PDA

View Full Version : Say Goodbye to Property Taxes?



David Merrill
03-19-11, 09:59 PM
I am hoping to refine this with the fine minds around here! Thank you Motla68!! Your pioneering skills have been quite helpful to me in this part of redeeming lawful money. The property tax issue has been quite the stumbling block for me, as I am not a homeowner. I have occasionally had suitors inquire in the broadcasts (brain trust) but apparently it is as big a stumbling block to them too.


Crosstalk:


Dear Suitors;


This is what I was talking about with the Website StSC being an asset to the broadcasts. I am utilizing it like an echo chamber and not only that, I can continue to refine ideas here on the broadcasts, and suitors on the chat room can discuss them on the thread there. I will start a thread there, with this broadcast and as things useful and new develop there, I can broadcast them again for us to read.

The idea struck me after a non-suitor described his "contract" or agreement with the local sheriff. He only did this for one year - 2004 but was promoting that the agreement is still in place. I do not believe that is so. His approach was based in the sheriff being the highest county official which is no longer true. I recall many years ago wanting to contact the sheriff on a report or whatever and being directed to the municipal police because I was downtown, in city limits. The dominion of the sheriff is the entire county but only outside the city limits. The member on StSC - Motla68 - got the annual budget figure for the sheriff from the CAFR and divided that by the number of taxpayer citizens in the county and found a figure per capita. That is what he cut a money order for with a contract proposal that held his sovereign declarations of the sheriff's unincorporated duties and outlined the agreement, that by accepting the sheriff agreed to. Motla68 will not share the actual documentation but that is what I have surmised after having to wait some time for any details at all. The thing that puts me off about the process is obviously Motla68 paid for a year of sheriff services in 2004 and still believes that the sheriff is obligated to services and performance seven years later.

So I processed what is going on with property taxes and formed a plan I will put to writing in this broadcast.

Pretend first that you live in the incorporated county (the County) outside city limits for simplicity. Go buy or pick up for free (here the City CAFR is free but the County CAFR is $25 and you can view it for free at the tax assessor's office) the County CAFR. Look through it like a menu of services and select sheriff and fire protection services. We should add one more service - 911 Emergency services to contact the sheriff or fire station in a hurry and get a quick response. Three services. Find the last year's budget for those services separately, then divide by the number of people in the county. [For accuracy you might factor in that the people in the City utilize municipal police for emergencies but you both utilize the sheriff's jail, which is likely located in the City too... things like that - but let's forget all that for this broadcast.] Now you have an annual figure of 'your fair share' to pay for the emergency services of the sheriff and fire department, supposing that is the only thing you want from the "menu". You will have a figure for Fire, Sheriff and 911 Emergency Communications.

Now you draw up the Agreement - which I would keep very simple and without any recognizable patriot or sovereign jargon; not even any religious proclamation except maybe the mention of Jesus or God to describe the original estate in trust. I would refer to this as the organic unincorporated county, original estate; like that. Detach yourself from county bonds, municipal bonding and school districts, fire districts etc. and explain concisely that this is how you are choosing to pay for your fair share of public services without mentioning anything at all about taxes. This is a private agreement between yourself, in true name and the sheriff and fire department including communications. Motla68 has not shared his Agreement so we suitors on StSC will likely refine it there on the new thread.

Publish the Agreement(s) (I suggest one agreement naming all three menu items and the "donations" to each) with the Money Orders or cash (of course, Redeemed Lawful Money!) at the county clerk and recorder, establishing the trust entity FIRST MIDDLE on the cash receipt. Serve that on the County Sheriff and the Fire Marshal at your nearest Fire Station. Serve it on the office of the 911 Dispatcher too - likely at the police station. Be certain to use a process server if they will not provide proof of service of the Agreement (original) and a receipt for your "Donation". The Agreement will specify the term - for one year from payment/donating and renewable at the end of that term. Consider that the county attorney will have a reasonable amount of time to R4C your novation - 3 days (10 Day Rule; two mail in, three days to consider, two mail back and a weekend plus government holiday potentially). Of course the County Attorney would have to refund your donation if he refuses your Agreement. But you would have that on the record and once your process is complete, you would publish the entire process including a Notice of Default - on R4C and the proof of service once again at the county clerk and recorder and copy all around including to the county tax assessor.

This process - certified copy would be included in any property tax presentments Refused for Cause in the standard manner of evidence repository.

If you are living inside the city limits you would duplicate this where necessary with police services, and with municipal fire only. I would keep both police and sheriff though, paying for both with redeemed lawful money - but of course drop county fire services because they would not respond to your home anyway. But you would want the sheriff, even in the city because of some of the common law vestigial authority - for example to refuse federal authority in the county. Motla68 has said that this process of dividing by per capita costs less than you would think.

I have just written that through for the first rough draft so keep that in mind as you look this over and hopefully you will join the fun on the chat room for developing this idea further.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Michael Joseph
03-20-11, 12:31 AM
Property Taxes are paid by the Registered Owner by and thru an a priori agreement.

Again what is Property? Property is Right of Use. The Registered Owner has the Right of Use via Agreement. The Trustee has the management of the Right of Use. And the tax is collected on the RIGHT OF USE.

Something tells me if I look at a Deed of Trust I am going to find an agreement within that says the Borrower agrees to pay the Property Taxes.....let me see if I can find one now....

151

Well now, look at that. It is indeed found within a pre-existing agreement. Wherein that agreement has made known a new term BORROWER and the BORROWER is exactly the same as LEGAL M. NAME or cestui que trust.

And i will wager that the Grantor is lawfully siezed of the estate - therefore the Property never leaves the State. Starting to see why SR#62 is not required to be Public Law?

For those playing catchup at Heinz field, Property is Right of Use. The Deed incorporated by reference a Survey and the Survey is Recorded on a Plat and the Plat is located on a Book of Maps and the Book of Maps is Registered at a book and page WITHIN a Trust Asset Registry known as Register of Deeds or County Clerk and Recorder.

And that agreement does not say the Borrower will repay in Pesos. It says the Borrower will repay with the money of the STATE.

The State is concerned with their Property. So now I ask, what again is Property. If you have not seen it yet. Go to the Top and read again.

But read this first (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?24-The-first-constitutions&p=143&viewfull=1#post143)


Plus something tells me the agreement is Probated - Dead Hand - irrevocable Trust Agreement. The Grant cannot be undone.

152


One thing to consider is what Registry will the Property - and the Agreements that govern the Property - be Registered? Under who's Law Form?

motla68
03-20-11, 03:08 AM
How about we first look at the word UNIFORM and doing a little deconstruction of MJ's post #2 ;

1. The act of regulating, or the state of being regulated.
[1913 Webster]

The temper and regulation of our own minds.
--Macaulay.
[1913 Webster]

2. A rule or order prescribed for management or government;
prescription; a regulating principle; a governing
direction; precept; law; as, the regulations of a society
or a school.
[1913 Webster]

Let this brew in your head some, a uniform trust - statutory in nature. Color of law manifested in ones mind, besides the paper form we see.

Adding to these thoughts of MJ's post with old post, he quotes:
========================================
Look at definition Number Two. Read it carefully. And recognize the State apparently does not recognize the man. It cannot recognize a man.

2. The party who has the legal title, has alone the right to seek a remedy for a wrong to his estate, in a court of law, though he may have no beneficial interest in it. The equitable owner, is he who has not the legal estate, but is entitled to the beneficial interest.
=========================================

Lets keep things in prospective here before we go any further the separation between " legal " (colorful paper) and Lawful, the equity side and natural law/right to use, also that in line 1 above man is not attached to paper persons and the case relating (Paderford vs. City of Savannah) Lets also brush up on something that was discussed before about the layers of trust:
usufructuary - United States of America (Article 55 - 1907 Hague convention on war upon lands)
usufruct - owner of property, state within the United States of America, NC, CA, FLA ( Senate Resolution #62)
naked owner - beneficial interest, the state with signing authority of the name ( as stated above above man cannot be paper. We are working on getting the information from Canada about the province in which birth took place the registrar general of that province having signing authority for the name. I have a feeling the equivalent will be found in Louisiana statutes )
man with natural right of use / posession - Genesis 1:26 - 28 (Lawful Equitable interest)

When man brings the darkness into light, gets the COLB authenticated with the one whom having signing authority for the name, the inhabitant then received indemnification through the owned name.
- Senate Resolution #62
153

Lieber Code - 38. Private property, unless forfeited by crimes or by offenses of the owner, can be seized only by way of military necessity, for the support or other benefit of the Army or of the United States. If the owner has not fled, the commanding officer will cause receipts to be given, which may serve the spoliated owner to obtain indemnity.

Also see post on Birth Registration:
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?111-Citizenship-defined-lost-in-translation

Don't mind me, just hypothicating here, you guys with the trust knowledge see if this can be congealed with expressing of the trust.

Anthony Joseph
03-20-11, 03:33 AM
Very interesting indeed! However, while we sort this out in the mean time, I am going to utilize an "oldie but goodie" refined by me specifically for the "real estate tax' bill.

Have a look see and let me know what you think. I will be sending this off in a matter of weeks before the claimed March 31st deadline.

Payment by Coupon Authorization (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B82U2MCfFjOUNTI3ZjRhNTctMDEwMS00OTg0LThjM TMtYmJmYjJhM2UyZDc2&hl=en)

motla68
03-20-11, 04:01 AM
Very interesting indeed! However, while we sort this out in the mean time, I am going to utilize an "oldie but goodie" refined by me specifically for the "real estate tax' bill.

Have a look see and let me know what you think. I will be sending this off in a matter of weeks before the claimed March 31st deadline.

Payment by Coupon Authorization (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B82U2MCfFjOUNTI3ZjRhNTctMDEwMS00OTg0LThjM TMtYmJmYjJhM2UyZDc2&hl=en)

Message comes up: " Sorry, the page (or document) you have requested is not available."

Anthony Joseph
03-20-11, 04:03 AM
Message comes up: " Sorry, the page (or document) you have requested is not available."

Is anyone else having this problem? I just clicked on the link myself and it took me to the Google docs page where the .zip file is located and it worked for me.

David Merrill
03-20-11, 05:11 AM
Look at definition Number Two. Read it carefully. And recognize the State apparently does not recognize the man. It cannot recognize a man.

The state cannot read the Agreement. The man in the sheriff uniform had the Agreement setting on his desk. Let's not get carried away by what the state thinks! The state cannot think.

About that Google Doc - get into the Share settings and make it Public on the Web. That should fix the link.

KnowLaw
03-20-11, 06:40 AM
Is anyone else having this problem? I just clicked on the link myself and it took me to the Google docs page where the .zip file is located and it worked for me.
Yes, I am. The page comes up and says the following:


Sorry, the page (or document) you have requested is not available.

Please check the address and try again.
Kind of frustrating, isn't it. I'm interested to see what you have come up with, as it may be an approach that I have recently used.

Perhaps if you could upload the file here in an attachment, more of us would be able to view it.

David Merrill
03-20-11, 12:20 PM
Property Taxes are paid by the Registered Owner by and thru an a priori agreement.

Again what is Property? Property is Right of Use. The Registered Owner has the Right of Use via Agreement. The Trustee has the management of the Right of Use. And the tax is collected on the RIGHT OF USE.

