attorney is a wee bit of conflict of interest). The prosecuting attorney is the plaintiff (revenue collector?) for all practical purposes.

Since the plaintiff is complaint-ive and the defendant is thereby accused (some say its related to the word 'accursed'). The court or tribunal might consist of the referee (judge) and the court clerk at the very least--psst the court building isn't the court. Consider the idea of rending a tennis court to resolve a dispute--and of course there is a fee to be paid the line judge and the score keeper to compensate them for their time.

Participation in the case and membership in the court are separate matters from the relationship between the alleged debtor and the alleged creditor.

walter
05-08-15, 09:04 PM
BC, DL, passport, phone bill , doesn't matter.
All are judicial persons. You own none of them, but you can be all of them.

Ask your self these questions with all the accounts listed above.
Who is the "accommodating party"?
Who's the "principal obligor"?
Who's the "secondary obligor"?

allodial
05-08-15, 09:10 PM
BC, DL, passport, phone bill , doesn't matter.
All are judicial persons. You own none of them, but you can be all of them.

Ask your self these questions with all the accounts listed above.
Who is the "accommodating party"?
Who's the "principal obligor"?
Who's the "secondary obligor"?

What do you by "doesn't matter"? What "doesn't matter" to whom? Also, I wouldn't be so errant (or foolish) as to claim ownership of those persons in a unwise manner. Owner is synonymous with surety. The nihilistic approach is how fruitful? It aint , you cant, it wont. But what about what can, is, will?


Ask your self these questions with all the accounts listed above.
Who is the "accommodating party"?
Who's the "principal obligor"?
Who's the "secondary obligor"?

I'm not sure how answering those questions apply to my circumstance. While they might apply to others. The SSAN is an account number. The driver license number is an account number. The names are not necessarily accounts. The mistake many have made is that they think they know when they do not. They make wide sweeping mental leaps and merge things that are distinct and different--too quick to be 'aha I got you' and rather than realizing that they might need to slow down and stop making (vain) presumptions.

http://www.oddwiring.com/projects/FredsWorld/Fred/Birth%20Certificate.jpg

2579

The name on the birth certificate is not the same name on a driver license--it is not something I type that anyone can say is "wild and elusive and so vurray mysterious" BECAUSE YOU CAN LOOK FOR YOURSELF. With respect to a driver license a man can take suretyship by singing underneath (undewriting). With respect to a court case, by answering to the name of the *defendant*. There is an unmistakable pattern if you look at things from the eyes of a child rather than of an adult that thinks he/she knows everything.

Is "water pump" the same as "pump water"? Is Jensen Dakota the same Dakota Jensen?

allodial
05-08-15, 10:03 PM
It might be safe to say that the solution is between your ears which has been much the point, but when someone sees that they are reading (int) things with cognitive dyslexia and functionally illiteracy and can be humble in that realization (pissed..at yourself?)--then yes the solution can be between the ears because the that is where the problem has been.

walter
05-08-15, 11:04 PM
What do you by "doesn't matter"? What "doesn't matter" to whom?




Not our property, why would we care? Unless one wants to use their property then one will care.

allodial
05-08-15, 11:19 PM
Not our property, why would we care? Unless one wants to use their property then one will care.

Good point. But, there are those who are in different situations than you are I might be.

allodial
05-09-15, 12:52 AM
There is talk in this thread of giving the BC back.
That's great but did you cancel it?
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/DownloadAsset?assetId=FA3E7972ADF04D42852281F8AABC 86ED&filename=vsa410b_fill.pdf

That for has to do with reporting a lost or stolen BC. If I were to cancel something I'd cancel the original application. Each certification stands on its own.

george
05-09-15, 04:58 AM
elsewhere some are saying to get the certificate of live birth authenticated and it will then be an original in your possession and since the Birth certificate is made by the certificate of live birth (the actual matrix or original instrument) they would then be your property.

I would like to verify/confirm that authentication process does actually make an original instrument out of a copy>

anyone? there are several reports of this process working to start another more involved process of what ends in diplomatic imunity.

alodial you and MJ are have interesting coversations and it may not seem like it but I think you both bring out the best in each other, the best useful info anyway. Ive given up on finding any real solutions at this site and David Merrill seems to have lost intrest a while ago on these subjects. so much for lesson plans LOL

previous members, many who posted on this thread also seemed to have moved on except the one guy with two different usernames taling to himself in this thread but thats no longer possible since one of him is banned now.