Something tells me if I look at a Deed of Trust I am going to find an agreement within that says the Borrower agrees to pay the Property Taxes.....let me see if I can find one now....

151

Well now, look at that. It is indeed found within a pre-existing agreement. Wherein that agreement has made known a new term BORROWER and the BORROWER is exactly the same as LEGAL M. NAME or cestui que trust.

And i will wager that the Grantor is lawfully siezed of the estate - therefore the Property never leaves the State. Starting to see why SR#62 is not required to be Public Law?

For those playing catchup at Heinz field, Property is Right of Use. The Deed incorporated by reference a Survey and the Survey is Recorded on a Plat and the Plat is located on a Book of Maps and the Book of Maps is Registered at a book and page WITHIN a Trust Asset Registry known as Register of Deeds or County Clerk and Recorder.

And that agreement does not say the Borrower will repay in Pesos. It says the Borrower will repay with the money of the STATE.

The State is concerned with their Property. So now I ask, what again is Property. If you have not seen it yet. Go to the Top and read again.

But read this first (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?24-The-first-constitutions&p=143&viewfull=1#post143)


Plus something tells me the agreement is Probated - Dead Hand - irrevocable Trust Agreement. The Grant cannot be undone.

152


One thing to consider is what Registry will the Property - and the Agreements that govern the Property - be Registered? Under who's Law Form?

I have been utilizing that clerk and recorder (county) law form for over twenty years now. That is where the chattel mortgage on the home resorts to for recordation. In my opinion, the plan outlined in the opening post is clever because it hardly qualifies as a novation. You are in essence still paying "taxes".

Let's speak about this in simpler terms - a car loan. The car loan is going to stipulate that you carry minimum coverage from the state. However the state allows for a liquidity (cash) bond. So you may be bound or have the option of keeping the mortgage - not paying it off - even though you are "rich" enough to have the $30K (or whatever it has gone up to) bond setting in your bank. The mortgager has no leg to stand on by saying that you have no insurance policy, therefore pay the loan off or hand the car back.

The "taxes" clause of the mortgage agreement must have a purpose, other than to earn tax revenue for the City and State. You are meeting that obligation by carrying fire and law enforcement protection in my proposal - albeit it is only a first draft. Therefore if the mortgage company were to start hovering because of the "taxes" clause, you would copy your ongoing Agreement to them, with your first R4C to their Presentment.



Regards,

David Merrill.

David Merrill
03-20-11, 12:56 PM
Very interesting indeed! However, while we sort this out in the mean time, I am going to utilize an "oldie but goodie" refined by me specifically for the "real estate tax' bill.

Have a look see and let me know what you think. I will be sending this off in a matter of weeks before the claimed March 31st deadline.

Payment by Coupon Authorization (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B82U2MCfFjOUNTI3ZjRhNTctMDEwMS00OTg0LThjM TMtYmJmYjJhM2UyZDc2&hl=en)

You can get that link to work I bet. Click Here (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?114-Graphics-Lesson-by-David-Merrill&p=731&viewfull=1#post731).

David Merrill
03-20-11, 01:24 PM
This may shed some light - click here (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?46-Certificate-of-Origin&p=736&viewfull=1#post736).

Anthony Joseph
03-20-11, 02:04 PM
You can get that link to work I bet. Click Here (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?114-Graphics-Lesson-by-David-Merrill&p=731&viewfull=1#post731).

Thanks, David. First time uploading to Google docs. I tried uploading the file directly but I got a message that the file was to big for the "file type". It is only 49K and the limit is 19K. Maybe we can change that; the Word doc is only 5 pages of text.

Anyway, try this out; I changed the share settings to "people with a link can view without signing in". If that doesn't work, I will change it to full public sharing.

Payment Coupon Authorization (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B82U2MCfFjOUNTI3ZjRhNTctMDEwMS00OTg0LThjM TMtYmJmYjJhM2UyZDc2&hl=en&authkey=CIf5qI4H)

motla68
03-20-11, 02:33 PM
Thanks, David. First time uploading to Google docs. I tried uploading the file directly but I got a message that the file was to big for the "file type". It is only 49K and the limit is 19K. Maybe we can change that; the Word doc is only 5 pages of text.

Anyway, try this out; I changed the share settings to "people with a link can view without signing in". If that doesn't work, I will change it to full public sharing.

Payment Coupon Authorization (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B82U2MCfFjOUNTI3ZjRhNTctMDEwMS00OTg0LThjM TMtYmJmYjJhM2UyZDc2&hl=en&authkey=CIf5qI4H)

Thanks, that worked.

I took a quick look through and it looks very similar to a document I seen many years ago that started the whole AFV dogma error, just people kept adding to it until it got to be a ridiculously long stamp for redemption. It mentions some statutes too. This is why I said to myself there has to be a better way to do this and started piecing things together, one of those things hit me when I found a definition of " statutory employee " in the IRS 1040 instructions form and that is when it hit me that them statutes are for statutory employees and that we just have to express intent of what is to be done with the instrument( more simpler approach) then get out of the way and let them do their job, let them public trust employees worry about the AFV statements.
This is where Coresource Solution became the beginning sparkle in the eyes of our original group that started it all.
makes sense?

Anthony Joseph
03-20-11, 03:10 PM
Thanks, that worked.

I took a quick look through and it looks very similar to a document I seen many years ago that started the whole AFV dogma error, just people kept adding to it until it got to be a ridiculously long stamp for redemption. It mentions some statutes too. This is why I said to myself there has to be a better way to do this and started piecing things together, one of those things hit me when I found a definition of " statutory employee " in the IRS 1040 instructions form and that is when it hit me that them statutes are for statutory employees and that we just have to express intent of what is to be done with the instrument( more simpler approach) then get out of the way and let them do their job, let them public trust employees worry about the AFV statements.
This is where Coresource Solution became the beginning sparkle in the eyes of our original group that started it all.
makes sense?

I don't subscribe at all to the "AFV dogma" as it relates to what I have read about utilizing and stamping the BC as a way to gain access to a fund account in the LEGAL NAME. From what I read, this method is then used on any bill, charging instrument, etc. while referencing the AFV'd BC to pay or discharge from that pseudo account. I don't buy that at all and I do not employ any part of that method whatsoever.

The doc is a slight variance of the original "Coupon Offer" document which has been circulating around for awhile. If you read it through, it is a basic instruction to the account owner as to how to settle their own account internally. The statutes cited are specifically for their own benefit only as a friendly reminder of the laws that bind them. Also, as another gesture of good faith, the coupon provided by them is included and returned as an instrument of payment which they MUST recognize and accept according to the laws of their realm of operation and commerce. This coupon is essentially as valid a form of payment as is an envelope full of FRNs acording to thier own law. I kindly provided that law for them to read, for their own benefit only, to make it easier for them to settle the matter quickly on their books.

It is actually a very simple document when you extract all the statutes, codes and definitions. I do not want or gain any benefit from their "laws"; I provide it to them only as a friendly reminder and as a gesture of good faith from the standing and character of a competent living soul who chooses to be a non-jurisdictional peaceful inhabitant on the land who can offer assistance to others when needed. This is from the position of suae potestate esse, sui juris, jure divino.

motla68
03-20-11, 03:31 PM
I don't subscribe at all to the "AFV dogma" as it relates to what I have read about utilizing and stamping the BC as a way to gain access to a fund account in the LEGAL NAME. From what I read, this method is then used on any bill, charging instrument, etc. while referencing the AFV'd BC to pay or discharge from that pseudo account. I don't buy that at all and I do not employ any part of that method whatsoever.

The doc is a slight variance of the original "Coupon Offer" document which has been circulating around for awhile. If you read it through, it is a basic instruction to the account owner as to how to settle their own account internally. The statutes cited are specifically for their own benefit only as a friendly reminder of the laws that bind them. Also, as another gesture of good faith, the coupon provided by them is included and returned as an instrument of payment which they MUST recognize and accept according to the laws of their realm of operation and commerce. This coupon is essentially as valid a form of payment as is an envelope full of FRNs acording to thier own law. I kindly provided that law for them to read, for their own benefit only, to make it easier for them to settle the matter quickly on their books.

It is actually a very simple document when you extract all the statutes, codes and definitions. I do not want or gain any benefit from their "laws"; I provide it to them only as a friendly reminder and as a gesture of good faith from the standing and character of a competent living soul who chooses to be a non-jurisdictional peaceful inhabitant on the land who can offer assistance to others when needed. This is from the position of suae potestate esse, sui juris, jure divino.

Good thoughts to brew on, thank you.

KnowLaw
03-20-11, 04:45 PM
The doc is a slight variance of the original "Coupon Offer" document which has been circulating around for awhile. If you read it through, it is a basic instruction to the account owner as to how to settle their own account internally. The statutes cited are specifically for their own benefit only as a friendly reminder of the laws that bind them. Also, as another gesture of good faith, the coupon provided by them is included and returned as an instrument of payment which they MUST recognize and accept according to the laws of their realm of operation and commerce. This coupon is essentially as valid a form of payment as is an envelope full of FRNs acording to thier own law. I kindly provided that law for them to read, for their own benefit only, to make it easier for them to settle the matter quickly on their books.

It is actually a very simple document when you extract all the statutes, codes and definitions. I do not want or gain any benefit from their "laws"; I provide it to them only as a friendly reminder and as a gesture of good faith from the standing and character of a competent living soul who chooses to be a non-jurisdictional peaceful inhabitant on the land who can offer assistance to others when needed.
Thanks for the amended link, Anthony. It worked.

As I suspected, the document you provided is essentially the same response I sent to the county treasurer where I live, virtually word for word, although in a slightly different form. When I have more time available, I will return to document what I did.

About two weeks after having sent my response to the county treasurer regarding the property tax statement he sent, I received a correspondence from the County Attorney's office which was short and basically not very substantive in content (meaning that it didn't address any of the legal issues at stake). It did seem to be cordial, however.

The only passage in which he seemed to address anyone's concerns was encapsulated in the following brief statement: "...having been advised by the Anywhere County Treasurer that the property taxes on the above parcel have not been paid, I wanted to remind you that the taxes will be delinquent if not paid in full by January 3, 2011. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions regarding this matter."

Needless to say, I have no questions regarding this matter as the correspondences I sent to the county treasurer have outlined the law quite clearly, as well as any consequences he will encounter should he decide not to take advantage of the offered presentment.

I have not heard back from either one of these two government officials since that time.

As I say, when I have time, I will return to this thread to document the action I took.

Be well everyone, and fight the good fight.

Anthony Joseph
03-20-11, 06:22 PM
Thanks for the amended link, Anthony. It worked.

As I suspected, the document you provided is essentially the same response I sent to the county treasurer where I live, virtually word for word, although in a slightly different form. When I have more time available, I will return to document what I did.

About two weeks after having sent my response to the county treasurer regarding the property tax statement he sent, I received a correspondence from the County Attorney's office which was short and basically not very substantive in content (meaning that it didn't address any of the legal issues at stake). It did seem to be cordial, however.

The only passage in which he seemed to address anyone's concerns was encapsulated in the following brief statement: "...having been advised by the Anywhere County Treasurer that the property taxes on the above parcel have not been paid, I wanted to remind you that the taxes will be delinquent if not paid in full by January 3, 2011. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions regarding this matter."

Needless to say, I have no questions regarding this matter as the correspondences I sent to the county treasurer have outlined the law quite clearly, as well as any consequences he will encounter should he decide not to take advantage of the offered presentment.

I have not heard back from either one of these two government officials since that time.

As I say, when I have time, I will return to this thread to document the action I took.

Be well everyone, and fight the good fight.

That would be most appreciated; the more experiences and trials at a certain method that we can be exposed to may assist in manifesting a successful outcome. I view the "response" by the county treasurer to be yet another presentment; an offer to accept his conclusions which are obviously imposing in nature and not even according to their own laws and rules. A proper record of R4C of that "response" is also in order so as to avert any assertion that you "understand" or accept it.

KnowLaw
03-21-11, 05:34 AM
I view the "response" by the county treasurer to be yet another presentment; an offer to accept his conclusions which are obviously imposing in nature and not even according to their own laws and rules.
I haven't had any contact with the county treasurer, only the county attorney's office, which is seeming to see if it can lure me into some kind of discussion or controversy. Since I'm in the private realm, I don't view his response as anything more than a weak attempt at "scare tactics." He's at a disadvantage because he doesn't know who he is dealing with, whereas I know the ammunition he has in his arsenal (which is limited in this case).

I have made my tender of payment (together with notarized and recorded a letter of credit) and remain in a position of honor. There is no controversy, just as you stated in your Coupon Authorization.



A proper record of R4C of that "response" is also in order so as to avert any assertion that you "understand" or accept it.
I don't see anything on the table to refuse for cause. Perhaps you are reading something into his response that is not there?

David Merrill
03-21-11, 02:49 PM
Thanks, David. First time uploading to Google docs. I tried uploading the file directly but I got a message that the file was to big for the "file type". It is only 49K and the limit is 19K. Maybe we can change that; the Word doc is only 5 pages of text.

Anyway, try this out; I changed the share settings to "people with a link can view without signing in". If that doesn't work, I will change it to full public sharing.

Payment Coupon Authorization (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B82U2MCfFjOUNTI3ZjRhNTctMDEwMS00OTg0LThjM TMtYmJmYjJhM2UyZDc2&hl=en&authkey=CIf5qI4H)

That setting will work well for most people. However Google is so dominant a search engine there will be a lot of people who have registered for a free gmail.com email address and have forgotten. Those are the class who will not be able to access your docs on that setting AJ. If they do not remember their password, they will be called upon to login to see the document. I am using Public to anybody on the Web.

You have done an excellent job of refining the Coupon Redemption (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImNWM1ODBhZTYtNWYwZS00MGFhLTg3Z TYtYjQ4NTEzMDcwYTgz&hl=en) document. Assuming you worked on it. Which is like with me; people think that is my work but I heard the suitor who hired me got it from Rick ERTYL. I heard Rick wrote up the first draft and apparently, not to criticize, his word processing skills were just plain poor. Assuming Rick has a mastery of spoken English, he may be a high-school dropout. I am not saying that to be insulting - it is just that the suitor needed to hire me; or anybody with grammar and word processing skills just to finish the Coupon Redemption technique on paper. It is Rick's intellectual property as I understand it.

It would be a masterpiece in its original form if there were in fact funds setting in the mythical Treasury Direct or STRAWMAN SSN accounts based in HJR-192 or whatever. It would be terrific if there were because you could literally pay any bill simply by referring the bill collector to the Treasury like that. Go get your money over at my back-room account with the Treasury!

There is a consistent money-mechanism related to the creation of credit though, that can arise from this coupon redemption method though. Setoff. The bill collector will consistently acknowledge that the debt has been setoff to zero - that the account has been zeroed out.

This setoff must be combined with the techniques of being a suitor, proper record-forming and knowledge of money, responsibility and proper timely response, or the bills continue and your credit rating will be affected, and possibly liens may arise affecting your property. In other words, the zeroing of your account is fleeting. It is a requirement of law that you get that setoff in writing in the process, it would seem. I recall when playing with the technique, the attorneys for the debt collectors would play several different games; the most common one was to zero the account for "Ten Days" awaiting your response. This way Refusal for Cause could be interpreted that you were refusing Setoff, not that they would begin billing again in ten days...

One suitor was going to develop the document into a business plan and so we set him up for a firmly documented setoff for his Example. But he had some health troubles that caused him to drive to the wrong city for filing, a misjudgment caused by pain and at a timing in his crisis that he never got the plan back on its feet. He is better now though.

The suitor should be able to spot the Setoff and get that into an evidence repository, forming the Record around it. Then one can use it to keep liens from developing or being enforced. One can use the Setoff to clean up the credit report but most take my addition (the last paragraph added to Rick's work) seriously. If you say what you say on the Coupon Redemption remittance, then you can no longer get credit under the influence of fraud anyway. If you sign for credit, even endorsement on the back of your paycheck you go in eyes wide open. Your confession about understanding to be the secured party to any credit is now on paper! In other words, this process changes your credit life permanently.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Anthony Joseph
03-21-11, 05:39 PM
That setting will work well for most people. However Google is so dominant a search engine there will be a lot of people who have registered for a free gmail.com email address and have forgotten. Those are the class who will not be able to access your docs on that setting AJ. If they do not remember their password, they will be called upon to login to see the document. I am using Public to anybody on the Web.

You have done an excellent job of refining the Coupon Redemption (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImNWM1ODBhZTYtNWYwZS00MGFhLTg3Z TYtYjQ4NTEzMDcwYTgz&hl=en) document. Assuming you worked on it. Which is like with me; people think that is my work but I heard the suitor who hired me got it from Rick ERTYL. I heard Rick wrote up the first draft and apparently, not to criticize, his word processing skills were just plain poor. Assuming Rick has a mastery of spoken English, he may be a high-school dropout. I am not saying that to be insulting - it is just that the suitor needed to hire me; or anybody with grammar and word processing skills just to finish the Coupon Redemption technique on paper. It is Rick's intellectual property as I understand it.

It would be a masterpiece in its original form if there were in fact funds setting in the mythical Treasury Direct or STRAWMAN SSN accounts based in HJR-192 or whatever. It would be terrific if there were because you could literally pay any bill simply by referring the bill collector to the Treasury like that. Go get your money over at my back-room account with the Treasury!

There is a consistent money-mechanism related to the creation of credit though, that can arise from this coupon redemption method though. Setoff. The bill collector will consistently acknowledge that the debt has been setoff to zero - that the account has been zeroed out.

This setoff must be combined with the techniques of being a suitor, proper record-forming and knowledge of money, responsibility and proper timely response, or the bills continue and your credit rating will be affected, and possibly liens may arise affecting your property. In other words, the zeroing of your account is fleeting. It is a requirement of law that you get that setoff in writing in the process, it would seem. I recall when playing with the technique, the attorneys for the debt collectors would play several different games; the most common one was to zero the account for "Ten Days" awaiting your response. This way Refusal for Cause could be interpreted that you were refusing Setoff, not that they would begin billing again in ten days...

One suitor was going to develop the document into a business plan and so we set him up for a firmly documented setoff for his Example. But he had some health troubles that caused him to drive to the wrong city for filing, a misjudgment caused by pain and at a timing in his crisis that he never got the plan back on its feet. He is better now though.

The suitor should be able to spot the Setoff and get that into an evidence repository, forming the Record around it. Then one can use it to keep liens from developing or being enforced. One can use the Setoff to clean up the credit report but most take my addition (the last paragraph added to Rick's work) seriously. If you say what you say on the Coupon Redemption remittance, then you can no longer get credit under the influence of fraud anyway. If you sign for credit, even endorsement on the back of your paycheck you go in eyes wide open. Your confession about understanding to be the secured party to any credit is now on paper! In other words, this process changes your credit life permanently.



Regards,

David Merrill.

That's right, no NEW signature loans or credit cards should be applied for after such a declaration is made. I have decided to no longer pursue any NEW agreements or contracts of that sort.

The point is that the creation and the issuance of a coupon by the entity in question is for the purposes of non-disclosed double enrichment; they actually may get paid twice: by your check and by the filled out coupon which is decribed IN THEIR OWN LAW as being an obligation of the United States just like a stack of FRNs. Since they generated this instrument, they must have knowledge of its nature and utilization. Handing in a stack of FRNs is still not actually PAYING the debt until the United States makes good on that paper; it is a United States' obligation to fulfill that promise to PAY. In the meantime debts are discharged with the hope that God will restore the balances (In God We Trust) and the United States will satisfy its responsibility in the future.

According to their own law, a coupon is no different than an FRN. If it was generated by an entity with authority to do so, then that entity is the obligatory party which must accept it for what it is (legal tender of payment) and the United States is the debtor with the obligation to make good on it. I just refuse to offer my substance behind their scheme and instruct them to utilize their instrument to settle their account; an account I no longer lend my energy to, now that I have become aware of the truth.

Anthony Joseph
03-21-11, 05:49 PM
I haven't had any contact with the county treasurer, only the county attorney's office, which is seeming to see if it can lure me into some kind of discussion or controversy. Since I'm in the private realm, I don't view his response as anything more than a weak attempt at "scare tactics." He's at a disadvantage because he doesn't know who he is dealing with, whereas I know the ammunition he has in his arsenal (which is limited in this case).

I have made my tender of payment (together with notarized and recorded a letter of credit) and remain in a position of honor. There is no controversy, just as you stated in your Coupon Authorization.


I don't see anything on the table to refuse for cause. Perhaps you are reading something into his response that is not there?

It was this I was referring to:


About two weeks after having sent my response to the county treasurer regarding the property tax statement he sent, I received a correspondence from the County Attorney's office which was short and basically not very substantive in content (meaning that it didn't address any of the legal issues at stake). It did seem to be cordial, however.

The only passage in which he seemed to address anyone's concerns was encapsulated in the following brief statement: "...having been advised by the Anywhere County Treasurer that the property taxes on the above parcel have not been paid, I wanted to remind you that the taxes will be delinquent if not paid in full by January 3, 2011. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions regarding this matter."

That response by the attorney could be construed as another presentment/offer for you to agree with his interpretation or opinion. This is why most people have doubts about the R4C process; they think that a letter like that means "it didn't work" and not what it really is - A NEW OFFER to continue arguing the "contoversy". Of course, unless there is proper and certified proof of service of such an offer, there is no evidence you received it unless it is you that acknowledges receipt or argues what is contained in it.

KnowLaw
03-22-11, 06:19 AM
It was this I was referring to:

That response by the attorney could be construed as another presentment/offer for you to agree with his interpretation or opinion. This is why most people have doubts about the R4C process; they think that a letter like that means "it didn't work" and not what it really is - A NEW OFFER to continue arguing the "controversy". Of course, unless there is proper and certified proof of service of such an offer, there is no evidence you received it unless it is you that acknowledges receipt or argues what is contained in it.
Now this interpretation begins to sound like the AFV process, of which I am also familiar. And you might be correct if we were playing on an even playing field, where one fiction at law was corresponding with anther fiction at law.

But the truth and fact is: There is more to what I was describing than what I am willing to admit to on a Public forum, which is why I didn't respond to or acknowledge that correspondence from the county attorney.