I really mis suijurisclub! had high hopes when STS came about too. oh well..


so anyway, can authenticating a COLB or BC be fruitful? if noone has an answer then at some point I plan to so I will remember to share here if/when I am able.

thanks

Chex
05-09-15, 12:59 PM
Funny your post #203 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1161-Birth-Certificate-What-it-is&p=17794&viewfull=1#post17794)should mention that allodial “What if it is instead that John H Doe is at the DMV identified as the person holding the birth certificate?”

I renewed my DL and had my full middle name spelled out on it and never did I ever use it; only had the initial.

I asked where that came from, how did you know that was my middle name?

The DMV person asked me is that your middle name, I said yes but I don’t use it and don’t like it this way, the DMV would not change it.

This had to come from the Secretary of State.

Fluke I think not ………… Maybe it is the Certificate of Incorporation from the Secretary of State?

I agree with george “you and MJ are have interesting conversations and it may not seem like it but I think you both bring out the best in each other, the best useful info anyway.”

Chex
05-09-15, 01:46 PM
They say:

But I do not owe any debt to the United States. http://fms.treas.gov/news/handbook/index.html

Contact the federal or state agency collecting the debt which is listed in the notice you received. If you need information about whom to contact, call the Treasury Offset Program Help Desk toll-free at (800) 304-3107.

If your debt has been paid in full, or if you do not owe the debt for other reasons, the agency collecting the debt is responsible for returning to you any part of your payment that should not have been reduced. http://fiscal.treasury.gov/fsservices/gov/debtColl/faqs/debt_questions_top_pub.htm

These listings are not searchable by personal identifiers, such as a person's name or social security number.

Personal identifiers.

A personal identifier is a data element within a data set that singly or in combination can uniquely identify an individual, such as a social security number , name, ... http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Personal_identifier

Guidance on Redacting Personal Data Identifiers in Electronically Filed Documents (https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=ArdMm_ja5DHln.8AMdSjBQSbvZx4?p=Guidanc e+on+Redacting+Personal+Data+Identifiers+in+Electr onically+Filed+Documents+&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-700&fp=1)

shikamaru
05-09-15, 02:04 PM
They say:

But I do not owe any debt to the United States. http://fms.treas.gov/news/handbook/index.html

Contact the federal or state agency collecting the debt which is listed in the notice you received. If you need information about whom to contact, call the Treasury Offset Program Help Desk toll-free at (800) 304-3107.

If your debt has been paid in full, or if you do not owe the debt for other reasons, the agency collecting the debt is responsible for returning to you any part of your payment that should not have been reduced. http://fiscal.treasury.gov/fsservices/gov/debtColl/faqs/debt_questions_top_pub.htm

These listings are not searchable by personal identifiers, such as a person's name or social security number.

Personal identifiers.

A personal identifier is a data element within a data set that singly or in combination can uniquely identify an individual, such as a social security number , name, ... http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Personal_identifier

Guidance on Redacting Personal Data Identifiers in Electronically Filed Documents (https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=ArdMm_ja5DHln.8AMdSjBQSbvZx4?p=Guidanc e+on+Redacting+Personal+Data+Identifiers+in+Electr onically+Filed+Documents+&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-700&fp=1)

Most records age out or become "deceased" if no claims or registers occur in 5 to 7 years. Some records take longer.

Breathe not life into such items with claims such as registration or proclamation.

Besides, such records belong to the corporation. They merely need life energy transferred into them. An actor.

allodial
05-09-15, 03:40 PM
Funny your post #203 (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1161-Birth-Certificate-What-it-is&p=17794&viewfull=1#post17794)should mention that allodial “What if it is instead that John H Doe is at the DMV identified as the person holding the birth certificate?”

I renewed my DL and had my full middle name spelled out on it and never did I ever use it; only had the initial.

I asked where that came from, how did you know that was my middle name?

The DMV person asked me is that your middle name, I said yes but I don’t use it and don’t like it this way, the DMV would not change it.

This had to come from the Secretary of State.

Fluke I think not ………… Maybe it is the Certificate of Incorporation from the Secretary of State?

I agree with george “you and MJ are have interesting conversations and it may not seem like it but I think you both bring out the best in each other, the best useful info anyway.”

I've noticed more States are starting to use Middle Name spelled out on DLs and IDs. However, the order is still

LAST FIRST MIDDLE

which is not the same name as on the birth certificate.

walter
05-09-15, 04:19 PM
That for has to do with reporting a lost or stolen BC. If I were to cancel something I'd cancel the original application. Each certification stands on its own.

Its the only form I have found that cancels a BC.
When you cancel a BC anything created by using that BC is void.
Can not the filled out cancellation form be used as evidence that you are not the holder of it?
Just a thought.

And yes each BC certificate stands on its own meaning to the rest of you reading this is that they are ALL ORIGINALS.

walter
05-09-15, 04:50 PM
elsewhere some are saying to get the certificate of live birth authenticated and it will then be an original in your possession and since the Birth certificate is made by the certificate of live birth (the actual matrix or original instrument) they would then be your property.


Chopped this one to pieces and I don't buy it.
All BC are originals.
If you created the original then you are the holder in due course, you are liable on the instrument.

If you could hold the original SOLB where would you put it?
Once you remove the original from the states files you will become stateless and considered a refugee.
Then you would need protection from plunder because you have no nation.
You are not under a compact.
I can chain you up in my yard like a dog and there is nothing anybody can do for you.
Unless the state you just fled stands up for you and protects your refugee status under International law.
You see what just happened?
Lowering of your status.

Authentication proves they are truly a governemnt created document. (verifying the oath of the signatory)
Legalization makes the document valid in a foreign venue.
When you create a duplicate original document of title then both title holders are liable on the instrument.
Do you want to be liable for someone else instruments when you don't know what accounts and charges have been placed on them? No thanks.

I have called the authentication place in Canada a couple of times and asked them question.
They were very helpful in explaining to me the process.

xparte
05-09-15, 08:30 PM
In the tennis court handing over the racket and leaving the court was essential for me? returning their BC&DL was symbolic only to make it clear NAMES on government papers are government property if a person is property if i return a persona in its NAME what is the WARRANT ISSUED FOR BUT THE BODY what is between a court admin ears and mine Air for me paper for them? how plain can a person be as plain as BC&DL the Air is verbal vibration energy THE AIR HEAD WONT PLAY TENNIS now what remedy in- rem be that judge ask how do we get this airhead arrests 3 fails to appear 3 mail john h christ sends it back as undeliverable how would the wealth and breath of air in every man on this site get this prick that is my remedy? all clues yet why the mystery Please a dysfunctional past is PROPERTY OF THE FUTURE this there BABEL a bear asked a rabbit hey big ears any problem with shit stikin to fur none great says the bear and wipes his ass? Admin the text book bullies bookies need the book .George it is growth when sites get sluggish u cant throw away your encyclopaedias just cause the wife gotta answers for everything its your site your air find some reruns from the old site throw nuthin away.

george
05-09-15, 09:03 PM
thanks for your input on my inquiry walter. calling these people on the phone to ask these types of questions is not something I have tried for several reasons but if I cant find the info I need to verify/confirm authentication elsewhere I may have to do that. I can already imagine the hold times and run around I'll probably get into there though. probably have to speak to a computer at some point also.


George it is growth when sites get sluggish u cant throw away your encyclopaedias just cause the wife gotta answers for everything its your site your air find some reruns from the old site throw nuthin away.

hi xparte, suijurisclub had a tremendous wealth of knowledge that was all lost when the admin went missing and then database purged. along with a 300+ page thread by David Merrill as he battled it out in real-time with the system. and his 300 million dollar lien and where he offered a share in that to the membership. its how I became convinced David was walking the talk. posted his record keeping step by step though the whole deal too.

allodial
05-09-15, 10:06 PM
Its the only form I have found that cancels a BC.
When you cancel a BC anything created by using that BC is void.
Can not the filled out cancellation form be used as evidence that you are not the holder of it?
Just a thought.

And yes each BC certificate stands on its own meaning to the rest of you reading this is that they are ALL ORIGINALS.