There is also the fact that the wording of his correspondence ("...having been advised by the Anywhere County Treasurer that the property taxes on the above parcel have not been paid...") indicates that he is not providing a legal determination but rather is just mimicking the response of the county treasurer, as though the county treasurer knows the law and he (the county attorney) does not.

At any rate, that response came before I had thought to provide a notarized Letter of Credit upon which to draw the suggested relief on the Coupon. It also was before I revised and sent the new format for the Notice of Memorandum of Law that I originally sent which comprised the first notice that was sent to the county treasurer. The first one was printed on both sides of one sheet along with an additional sheet. It was two pages, when it should have been three pages. The county attorney was indicating that he ignored the back side of one of those pages in the photocopied example he provided in his correspondence. So, I had to correct that mistake. This was one of the two additional mailings to the county treasurer that were required before I was able to get the process of my first mailing corrected. Each one was served with a Certificate of Mailing, which I have read is sufficient in their court to serve as evidence of service. Both the Letter of Credit and the original Coupon for redemption at the FED contained canceled stamps on their face, indicating that this matter was out of the jurisdiction of the statutory court. This last is another reason why I did not respond in any way to the county attorney's letter.

While I see what you are suggesting, I don't think that it necessarily relates to my specific case in this instance. The county treasurer now has a valid instrument in his hands if he wishes to take advantage of the relief it offers. At the time that the county attorney sent his correspondence, he was responding to the first presentment of tender of payment, which it turned out was a faulty presentment on my part. The subsequent two mailings to the county treasurer were meant to correct the faulty nature of the first.

I haven't heard back from either of these two public officials since having corrected my process. A happenstance that is not totally unexpected on my part in this case.

Anthony Joseph
03-22-11, 05:34 PM
Now this interpretation begins to sound like the AFV process, of which I am also familiar. And you might be correct if we were playing on an even playing field, where one fiction at law was corresponding with anther fiction at law.

But the truth and fact is: There is more to what I was describing than what I am willing to admit to on a Public forum, which is why I didn't respond to or acknowledge that correspondence from the county attorney.

There is also the fact that the wording of his correspondence ("...having been advised by the Anywhere County Treasurer that the property taxes on the above parcel have not been paid...") indicates that he is not providing a legal determination but rather is just mimicking the response of the county treasurer, as though the county treasurer knows the law and he (the county attorney) does not.

At any rate, that response came before I had thought to provide a notarized Letter of Credit upon which to draw the suggested relief on the Coupon. It also was before I revised and sent the new format for the Notice of Memorandum of Law that I originally sent which comprised the first notice that was sent to the county treasurer. The first one was printed on both sides of one sheet along with an additional sheet. It was two pages, when it should have been three pages. The county attorney was indicating that he ignored the back side of one of those pages in the photocopied example he provided in his correspondence. So, I had to correct that mistake. This was one of the two additional mailings to the county treasurer that were required before I was able to get the process of my first mailing corrected. Each one was served with a Certificate of Mailing, which I have read is sufficient in their court to serve as evidence of service. Both the Letter of Credit and the original Coupon for redemption at the FED contained canceled stamps on their face, indicating that this matter was out of the jurisdiction of the statutory court. This last is another reason why I did not respond in any way to the county attorney's letter.

While I see what you are suggesting, I don't think that it necessarily relates to my specific case in this instance. The county treasurer now has a valid instrument in his hands if he wishes to take advantage of the relief it offers. At the time that the county attorney sent his correspondence, he was responding to the first presentment of tender of payment, which it turned out was a faulty presentment on my part. The subsequent two mailings to the county treasurer were meant to correct the faulty nature of the first.

I haven't heard back from either of these two public officials since having corrected my process. A happenstance that is not totally unexpected on my part in this case.

What I offer here is not intended to convey any AFV method. I only wish to provide others with the knowledge that any presentment (response, letter, etc.) sent relating to an issue you are engaged in can be viewed and used as a NEW offer to contract and reopen the "controversy". Without having full knowledge of your situation, I cannot comment about whether or not it relates to your specific case. It seems like you have a good handle on it and are proceeding as a competent self-governor.

This issue of avoiding and/or abating property taxes, while maintaining exclusive use and possession, is of great importance to many since, for most, it is a life spent of energy and sweat equity at stake, not to mention the right to have and keep land and a home. Any other information and experiences you can share on this topic would be greatly appreciated.

Metheist
03-23-11, 12:02 AM
Property Taxes are paid by the Registered Owner by and thru an a priori agreement.

Again what is Property? Property is Right of Use. The Registered Owner has the Right of Use via Agreement. The Trustee has the management of the Right of Use. And the tax is collected on the RIGHT OF USE.

Something tells me if I look at a Deed of Trust I am going to find an agreement within that says the Borrower agrees to pay the Property Taxes.....let me see if I can find one now....

151

Well now, look at that. It is indeed found within a pre-existing agreement. Wherein that agreement has made known a new term BORROWER and the BORROWER is exactly the same as LEGAL M. NAME or cestui que trust.

And i will wager that the Grantor is lawfully siezed of the estate - therefore the Property never leaves the State. Starting to see why SR#62 is not required to be Public Law?

For those playing catchup at Heinz field, Property is Right of Use. The Deed incorporated by reference a Survey and the Survey is Recorded on a Plat and the Plat is located on a Book of Maps and the Book of Maps is Registered at a book and page WITHIN a Trust Asset Registry known as Register of Deeds or County Clerk and Recorder.

And that agreement does not say the Borrower will repay in Pesos. It says the Borrower will repay with the money of the STATE.

The State is concerned with their Property. So now I ask, what again is Property. If you have not seen it yet. Go to the Top and read again.

But read this first (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?24-The-first-constitutions&p=143&viewfull=1#post143)


Plus something tells me the agreement is Probated - Dead Hand - irrevocable Trust Agreement. The Grant cannot be undone.

152


One thing to consider is what Registry will the Property - and the Agreements that govern the Property - be Registered? Under who's Law Form?


Why not re-deed absent the agreement to pay property taxes?

Metheist
03-23-11, 12:05 AM
OR, deed the property to the County in Trust... :)

Anthony Joseph
03-23-11, 01:44 AM
How does one protect their exclusive right of possession and use when "deeding the property to the County in Trust"?

Michael Joseph
03-23-11, 05:56 PM
How does one protect their exclusive right of possession and use when "deeding the property to the County in Trust"?

What gives a man exclusive right to use anything? Especially if another man expended his energies to form it?

so then in order to dissect the foregoing we must first comprehend what is Right, Possession and Use and furthermore what exactly is the County Registry? And who has Proprietory interest in the County Registry?

Right: A valid Right is a grant to a Person for certain Control, Benefit of Use or Privilege of particular Property. A Right, also known as Right of Use is equivalent to Property. As a valid Right is equivalent to Property, it presupposes the existence of Property, which implies the existence of a Trust relationship and a valid Trust deed defining the nature and limits of the Right for the Beneficiary. In the absence of Property, a Right cannot exist in reality.

Possession: is the intentional act and fact of occupation, use, employment or effective control of a Form of Matter. Possession is distinct from Ownership in that a Person who possesses a Form of Matter may have no rightful claim or title. [a tenant may possess a Form but has no rightful claim to the Form]

Use: is a skill employ of a right for some benefit. Hence, the ancient principle “Right of Use”. Right of Use is equivalent to Property. The Use of a Form of Matter assumes Possession. A Person, who takes Lawful Possession of a Form of Matter and Uses it over an accepted period of time, assumes those Rights of Use implied by such Use, whether or not such rights have yet been formalized by Deed or Title. [Example: If I build and maintain an access road across a Property [the Property is NOT the land] and I begin to use said Property, without any rebuttal, then I have assumed a Right of Use and therefore this is an unrebutted Claim to said Property and therefore my Right of Use stands.]

Property is any Right of Use expressed into a Trust relationship with other Forms of Matter whereby there exists a claimed Form of Ownership, Form of Trustee(s) administering the Form as Property and Forms of Beneficiaries. Hence Property is the Rights of an Owner to Use the Form of Matter, never ownership of the object or concept itself. Therefore Property is equivalent to Rights of Use of an Object or Concept [Form], not Rights of Ownership of an Object or Concept [Form]

The Ownership Rights of Property cannot exceed the Ownership Rights of the original Owner that conveyed the Form into the first Trust in the beginning. The Settlor made the Law and surveyed the Forms of Matter and the governing terms and conditions upon the surveyed Forms. The Beginning expresses a claim upon Forms of Matter.

Owner: is a Person who holds the rightful claim to a Form of Matter or title to Property. The Claim is recorded in a Registry of a Trust whereby the written claim produces Title to Property. And now go again and read what Property is the Right of Use.


------

Now, there may be an existing agreement which will not allow the Owner to transfer interest or said another way, if the Owner transfers interest and a "loan" is outstanding, more than likely the Lender can evoke the "Due on Sale" clause and demand the entire outstanding balance due within 30 days of the notice of Loan Acceleration.

------

Now, if in the foregoing you are stating that you have "somehow" removed the Property from a Trust Asset Registry - County Registry- and you have claimed the Property - within your Estate, then perhaps we have something a bit different. Of course, when I say you have claim the Property - have you issued forth a Survey upon the Form of Matter, have you created a Registry to document your Claim? Are you Trustee or Beneficiary? What exactly do you mean by Property?

There are many claims to the Roadways - and there are many districts that Overlay and Abut the existing Roadways. Is one claim more superior to the other, you bet. Thus the need for agreement.

Perhaps we need to discuss how one comes to Possess Property? And specifically does that Possession include Ownership? How does one come to Ownership of Property?

Michael Joseph
03-23-11, 06:22 PM
OR, deed the property to the County in Trust... :)

because that would violate the Garn St. Germane Act and also more than likely the Deed of Trust would open the door to allow the Lender to Accelerate the Loan by Due on Sale Clause.

And the Military as Trustee - See Lieber Code will enforce the Agreements. Remember Sheriff Grice - "I am just following orders"....

Most men and women do not have a rightful Claim to deed any Property to anyone. Senate Resolution #62 need not be Positive Law it is a matter of fact in regard to Trust Law.

However, lets say there are no banker liens - outstanding loans - the Deed might just spell out a new Agreement. And since we are talking about Trust Law only one signature is required. Please go to any deed and tell me who signed the Deed? Did the Grantee sign the Deed? I think not.

David Merrill
04-01-11, 01:51 PM
because that would violate the Garn St. Germane Act and also more than likely the Deed of Trust would open the door to allow the Lender to Accelerate the Loan by Due on Sale Clause.

And the Military as Trustee - See Lieber Code will enforce the Agreements. Remember Sheriff Grice - "I am just following orders"....

Most men and women do not have a rightful Claim to deed any Property to anyone. Senate Resolution #62 need not be Positive Law it is a matter of fact in regard to Trust Law.

However, lets say there are no banker liens - outstanding loans - the Deed might just spell out a new Agreement. And since we are talking about Trust Law only one signature is required. Please go to any deed and tell me who signed the Deed? Did the Grantee sign the Deed? I think not.

I have been pondering this question MJ!

Please tell us the point?

Frederick Burrell
04-01-11, 02:26 PM
On my warranty deed the Grantor is "legal name" and the on the signature page we find the same "legal name."