One can just surrender it like any other property can be surrendered, and appoint the attorney general to take over. This is from way back... (see attachment). But cancellation is another topic really. Looking for forms? Anyone can make forms. Forms are what they agree upon as acceptable per compliance with regulations. IMHO one would want something to fill the void, if necessary. And I am not suggesting cancelling vs not cancelling, just an FYI.

george
05-10-15, 02:05 AM
One can just surrender it like any other property can be surrendered, and appoint the attorney general to take over. This is from way back... (see attachment). But cancellation is another topic really. Looking for forms? Anyone can make forms. Forms are what they agree upon as acceptable per compliance with regulations. IMHO one would want something to fill the void, if necessary. And I am not suggesting cancelling vs not cancelling, just an FYI.

hi allodial,

that .pdf is certainly interesting, is that your experience? and if that record is then "sealed/private" how is that to ones advantage?

thanks

BTW, my apologies that I keep mis-spelling your screen name with only one L, I think I got it now though.

allodial
05-10-15, 08:34 PM
Here's another..looking for the old thread.

allodial
05-10-15, 08:36 PM
Here it is... <link to thread> (http://ecclesia.org/forum/pop_printer_friendly.asp?TOPIC_ID=33).

xparte
05-10-15, 11:23 PM
How can one not agree with the enthusiasm from threads like those i hear ya uncle george again thankfull for allodial,s information unfettered, outright and absolute.

george
05-11-15, 03:36 PM
How can one not agree with the enthusiasm from threads like those i hear ya uncle george again thankfull for allodial,s information unfettered, outright and absolute.


if you say so.. LOL more questions unanswered from my perspective (maybe dishonor) seems the norm here from my experience but there are some exceptions occasionally and those who genuinely care to share/help are indeed exceptional.

I too make mistakes, probably moreso than most. Im working on it.

walter
05-11-15, 05:36 PM
if you say so.. LOL more questions unanswered from my perspective

lots of confusion in that thread.
It doesn't have to be.

xparte
05-12-15, 02:31 AM
Lets say its frustration and if we all say so then it wont have to be so confusing. I been arrested on a warrant from the clerk twice now the new warrant is for a sentence as i had been found guilty at a trial on various moving violations i exit proceeding yet i got hauled in a 3rd time just to see that same clerk and promise to appear again so they can sentence who? Now they gave up arresting the NAME as the jail is calling me John James;Police wont arrest John James; DMV has had one meeting with John James; i am no danger to myself or travelling public I have this in writing yet a letter from Court sent to John J Mac Lean arrived in March it was returned unopened this has a offer like all warrants is another offer I see local Crime Stoppers has the Name and Photo on a Police web site now i asked for this punishment only because i thought i was standing in honour yet the game is that the NAME never had any standing And John James;this Name was meddling Walter i know this to nausea WHAT i dont get is who,s responsibility is it how and if the charges to the NAMED ACCOUNT get Zeroed without being the NAMED ACCOUNT or surety itself thanx for your input the only distance i go with the courts and police is professional never personnel i respect the choice as its only one i cant blame when its just a childish game of thorns pun intential .watched Archie Bunker last night Sammy Davis Jr episode on you tube whether Arch should or should ,nt said this or that is how ignorance is so retentive when one meant what he said .a PERSON is total retentive ignorance is that confusion or am i frustrating a dead thread If a capital offence was confusing its because everybody is going to the chair THE PERSON PLACE AND THIS THING CALLED YOU can be in John James ; shirt pocket paper never dies until the body shows up .what am i missing no its not a silver bullet no no ones out to get me Am i confused that a solution is only as hard as the paperwork that,s conveniently none of my business as John James ; now its not so confusing as its supposed to be that way what is frustrating is it seems this is the only way.as lucid as i dare be

allodial
05-12-15, 04:56 AM
This link is to the full thread -> http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=33.

walter
05-12-15, 07:14 AM
Walter i know this to nausea wont i dont get is who,s responsibility is it how and if the charges to the NAMED ACCOUNT get Zeroed without being the ACCOUNT itself

Can you please re-state this question because it confuses me.
Thanks.

xparte
05-12-15, 10:37 AM
The answers or the answerers are none greater then all confusion, reading between the lines or where one draws a conclusive line its those questions that are questionable call this a draw where the either matter none.

allodial
05-12-15, 09:07 PM
The answers or the answerers are none greater then all confusion, reading between the lines or where one draws a conclusive line its those questions that are questionable call this a draw where the either matter none.

Another matter is "how can I tell you who you are?" and the related ethical (or Karmic) issues of telling someone else who they vs. them determining that themselves (oh the land between the ears). I know of plenty of people who are happy to have an SSN and such--who don't want a life without one. Its immature IMHO to presume everyone wants the exactly same thing.