Deed says in fee simple. no Grantee signature. fB

Michael Joseph
04-01-11, 06:20 PM
OR, deed the property to the County in Trust... :)



Originally Posted by Michael Joseph
because that would violate the Garn St. Germane Act and also more than likely the Deed of Trust would open the door to allow the Lender to Accelerate the Loan by Due on Sale Clause.

And the Military as Trustee - See Lieber Code will enforce the Agreements. Remember Sheriff Grice - "I am just following orders"....

Most men and women do not have a rightful Claim to deed any Property to anyone. Senate Resolution #62 need not be Positive Law it is a matter of fact in regard to Trust Law.

However, lets say there are no banker liens - outstanding loans - the Deed might just spell out a new Agreement. And since we are talking about Trust Law only one signature is required. Please go to any deed and tell me who signed the Deed? Did the Grantee sign the Deed? I think not.




I have been pondering this question MJ!

Please tell us the point?

The deed is an expression of Trust. The Grantee is a CESTUI QUE TRUST = LEGAL NAME = Beneficiary. Therefore the Deed is just a Transfer of Beneficial Interest. And Therefore the Grantor does not have the RIGHT to transfer the property without the State as the Property expressed Within the Deed is Equitable Interest.

Only the Trustee can do that action.

David Merrill
04-01-11, 06:43 PM
The deed is an expression of Trust. The Grantee is a CESTUI QUE TRUST = LEGAL NAME = Beneficiary. Therefore the Deed is just a Transfer of Beneficial Interest. And Therefore the Grantor does not have the RIGHT to transfer the property without the State as the Property expressed Within the Deed is Equitable Interest.

Only the Trustee can do that action.

Presuming that is true - then one could become affiliated with state business through a resulting trust. Ergo, become trustee.

Look for the trustee in a breach of trust.

Frederick Burrell
04-02-11, 03:31 AM
The whole thing is in dishonor it would seem. Just another ponzi scheme to defraud the people. Most are lead to believe they own their property, but through the use of legaleeze speak have been dooped. this would seem to make the system null and void. Convincing them of this, might present a problem.fB

shikamaru
04-02-11, 11:40 AM
The whole thing is in dishonor it would seem. Just another ponzi scheme to defraud the people. Most are lead to believe they own their property, but through the use of legaleeze speak have been dooped. this would seem to make the system null and void. Convincing them of this, might present a problem.fB

I think the problem stems from peoples' lack of knowledge of the origins of our property laws.

Our property laws originate in England, particularly after the invasion of William the Conqueror.
Our property laws originate in Roman, Norman-French feudalism.

David Merrill
04-02-11, 11:48 AM
The whole thing is in dishonor it would seem. Just another ponzi scheme to defraud the people. Most are lead to believe they own their property, but through the use of legaleeze speak have been dooped. this would seem to make the system null and void. Convincing them of this, might present a problem.fB

When the remedy is written plainly in the law (since 1913) it is difficult to rightly accuse Congress of dishonor. But if you are adept at record-forming, then you might get an indictment...


I think the problem stems from peoples' lack of knowledge of the origins of our property laws.

Our property laws originate in England, particularly after the invasion of William the Conqueror.
Our property laws originate in Roman, Norman-French feudalism.

Thank you for that reminder. It is useful.

Frederick Burrell
04-02-11, 11:54 AM
When the remedy is written plainly in the law (since 1913) it is difficult to rightly accuse Congress of dishonor. But if you are adept at record-forming, then you might get an indictment...



Thank you for that reminder. It is useful.

I would agree with you both, but I feel that people have purposely mislead. Shame on us for sure for not paying attention, educating ourselves, trusting in government and thinking the news reporters were our watch dogs. But that was the line most bought into.fB

David Merrill
04-02-11, 12:41 PM
To accuse of a general fraud by omission - your civics teachers and parents included, will require some advanced record-forming skills indeed. Ergo the suitors learn the use of an evidence repository in the "exclusive original cognizance" of that communist/illuminati precept that government was created, registry and survey, boundaries and abutments, easements, usufructuaries and all that for one simple purpose; to protect our property rights.

The private side of the brain trust (email broadcasts) made some very intrigueing headway on this same topic. So I am going to get bold about boundaries and share some Crosstalk. First I am going to summarize what I think this thread is about though.

Through selecting your government services from the CAFR and figuring up your fair share per capita you might pay that amount by donation but publish your agreement through the county clerk and recorder. Motla68 and a couple others studied in trust law are proposing that a private agreement is better - even a secret robin egg-blue wrapped arrangement but that will get nowhere until Motla68 gets over his attitude and shares the template. I do not see that a private agreement is appropriate so I say it must be published and therefore made available to anybody who wants off the property tax roles.

The premise is based on that you will get your government protections of police and fire, 911 communications in an emergency and there is no birth certificate registration right to funds providing for it. Therefore you pay for your menu-selection yearly and publish your novation sanctifying you from the county tax assessor.

Crosstalk:


Isn't "owning the mill", by any means, still 'voting' with the municipal-govt taxpayers, thus perpetuating their welfare-state of being?



What I suggested by directing one's energy as a "donation in lieu of tax" as one's fair share of a community's mutual-support services is that, we who do not trust in the welfare-state (or police-state, same thing), are only with covenant obligation to support a moral means to a moral end. How can that be claimed as belligerent intent or conduct?

I prefer to view the above 'voting' as managing. The precept is that authority comes from responsibility and True Name's basis requires fixing the perceived corruption, which requires the use of the government (which is assumed to be corrupt) to do? - Meaning that, How are you going to fix a currupt judiciary with itself? The model I see developing here - the Agreement, is based on a much plainer judgment; That if you are a victim of theft, or you home is on fire you would make the judgment call to dial 911 for professional help. Bringing forth the mortgage agreement to pay taxes was very helpful! It shows the same thing - responsibility. Responsibility is authority and without it, people should not go around thinking they are self-governing.



If I am going to loan you money, then you better protect my collateral assets.



Being signor on the 2001 BoE and the Treatment and Consent Form below has its advantages. I feel that I have accepted government for value, as it is, without judging it. Well, to be frank I judged and charged it $20M waiver of tort based in the fact in my evidence repository, but that was for a specific violation of bond (oath of office - speedy trial right). Just the same; I truly view it as my government. My government. So much so, that I actually have outgrown the conditioning that it is unconcionable that a huge triangle in the middle of America may soon belong to China to pay off a huge debt - rather than the conditioned response that we can sign endorsement of credit for a century and then just tell China and other creditors - Tough Luck! We are America, we don't have to pay back honorably.



Did we just presume that the American states would keep the same borders through a foreclosure?



Another item to think over is that federal judges are legislating their own pay raise - What? Their salaries shall not be diminished during terms of office in good behavior. However the stock certificates they handle are being diminished in value. So they are constitutionally mandating an adjustment in their paycheck amounts based on their actual pay being mandated to remain the same over time of term. Get it? Look at the attachment and consider carefully, Who is the Principal? The Fed would be an independent banking cartel if not for being allowed to deteriorate the value of its own stock certificates through fractional lending. But it does - by the people's endorsement signature; therefore the natural debt. See how it grows?



Now we grow the two more edifying suitors' broadcasts [including the Response from China conversation] together because we have to take responsibility if we want to pretend to be self-governing. To own the government, we have to let it go. Ergo the Agreement. Pay for the sheriff (police) and fire protection in your mill/share of lawful money.



This goes back to the '90s too. I heard an occasional story where the police of fire protection district would not respond to the homes of people consciously taking themselves off the tax rolls. So this is the same function of the tax in a voluntary agreement published through the county clerk and recorder. The man/homeowner is not obligated to all the assumpsit associated with the local collections processes, however the fireman and policeman are more obligated than ever in a published agreement for the same thing.





-----Original Message-----
From: Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 9:26 PM
To: 'David Merrill';
Cc:
Subject: RE: Property Tax Strategy
Importance: High


“So now I take you to eleemysonary corporations - the government as an eleemysonary corporation. I have shared with you getting $2K CAT Scans and expensive antibiotics, X-Rays and other Emergency Treatment from the City-Owned Memorial Hospital. When I walk away, we call it even. Do I get my emergency health care for free? No. I have given the City/METRO, in agreement with God over to that priesthood. God gave away a major asset of my original estate as heir apparent - the cities and the suburbs. The Levites got the Cities. Those are my cities and the Levites use them.” – David Merrill

But the agreement is the agreement and 'owning the mill' means to me that the health care is owed by the Levitical Priesthood to the Order of Melchizedek for being elect. However I may be misinterpreting mill. I thought it had something to do with per capita and it may be related to grinding grains? Oh well, you learn something new every day. – David Merrill





Talk about two statements that really get to the heart of all matters we discuss here in regards to our being exposed to, touched by and imposed upon in every aspect of living life on this land by the very entity which “owes us”. The trick and scheme perpetrated by David’s “Levitical Priesthood” is to have us either deny, or not trust in, our “election” and to seek out the cover of a “man king” instead. Nothing has changed over thousands of years! We are duped, conditioned, persuaded and convinced of the notion of subjugation to their claimed “higher authority” and they set up schemes and mechanisms, in accordance with Divine Law, which lead us to volunteer into servitude. The adversary is indeed clever, cynical, deceiving and evil and since its inheritance is control over the City/METRO, they will use it to their full capability and advantage as long as the “willing volunteers” continue to grant their unwitting consent.



David’s explanation, I feel, lies directly in line with what I have been offering regarding our inherent right to “take control” of and over the creations of man due to the mal-intent and dishonor at the foundation of them. This is why David receives “free healthcare”. This is why we can demand lawful money. This is why we may utilize the chattels of the modern age as we deem necessary in order to keep the peace and to procure the vital resources and necessities of life which have been seized, taken over and controlled by government municipalities and agents of City/METRO. This is why we can refuse to be the fiduciary/surety behind their creations even though we may pick them up and use them out of the necessity that they created and dishonorably imposed upon us. We, as the elect, are not affected by this usurpation and we demand of the “Levitical Priesthood” to honor and recognize our position as the “elect” and the rights, freedoms, immunities and SUPERIOR AUTHORITY that comes along with it.



Eleemysonary is a word which describes perfectly the nature of those entities that impose upon us, on a daily basis, their deceptive and dishonorable notion that we owe them instead of them owing us.



Thanks,

True Name

Continued...

David Merrill
04-02-11, 12:42 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Merrill
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 6:57 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Property Tax Strategy



You may have to ask David about “owning the mill”; I may have misunderstood the reference and his use of that phrase.



I presented two stages and made the comment about baby steps. Just announcing ownership according to the bible is not really wise. I think we should refine the Agreement like Suitor Initials is proposing, pragmatically so that the profane understands. The foundation is spiritual though. But even officials who understand their spirituality are not going to risk their chosen career over somebody else's rendition.

There is something I want you to observe when I convinced the doctor in the ER to give me a free CAT Scan ($2K). It is about what AJ is saying too I believe. The doctor was holding on to his position for quite some time as you can tell. Then I caught him defending dishonor and he gave me the CAT Scan!





Look what I wrote in at Item 3.

The ER doctor thought that the hospital protected doctor-patient confidentiality. I can tell you that from the original by the volume of his voice and if you listen carefully you will hear the background hum increase because I have double the volume where his confidence trails off. He makes an assertion that the hospital is honorable about doctor patient confidentiality and then he reads the Agreement for the first time and finds out that I struck through the paragraph to preserve just that. This may be what Initials is speaking of about honor and dishonor.

Another thing to notice is the bottom; Any modifications to this form will not be honored!

Well, how about that? That showed up after I was treated for stepping on a nail a few years back. But the agreement is the agreement and 'owning the mill' means to me that the health care is owed by the Levitical Priesthood to the Order of Melchizedek for being elect. However I may be misinterpreting mill. I thought it had something to do with per capita and it may be related to grinding grains? Oh well, you learn something new every day!



Regards,

David Merrill.



In any case, unless one is fully devoid of use of any paper generated by the United States, utilizing a coupon is no different than utilizing FRNs. These are both obligations of the US and these are both considered “money” according to their own law. We just refuse to doubly enrich them and we refuse to “be the bond”. We also instruct them to utilize their instrument to settle their account according to their laws and obligations.



We cannot destroy the system; we can only avoid participation in it and the obligations of it, in our own right, by whatever means we deem necessary and with full righteousness of intent. Then, eventually the system may be destroyed on its own through its inherent dishonor and unrighteousness and the awareness of people, who recognize, receive and act upon the truth.



Thanks,

True Name





We demand that the instrument sent be used as lawful money in order to alleviate the burden of elastic private credit upon the people – false balances.



That is an amazing restatement of this; Paragraph 8:




The process works like this. Suppose $1000 in Federal Reserve notes are presented for redemption in public money. To raise $1000 in public money the Fed must surrender U.S. Bonds in that amount to the Treasury in exchange for the public money demanded (assuming that the Fed had no public money on hand). In so doing $1000 of the National Debt would be paid off by the Fed and thus canceled.








-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 7:31 AM
To:
Cc:

Subject: Re: Property Tax Strategy





Isn't "owning the mill", by any means, still 'voting' with the municipal-govt taxpayers, thus perpetuating their welfare-state of being?



What I suggested by directing one's energy as a "donation in lieu of tax" as one's fair share of a community's mutual-support services is that, we who do not trust in the welfare-state (or police-state, same thing), are only with covenant obligation to support a moral means to a moral end. How can that be claimed as belligerent intent or conduct?



True Name

On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 8:59 AM, True Name wrote:

I do not promote the concept of a “fund account” either. What I meant to offer here is the idea that there is “sameness” associated with sending in redeemed lawful money cash to pay the “tax bill” (and “own the mill”) and sending in the coupon which we also non-endorse by way of demanding it be redeemed in lawful money. We have that authority since it is a public entity we are dealing with just like a municipal utility service. We demand that the instrument sent be used as lawful money in order to alleviate the burden of elastic private credit upon the people – false balances. All the while the supposed “tax bill” is paid (via coupon – legal tender obligation of the US), we didn’t re-venue ourselves, we didn’t offer ourselves as the bond behind the elastic funds and we still can expect the fire truck to show up when there is a fire.



Thanks,

True Name




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 12:11 AM
To:


Subject: RE: Property Tax Strategy



That comment from True Name I presume is based on the Australian redemption and that it is made on one of the two components of the remittance. I should have explained that but what happened is I found it and slapped it on and Forwarded it to you all.



The component that I recognize as having effect in law is the:



Deposited for Credit on Account or Exchanged for Non-Redeemable Australian Bank Notes.


Many of you recognize that from our earlier non-endorsement stamps. The other verbiage is similar to the loan discharge Page 1, Page 2, Page 3. The rumor with that documentation is that the Lender started re-billing like reserved in paragraph 2. We had an east coast suitor experiment with a Government Student Loan for $5K too. The clerk messed with the evidence repository so badly it indicated there is something to it - but I suspect it is an operation of credit rather than any funds in any account. In other words the seized gold in 1933 paid for saving the Fed from extinction as the 20-year bank charters expired. Americans put their trust in FDR's "held in trust" (endorsed their salary checks) and that means America saved the Fed. America paid that gold to save the Fed. It is not there on account like many HJR-192 enthusiasts believe. But like I said, the US clerk of court rendered the science inconclusive.



Therefore I believe that we have an effect of redeeming lawful money on that success story. Not directing the account to any Treasury Direct-style funds for setoff.

-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 9:00 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Property Tax Strategy
Importance: High

If the coupon attached to the “tax bill” is returned in good faith in order to provide a way for them to settle their books and account with the verbiage “Funds are redeemed in lawful money per 12usc411” written on the coupon; isn’t that the same premise of “owning the mill” since, just like a stack of FRNs, a coupon is an obligation of the United States which we can either endorse (be the bond) or make the demand for lawful money?



Thanks,

True Name



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Merrill
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 9:28 PM
To:
Subject: FW: Property Tax Strategy



I remembered where I saved that Australian redemption process.



Continued...

David Merrill
04-02-11, 12:43 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: David Merrill
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 6:17 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Property Tax Strategy

I think it important to look at the perspective brought forth in this post. This brings forth a previous agreement most people have in place - about anyone who has a mortgage to "own" a home, maybe by constructive trust after the homeowner has paid off the warranty deed or note of trust too. Thanks for this image Initials!







This information came off as a hinderance to the Agreement we are developing here but after sleeping on it I came up with a productive post in response. In summary, the mortgage requires that you keep their home under the fire and police protection available with 911 Emergency Services. Let's grant that is the purpose of the clause - rather than to oppress the American people. Like with a car loan, one is required to keep the auto under an insurance policy by the lender. Same thing - paying taxes is like an insurance policy against fire and theft/vandalism, outside the scope of homeowner's insurance.



I believe that this is a good start at getting realistic about making the matter work in the scope of redeeming lawful money. With lawful money demanded to pay the sheriff and fire chief plus communications (911) you actually own your mill. Moving onward to solving the obstacles in our minds then:



You cannot use the mail system for this - else that is a trespass. I would use private process server.



The postage is lawful money, paid in cash - lawful money. The lawful money is easement and abutment into the dominions that belong to you - the Post Office - now operating (Nixon Administration) under a contractor called the USPS. I hope I understand that right. It is not feasable to say that one can trespass in one's own dominions is it?



I do not care for the Registry that you propose.



That I presume means that you do not like the county clerk and recorder too? The purpose of the Agreement being published is to show people. The state itself is incapable of reading or even thinking so the public notice is for people. But I jump to that conclusion early in your paragraph:



I think it would be best to put a Notice on the Registry and hold the original agreement private. The reason for the Notice is this is sensitive information to the State - and it could hurt their business model.



Notice that there is a private agreement in effect? That sounds reasonable but then you comment:



I would also like to think of a way to "lock in" this remedy. Else the Legislature will pass a new law and 'weasel' out from under this new Remedy.



That to me means forget about the business model (tax revenue for the masses) and use the county clerk and recorder.



If Yehovah is kicking his ass by way of the State as Paddle, then who am I to interfere with that correction.



I think that would mean the current property tax assessed per homeowner is much more than the mill you are speaking of. For the sheeple to be taking a thrashing here we need to make the CAFR division per capita and compare it to the average annual property tax I suppose. That brings to mind how people in big rich homes pay more into the system than those living in shabby duplexes too - but let's not go there yet.



Perhaps you should call it a 'good faith donation in lieu of tax' payment. Tax is rent for use of a privilege.



That mental model leads us to a belligerent stance. I implore we look at the current "tax" and the proposed "mill" both being like fire and police protection insurance policies. The efficiency will be calculated eventually like in the paragraph above. Now we have win-win contract negotiations instead of an oppressive government acting like the owner instead of a trustee. I think we need to do this to move forward.



Compensation Tax is a classic form of Tax based on the right of the landlord to demand tenants pay for the estimated loss of value of property through their use. Property Tax is an example of a Compensation Tax.



This presumes the First Lien on everything you "buy" with private credit from the Fed. So we can drop that from our mental modeling on the presumption remedy is utilized naturally by right. So far as I know Frank is unfamiliar with our remedy - but Motla68, who inspired this tact showed us something interesting - in Australia, where Frank lives. I cannot find that rendition but it is similar to this Canadian version. We find non-endorsement in the Bank of Canada Act and I believe that with admiralty ruling, [Proctor WISWALL's 1994 Comparative Paper - Australia, Britain and the USA.] we find that in Australia and Great Britain as well, that when law allows contracting in false balances - there must be a remedy, rendering those false balances optional.



Therefore I suggest that most or all of these obstacles are nothing more than mental conditioning. We seek to insure quick response by our (we own them) officials (our public servants) in case of emergency. True Name has shared his experience with an arsonist - requiring both police and fire action. As expected, without this sort of agreement in place the prosecution laid entirely upon Initials; the DA was basically inert without Name prosecuting the arsonist. This agreement would bind the prosecution to act. Of course once the firemen and trucks arrived, it was pretty much mandatory, Oh it's You; we will watch your house burn down! (You get my drift?) But that is basically what happened with the DA.



So now I take you to eleemysonary corporations - the government as an eleemysonary corporation. I have shared with you getting $2K CAT Scans and expensive antibiotics, X-Rays and other Emergency Treatment from the City-Owned Memorial Hospital. When I walk away, we call it even. Do I get my emergency health care for free? No. I have given the City/METRO, in agreement with God over to that priesthood. God gave away a major asset of my original estate as heir apparent - the cities and the suburbs. The Levites got the Cities. Those are my cities and the Levites use them.



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 6:58 And Hilen with her suburbs, Debir with her suburbs,

1Ch 6:59 And Ashan with her suburbs, and Bethshemesh with her suburbs:

But baby steps now... Let's get there maybe after we can explain this novation in terms of the mill tax.



Continued...

David Merrill
04-02-11, 12:43 PM
-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 4:15 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: Property Tax Strategy

Perhaps you should call it a 'good faith donation in lieu of tax' payment. Tax is rent for use of a privilege. There is already a compact in place that excludes attorneys, if suitors have recorded their standing as executors over their Divinity (real property use-rights).



This is from Frank O'Collins, for your consideration:



Compensation Tax is a classic form of Tax based on the right of the landlord to demand tenants pay for the estimated loss of value of property through their use. Property Tax is an example of a Compensation Tax.



Found at:



http://www.one-heaven.org/canons_positive_law/article_1070.htm



True Name



On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 5:36 PM, True Name wrote:


I would first Abate the County Attorney. Else he will just grab the Registered Asset and Claim Power of Attorney - I mean really, why is there any need for an attorney at the County level, think about it.

You cannot use the mail system for this - else that is a trespass. I would use private process server.

You do not want to become an enemy by using metals - just pay your fair share - very good. This is equivalent to one-mill and relieves the duty of council to apply a mill RATE upon the fair share - paid in advance. Be the head and not the tail. I like this alot.

I am not sure yet how to effect Notice. I do not care for the Registry that you propose. but maybe i just don't fully grasp the mechanisms yet. I think it would be best to put a Notice on the Registry and hold the original agreement private. The reason for the Notice is this is sensitive information to the State - and it could hurt their business model.

I would also like to think of a way to "lock in" this remedy. Else the Legislature will pass a new law and 'weasel' out from under this new Remedy.