I avoid an adversarial attitude toward government officers.

xparte
05-12-15, 10:37 PM
The adversarial was me being adverse to a Administrative process that tells me who i must be to accommodate the answers that cant be questioned YES i could have been handle this adversary on paper where non persons have standing To admit i was wrong is significant to the remedy and where no one need follow adversely not speaking THE CLERK wont or will enter on the record in the case associated to **TICKET NUMBER HERE** (“Case”) a restricted/special appearance of the DEFENDANT, without prejudice, to challenge jurisdiction. Please note, this is NOT to be construed as a general appearance or consent or a plea of any kind. Further, as the DEFENDANT has appeared, you must recall and quash the outstanding bench warrant in this Case.

walter
05-13-15, 02:54 AM
Further, as the DEFENDANT has appeared, you must recall and quash the outstanding bench warrant in this Case.

Bench warrant's have no effect on a man/woman if they don't use the BC NAME.
Bench warrants are not come to the door knock, knock type warrants.
They are a warrant for anyone answering to the BC NAME.
Meaning if you use the DL and get pulled over by the police you are going to jail.
If you get asked for ID buy the police and you show government issue based of the BC you are going to jail.
Anyone that Identifies them self as the bench warrant person is going to jail.

I had police at my door asking for the PERSON.
Family members asked for a warrant, there was none, told them sorry can't help you now go away.
They came by again and called and said that they would drop the ticket if I showed up to the station and dealt with the bench warrant.
Instead we bonded the case and it was removed from the files.
They had to try to trick me to show up for the BC name.
I didn't and they didn't get a surety.

xparte
05-13-15, 02:37 PM
If we agree that warrants are offers and a PEACE OFFICER is taking the survey if a Man has a choice to be recognized as a Man the paper is void. Yet i been scooped up twice in my backyard under a arrest warrant that i could see yet was not allowed to touch not answering the door has the same affect as getting a family member to state do you have a warrant again if they got the warrant the wife or family member needs to hold it and read it and the police are at risk if they hand one over as a family member can be a witness to a fraud the person is the NAME where is the proof my husband or dad is a person or this paper is a poor substitute and description for any Man.Its my tenure on this site to help the best way possible with doorstep stand off's no the wife or not answer door handles that backyards are physical forget the private property jump in the car forget your a person take it like a man booking a room in jail a SIGNATURE is requested forget your a person take like a man never sign for clothes or valuables they have been stolen in the kidnapping when the Man goes before the clerk who issued the warrant two choices go back to jail until the identity is no longer presumptive 72hrs for the Men and Women to also forget your a person.or if thats not what they will do then a new appearance or promise to appear this is at your request once a signature is furnished forget your A person never sign two more sleeps in jail is 72hrs not being a person now its the letter addressed and labelled john h doe this is where everyone involved is overstepping authority as it is a Man,s issue no more a legal issue Never closure for a Person thats fine what about the Man.real life needs real people real persons are real complicated Thanks Walter everyone person gets a knock knock but the paper never gets locked up? please explain how a bond might help as the attorneys never bond a case they have the chequebook a certified bounce vs a performance bond

chickalah
05-13-15, 11:32 PM
If we agree that warrants are offers and a PEACE OFFICER is taking the survey if a Man has a choice to be recognized as a Man the paper is void. ...


I do not volunteer for a survey, I can take care of my own affairs.

walter
05-14-15, 02:11 AM
please explain how a bond might help as the attorneys never bond a case they have the chequebook a certified bounce vs a performance bond

set-off the private side,
public must follow,
no record because no fiat bail was needed,

the gov created and owns the BC name,
the gov is liable for it,
the gov has an insurance plan to take care of any trouble of that name if no one stands as surety for it,
social insurance,
they even gave the BC name holder an account number,

Chex
05-14-15, 04:13 AM
From what I understood years back the gov puts a life insurance policy on every soldier, never seen proof of it just heard about it.

walter
05-14-15, 05:06 AM
From what I understood years back the gov puts a life insurance policy on every soldier, never seen proof of it just heard about it.

Its called:
"Dead Peasant Life Insurance Policies"
check it out,

allodial
05-15-15, 12:06 AM
From what I understood years back the gov puts a life insurance policy on every soldier, never seen proof of it just heard about it.