Remember if a man be ignorant let him be ignorant. If Yehovah is kicking his ass by way of the State as Paddle, then who am I to interfere with that correction.

shalom,
Initials

Sent: Sat, March 19, 2011 6:09:13 PM
Subject: Property Tax Strategy



Dear Suitors;





This is what I was talking about with the Website StSC being an asset to the broadcasts. I am utilizing it like an echo chamber and not only that, I can continue to refine ideas here on the broadcasts, and suitors on the chat room can discuss them on the thread there. I will start a thread there, with this broadcast and as things useful and new develop there, I can broadcast them again for us to read.



http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?132-Say-Goodbye-to-Property-Taxes&p=714&viewfull=1#post714



The idea struck me after a non-suitor [Motla68] described his "contract" or agreement with the local sheriff. He only did this for one year - 2004 but was promoting that the agreement is still in place. I do not believe that is so. His approach was based in the sheriff being the highest county official which is no longer true. I recall many years ago wanting to contact the sheriff on a report or whatever and being directed to the municipal police because I was downtown, in city limits. The dominion of the sheriff is the entire county but only outside the city limits. The member on StSC - Motla68 - got the annual budget figure for the sheriff from the CAFR and divided that by the number of taxpayer citizens in the county and found a figure per capita. That is what he cut a money order for with a contract proposal that held his sovereign declarations of the sheriff's unincorporated duties and outlined the agreement, that by accepting the sheriff agreed to. Motla68 will not share the actual documentation but that is what I have surmised after having to wait some time for any details at all. The thing that puts me off about the process is obviously Motla68 paid for a year of sheriff services in 2004 and still believes that the sheriff is obligated to services and performance seven years later.



So I processed what is going on with property taxes and formed a plan I will put to writing in this broadcast.



Pretend first that you live in the incorporated county (the County) outside city limits for simplicity. Go buy or pick up for free, the County CAFR (here the City CAFR is free but the County CAFR is $25 and you can view it for free at the tax assessor's office). Look through it like a menu of services and select sheriff and fire protection services. We should add one more service - 911 Emergency services to contact the sheriff or fire station in a hurry and get a quick response. Three services. Find the last year's budget for those services separately, then divide by the number of people in the county. [For accuracy you might factor in that the people in the City utilize municipal police for emergencies but you both utilize the sheriff's jail, which is likely located in the City too... things like that - but let's forget all that for this broadcast.] Now you have an annual figure of 'your fair share' to pay for the emergency services of the sheriff and fire department, supposing that is the only thing you want from the "menu". You will have a figure for Fire, Sheriff and 911 Emergency Communications.



Now you draw up the Agreement - which I would keep very simple and without any recognizable patriot or sovereign jargon; not even any religious proclamation except maybe the mention of Jesus or God to describe the original estate in trust. I would refer to this as the organic unincorporated county, original estate; like that. Detach yourself from county bonds, municipal bonding and school districts, fire districts etc. and explain concisely that this is how you are choosing to pay for your fair share of public services without mentioning anything at all about taxes. This is a private agreement between yourself, in true name and the sheriff and fire department including communications. Motla68 has not shared his Agreement so we suitors on StSC will likely refine it there on the new thread.



Publish the AgreementI(s) (I suggest one agreement naming all three menu items and the "donations" to each) with the Money Orders or cash (of course, Redeemed Lawful Money!) at the county clerk and recorder, establishing the trust entity FIRST MIDDLE on the cash receipt. Serve that on the County Sheriff and the Fire Marshal at your nearest Fire Station. Serve it on the office of the 911 Dispatcher too - likely at the police station. Be certain to use a process server if they will not provide proof of service of the Agreement (original) and a receipt for your "Donation". The Agreement will specify the term - for one year from payment/donating and renewable at the end of that term. Consider that the county attorney will have a reasonable amount of time to R4C your novation - 3 days (10 Day Rule; two mail in, three days to consider, two mail back and a weekend plus government holiday potentially). Of course the County Attorney would have to refund your donation if he refuses your Agreement. But you would have that on the record and once your process is complete, you would publish the entire process including a Notice of Default - on R4C and the proof of service once again at the county clerk and recorder and copy all around including to the county tax assessor.



This process - certified copy would be included in any property tax presentments Refused for Cause in the standard manner of evidence repository.



If you are living inside the city limits you would duplicate this where necessary with police services, and with municipal fire only. I would keep both police and sheriff though, paying for both with redeemed lawful money - but of course drop county fire services because they would not respond to your home anyway. But you would want the sheriff, even in the city because of some of the common law vestigial authority - for example to refuse federal authority in the county. Motla68 has said that this process of dividing by per capita costs less than you would think.



I have just written that through for the first rough draft so keep that in mind as you look this over and hopefully you will join the fun on the chat room for developing this idea further.







Regards,


David Merrill.[/QUOTE]

Frederick Burrell
04-02-11, 02:30 PM
Wow, long read. I have no problem paying property taxes, supporting the local infrastructure.

What I object to is the confiscation of your property for not paying do to financial inability.

In Thailand their is no property tax, only a one time tax when transferring the title, and they would seem to have a working police, fire and rescue system.

As far as not paying land taxes that is not a problem. Rent to a church non-profit. Of course the church is one you started. I have not used this on my own home and property, and I have not objected to the small amount of taxes I was asked to pay. But I did own a commercial building that I purchased for the use of the church, my church. I did not claim the whole commercial building as being used by the church only about 30%. Yes someone from the tax department did come out and survey the situation.

As a church you can provide a home for the ministers etc. The land on which the minister resides can be paid for by the church and the owner of the land gets a tax reduction based on the percentage used. All nice and legal, lawful. It costs about $50 to start a church in Hawaii. I had the same church in Oregon before I moved to Hawaii. Just an approach some my find useful.

David Merrill
04-02-11, 03:47 PM
Interesting - ecclesia. Ex visitation Dei.

motla68
04-02-11, 03:57 PM
Wow, long read. I have no problem paying property taxes, supporting the local infrastructure.

What I object to is the confiscation of your property for not paying do to financial inability.

In Thailand their is no property tax, only a one time tax when transferring the title, and they would seem to have a working police, fire and rescue system.

As far as not paying land taxes that is not a problem. Rent to a church non-profit. Of course the church is one you started. I have not used this on my own home and property, and I have not objected to the small amount of taxes I was asked to pay. But I did own a commercial building that I purchased for the use of the church, my church. I did not claim the whole commercial building as being used by the church only about 30%. Yes someone from the tax department did come out and survey the situation.

As a church you can provide a home for the ministers etc. The land on which the minister resides can be paid for by the church and the owner of the land gets a tax reduction based on the percentage used. All nice and legal, lawful. It costs about $50 to start a church in Hawaii. I had the same church in Oregon before I moved to Hawaii. Just an approach some my find useful.

So now that your wealth has been confiscated you would sure like to be indemnified of all expenses related to the property which you unknowingly deposited into the treasury by way of registration, correct? ... unless that is you have the original grant of land from the king?

motla68
04-02-11, 04:05 PM
Interesting - ecclesia. Ex visitation Dei.

Expanding upon this thought, now the story between Joseph and Esau in this current article linked should start to make a little sense now:
http://onlashuk.wordpress.com/

Gen. 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

David Merrill
04-02-11, 04:39 PM
Expanding upon this thought, now the story between Joseph and Esau in this current article linked should start to make a little sense now:
http://onlashuk.wordpress.com/

Gen. 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

That is the Key (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImY2Q4YmIwNTgtYWZmZS00MzU3LTk1M jktNTE2OTE2NWU0MmJk&hl=en). Accept the Election (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImMzUwZmIzYzQtMzUzZC00MGY3LTkzM jMtZDg0ZjQ5MTExN2U0&hl=en).




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JsVktiDxec

motla68
04-02-11, 05:09 PM
That is the Key (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImY2Q4YmIwNTgtYWZmZS00MzU3LTk1M jktNTE2OTE2NWU0MmJk&hl=en). Accept the Election (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImMzUwZmIzYzQtMzUzZC00MGY3LTkzM jMtZDg0ZjQ5MTExN2U0&hl=en).




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JsVktiDxec

There you go yes, the election! This is all good stuff I will probably put this in the Coresource Library. Where did you get it from?

This video last words spoken sort of helps me understand why Onlashuk had interpreted our camps as I called it to that of sanctuary.

Anthony Joseph
04-02-11, 05:14 PM
Wow, long read. I have no problem paying property taxes, supporting the local infrastructure.

What I object to is the confiscation of your property for not paying do to financial inability.

In Thailand their is no property tax, only a one time tax when transferring the title, and they would seem to have a working police, fire and rescue system.

As far as not paying land taxes that is not a problem. Rent to a church non-profit. Of course the church is one you started. I have not used this on my own home and property, and I have not objected to the small amount of taxes I was asked to pay. But I did own a commercial building that I purchased for the use of the church, my church. I did not claim the whole commercial building as being used by the church only about 30%. Yes someone from the tax department did come out and survey the situation.

As a church you can provide a home for the ministers etc. The land on which the minister resides can be paid for by the church and the owner of the land gets a tax reduction based on the percentage used. All nice and legal, lawful. It costs about $50 to start a church in Hawaii. I had the same church in Oregon before I moved to Hawaii. Just an approach some my find useful.

The way the system is set up, there is no way around it if you respond the way they lead you or if you ignore them entirely. The "other" available option is never revealed for obvious reasons. Like a traffic citation; there are three options offered by the way they lead you respond. The "other" option is not disclosed... R4C; even though it IS available for those that choose to employ the method honorably and competently.

That is why I suggest that the provided and available coupon attached to the "tax bill" be sent back with instructions for them to settle their own account utilizing that valid instrument which they provided, and are BOUND to accept, according to the law they operate from and are under. Seems to be as simple an "option" as R4C'ing a Traffic Citiation; utilize whatever instrument, tool or mechanism available in order to assist them in settling their account internally and to keep the peace. Their is NO disruption or challenge of the "system" on our part other than our justly and rightfully declared immunity from it and superiority over it. Any disruption of the peace or initiated "action" will be by them from a position of dishonor if they fail to, or refuse to, recoginize the character and standing of the man or woman who exercises his/her inherent and Divine right of avoidance from being "ruled" or re-venued by men and/or their creations.

Frederick Burrell
04-02-11, 05:25 PM
So your taking the 4 corner method and applying it to taxes. Sounds like to me. fB

Anthony Joseph
04-02-11, 05:31 PM
So your taking the 4 corner method and applying it to taxes. Sounds like to me. fB

I may be dense... but what is the "4 corner" method?

motla68
04-02-11, 05:39 PM
The 4 corner method has it's pros and cons, this comes from Batman's field of play. Since the court of the dead cannot hear voice from spirit, can only hear the paper I am not totally convinced this is solid and practical myself.

Frederick Burrell
04-02-11, 05:50 PM
It is basically as you have pointed allowing them to settle the matter honorable. You have provided the instruments. Now get out of way and let them do their job.

4 corners is basically for court appearance

I am here about the matter (peace full inhabitant
there has been a mistake (my mistake, like trespass on the NAME)
there was no proper notification (meeting of the minds)
I want to settle this honorably (its basically their paper work, trust etc.) Let them do what they need to do to settle the matter honorably,

I think some where in this forum David had an outline of it as a attachment.