Bottomry? Property insurance?

xparte
05-16-15, 05:01 PM
For only me is suggesting the court has lost jurisdiction over any Man [ME] who leaves a court and has not answered to the NAME . That ends that trial to establish surety for that NAME Warrant is issued for NAME or A NEW BENEFIT WARRANT IS OFFERED and ORDERED FROM THE CLERK.The trial has found the NAMED PERSON IN THIS CASE guilty or gullible for said charges? JURISDICTION OVER A PERSON can be lost if NO person answers to that NAME . Jurisdiction over CHARGES or THAT CASE are never lost .A Man is never found GUILTY only a Person. MR XPARTE WE FOUND YOU GUILTY great now leave me alone SORRY cant sentence a PERSON we need a body to APPEAR or a Man giving that appearance so COURT reclaims our lost jurisdiction we prefer a warrant to get a Man,s promise to re appear as that Person . Any lost jurisdiction can be regained with a NEW offer. If traffic court is cancelled for any reason or it did,nt convene or sit on a PERSONS date a loss over jurisdiction for that person can be found with a new summons if the Man takes the bait . The bait is on paper the survey is on paper is the NAMED on paper My only remedy and theirs too is on paper challenged ego and court incompetence are the bait . Aiding ones abatement is never the Egotistical or Metaphysical challenge only a Man demands alleviation; mitigation. suppression or termination: abatement of a person . The site is a conscience it has everything a conciliatory message and offer should be . A commercial thought has to wait till the bank opens for security and surety purposes only .Finding the truth is securing the trust .Dead and loving it i trust knot Stockholm systematics or home town decedents syndrome. Get captivated send a message to the conscience public or private side.[ The suitors mailbx hydrometry ] finding confidence in a word is the Magic in its bewitchment and the casting of its spell or the spelling of persons, and how a word becomes a case Named,or NAMED in COURTS lacking class but a cohesive stylishness get the memo or owe the note.

walter
12-03-15, 07:20 PM
A birth certificate is a “license” to use government issued name.

allodial
12-03-15, 08:22 PM
Possession of it might amount to a license but the certificate itself is more than likely merely evidence of something.

walter
12-03-15, 10:21 PM
Possession of it might amount to a license but the certificate itself is more than likely merely evidence of something.


Its the registration of a legal entity name.
Granting an entitlement to use it.
law defines ENTITLED as licensed,

http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c07/v5

Person’s name

2. (1) For all purposes of Ontario law,

(a) a person whose birth is registered in Ontario is entitled to be recognized by the name appearing on the person’s birth certificate or change of name certificate, unless clause (c) applies;

(b) a person whose birth is not registered in Ontario is entitled to be recognized by,

(i) the name appearing on the person’s change of name certificate, if the person’s name has been changed under this Act or a predecessor of it, or

(ii) in all other cases, the name recognized in law in the last place with which the person had a real and substantial connection before residing in Ontario,

unless clause (c) applies; and

(c) a person who adopted a name on marriage before the 1st day of April, 1987 is entitled to be recognized by that name unless the person subsequently changed that name under this Act or a predecessor of it. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.7, s. 2 (1).



now in...

2 (b) a person whose birth is not registered in Ontario is entitled to be recognized by,
(ii) in all other cases, the name recognized in law in the last place with which the person had a real and substantial connection before residing in Ontario,

they have to be referring to only one thing here.
the true name on the statement of live birth.
its the only paper document before the reside.

BLBereans
12-03-15, 10:24 PM
It is evidence that the holder of the "CERTIFICATE" is not the holder of the original; said "CERTIFICATE" is only a certified copy. Furthermore, one cannot claim title of the named entity on said "CERTIFICATE" if one does not hold, and cannot obtain (without permission), the original document.

Ergo, if one does not hold title to the named entity on a "CERTIFICATE", one does not hold title to ANYTHING in said name.

Michael Joseph
12-04-15, 12:04 AM
Possession of it might amount to a license but the certificate itself is more than likely merely evidence of something.

I think that US v THOMAS is a key to comprehending the nature of that certificate. It says that FRN's are understood by the RESERVES of the bank of the United States. And since it is written into law that one can make a demand upon that bank in accord with 12USC411, it stands to reason that the certificate is evidence of an interest. Consider how would it be possible for one who is without an interest to make a demand upon an uninterested party? That would be a trespass of the worst kind.

Said another way to claim a right in a contract of which one is not a signatory [subscriber] is a vile trespass.

I agree with BLBereans. FDR established the trust accounts thusly the creator/settlor has the administration and perhaps both the legal and equitable titles to the account; however, a use might be granted whereof we as grantors in faith are given access to the bank as consideration; and, thusly I model the BC as an access easement into law so as not to trespass. Otherwise, I am unable to accept any right of which I am not a party to the original contract.