Anthony Joseph
04-02-11, 06:00 PM
It is basically as you have pointed allowing them to settle the matter honorable. You have provided the instruments. Now get out of way and let them do their job.

4 corners is basically for court appearance

I am here about the matter (peace full inhabitant
there has been a mistake (my mistake, like trespass on the NAME)
there was no proper notification (meeting of the minds)
I want to settle this honorably (its basically their paper work, trust etc.) Let them do what they need to do to settle the matter honorably,

I think some where in this forum David had an outline of it as a attachment.

I never heard of that being described as the "4 corners" method. If it is deemed by me to be necessary and prudent (depends on their actions), I will be present at any court hearing regarding this matter in the capacity of special visitation only. They may utilize, for their benefit only, the "Rule E(8) appearance" as their recognizable law in order to define my presence there. I will be sure to present any unprovided materials (certified copies of R4Cs) required of the accusing party in order to stay in honor to the judge.

I will also suggest, if necessary, that they settle their own account internally since they are absent a willing volunteer to take on that burden for them.

I will be there for the sole purpose of preventing fraud upon the court and to assist them, as a peaceable friend, in settling their cause and account honorably.

Frederick Burrell
04-02-11, 06:00 PM
It would seem to be part of the coresource info. including the paper work in light blue paper presented to the courts upon making an appearance. It would seem however there is a split occuring in ranks of that movement. To many chiefs I would suppose. oh well. fB

Frederick Burrell
04-02-11, 06:03 PM
I never heard of that being described as the "4 corners" method. If it is deemed by me to be necessary and prudent (depends on their actions), I will be present at any court hearing regarding this matter in the capacity of special visitation only. They may utilize, for their benefit only, the "Rule E(8) appearance" as their recognizable law in order to define my presence there. I will be sure to present any unprovided materials (certified copies of R4Cs) required of the accusing party in order to stay in honor to the judge.

I will also suggest, if necessary, that they settle their own account internally since they are absent a willing volunteer to take on that burden for them.

I will be there for the sole purpose of preventing fraud upon the court and to assist them, as a peaceable friend, in settling their cause and account honorably.

Yep you got it. Thats the one. Seems you know it well and it might work for taxes. Let me know how it works for you. You seem to have added a few twists and turns to it though. fB

motla68
04-02-11, 06:18 PM
It is basically as you have pointed allowing them to settle the matter honorable. You have provided the instruments. Now get out of way and let them do their job.

4 corners is basically for court appearance

I am here about the matter (peace full inhabitant
there has been a mistake (my mistake, like trespass on the NAME)
there was no proper notification (meeting of the minds)
I want to settle this honorably (its basically their paper work, trust etc.) Let them do what they need to do to settle the matter honorably,

I think some where in this forum David had an outline of it as a attachment.

I had basically did the same thing on the second most recent ticket, accept this was done on a notepad and note given to asst. DA, no different then a sticky note reminder.

" special appearance " as Envoy.

Frederick Burrell
04-02-11, 06:32 PM
I will have to check my notes. Somewhere I believe I have the info that you write on the paper work to give to the courts wrapped in light blue paper. its been a while but I can find it again. fB

Frederick Burrell
04-02-11, 06:56 PM
TalkShoe - Call - Coresource Solution - Look in the mirror - Mar 27
We start you out with some basics then you can look into how to handle yourself in court, check out Batman's Talkshoe:

Looks like someone else is teaching four corners and Coresource solution. hmmmmm

motla68
04-02-11, 07:11 PM
I will have to check my notes. Somewhere I believe I have the info that you write on the paper work to give to the courts wrapped in light blue paper. its been a while but I can find it again. fB

Yes, that too as well. The wrapped blue paper is in the private, but the note from the notepad that is in the public in which I act in the capacity of Envoy.

motla68
04-02-11, 07:24 PM
TalkShoe - Call - Coresource Solution - Look in the mirror - Mar 27
We start you out with some basics then you can look into how to handle yourself in court, check out Batman's Talkshoe:

Looks like someone else is teaching four corners and Coresource solution. hmmmmm

What is the episode # and year on that post?
Through this project I have put myself in various positions to show others in our local group here that a mistake can be corrected at any time. We take little tid bits of information from many resources, we never follow any one particular gurus process other then our own completely. The finding of making election has only been a topic of interest in the past month and it was just in the past couple weeks that anybody actually did anything with the authentication received.

Treefarmer
09-15-11, 01:59 AM
Property Taxes are paid by the Registered Owner by and thru an a priori agreement.

Again what is Property? Property is Right of Use. The Registered Owner has the Right of Use via Agreement. The Trustee has the management of the Right of Use. And the tax is collected on the RIGHT OF USE.

Something tells me if I look at a Deed of Trust I am going to find an agreement within that says the Borrower agrees to pay the Property Taxes.....let me see if I can find one now....

151

Well now, look at that. It is indeed found within a pre-existing agreement. Wherein that agreement has made known a new term BORROWER and the BORROWER is exactly the same as LEGAL M. NAME or cestui que trust.

And i will wager that the Grantor is lawfully siezed of the estate - therefore the Property never leaves the State. Starting to see why SR#62 is not required to be Public Law?

For those playing catchup at Heinz field, Property is Right of Use. The Deed incorporated by reference a Survey and the Survey is Recorded on a Plat and the Plat is located on a Book of Maps and the Book of Maps is Registered at a book and page WITHIN a Trust Asset Registry known as Register of Deeds or County Clerk and Recorder.

And that agreement does not say the Borrower will repay in Pesos. It says the Borrower will repay with the money of the STATE.

The State is concerned with their Property. So now I ask, what again is Property. If you have not seen it yet. Go to the Top and read again.

But read this first (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?24-The-first-constitutions&p=143&viewfull=1#post143)


Plus something tells me the agreement is Probated - Dead Hand - irrevocable Trust Agreement. The Grant cannot be undone.

152


One thing to consider is what Registry will the Property - and the Agreements that govern the Property - be Registered? Under who's Law Form?

This may be a dumb question, but it's been on my mind for a while now:
Why is title split up into legal and equitable?

You said in your other above referenced post (But read this first) "The Legal Title manages the Rights of Use or manages the Property. And the Equitable Title Uses the Right of Use or Uses the Property. "

Why can a man or woman not hold both legal and equitable title?
Seems like they go together; or should anyways. Isn't that the essence of true ownership?

When did title first get split up into legal and equitable?

It seems to me that allodial ownership (without taxation at gunpoint on pain of dispossession) cannot exist until legal and equitable title are united into one, under the control of the owner who is also the manager and the user of the property.

allodial
09-15-11, 04:03 AM
TIt seems to me that allodial ownership (without taxation at gunpoint on pain of dispossession) cannot exist until legal and equitable title are united into one, under the control of the owner who is also the manager and the user of the property.

That is why it is also referred to as "full title" as opposed to when 'legal title' and 'equitable title' are 'separated'. Apparently "Papers, please!" is basically a request to make a determination as to whether one has full title or not.

shikamaru
09-15-11, 11:08 AM
This may be a dumb question, but it's been on my mind for a while now:
Why is title split up into legal and equitable?

You said in your other above referenced post (But read this first) "The Legal Title manages the Rights of Use or manages the Property. And the Equitable Title Uses the Right of Use or Uses the Property. "

Why can a man or woman not hold both legal and equitable title?
Seems like they go together; or should anyways. Isn't that the essence of true ownership?

When did title first get split up into legal and equitable?

It seems to me that allodial ownership (without taxation at gunpoint on pain of dispossession) cannot exist until legal and equitable title are united into one, under the control of the owner who is also the manager and the user of the property.

I can answer this ....

The King's attorners attempted to evade his law (and revenues) by vesting the legal title in someone who could not be burdened with the King's dues while the equitable titled was vested in another.

The term use also refers to purpose. Land is classified as to purpose.

The King attempted to quash all of this by the Statute of Uses (1535).
The Statute of Uses vested the legal title back into the beneficial owner, thus subject to the King's charges.
Attorners in return invented the 'use upon a use'.

From this is where trusts are born.

Remember originally that the common law recognizes one owner and one owner only. The owner possesses both the legal title (ownership) as well as the use of the property (benefits, income). Also remember that this owner only tenures (holds) an abstract of the land and not the land itself.

This tenure is subject to the duties or charges imposed by his lord (feudalism).

From the above, we can see all other titles are incident and inferior to the radical title possessed by the King. The King is the overlord or lord paramount.

A 'use upon a use' (trust) allows the Courts of Equity to administrate while keeping silent as to the law (Common Law).

Thanks to the Lord Bacon and King James the I & VI, Equity trumps Common Law. This is due to the rivalry of Bacon and the displeasure of King James I with Edward Coke.

Coke rocks :). If you want to study Common Law, start with Coke, not Blackstone.

Treefarmer
09-22-11, 01:17 AM
I can answer this ....

The King's attorners attempted to evade his law (and revenues) by vesting the legal title in someone who could not be burdened with the King's dues while the equitable titled was vested in another.

The term use also refers to purpose. Land is classified as to purpose.

The King attempted to quash all of this by the Statute of Uses (1535).
The Statute of Uses vested the legal title back into the beneficial owner, thus subject to the King's charges.
Attorners in return invented the 'use upon a use'.

From this is where trusts are born.

Remember originally that the common law recognizes one owner and one owner only. The owner possesses both the legal title (ownership) as well as the use of the property (benefits, income). Also remember that this owner only tenures (holds) and abstract of the land and not the land itself.

This tenure is subject to the duties or charges imposed by his lord (feudalism).

From the above, we can see all other titles are incident and inferior to the radical title possessed by the King. The King is the overlord or lord paramount.

A 'use upon a use' (trust) allows the Courts of Equity to administrate while keeping silent as to the law (Common Law).

Thanks to the Lord Bacon and King James the I & VI, Equity trumps Common Law. This is due to the rivalry of Bacon and the displeasure of King James I with Edward Coke.

Coke rocks :). If you want to study Common Law, start with Coke, not Blackstone.

Very interesting.
I thought that the American revolution got us away from the Crown.
How did the feudalism creep back in?
Was allodial title ever possible in this country since the Columbus invasion?
There is something totally perverse about this servitude that is being touted as freedom.
Like calling marshmallows and beer "food".

allodial
09-22-11, 03:57 AM
I've only read the first post. Its rather typical to Sheriff's Departments, Fire Departments or the like to contract privately. If you look at the LAPD Sheriff, they openly 'sell' their services. If you take your property off the books, you can contract with the County of the City of .... Sheriff or w/e or you can contract with private security--even with Blackwater if you wanted. The County Treasurer, City Treasurer or State Treasurer might be who you'd want to pay to cover your fees. Alternatively, the City, County or State Attorney (General) or the like. If you want to send kids to school, same deal. Pay up.

A purpoted method for taking property off the books is to pay the property tax off (some suggest seven years worth) and notify the assessor that the property is ***private** rather than residential or public--OBVIOUS as in CAPTAIN OBVIOUS--dont use a zip code or a domestic address when doing this! The property being free from mortgage is allegedly a prerequisite. Simple notice to the County/City Assessor.


Bob; house of Smith
private 100 Main street
near Los Angeles, California not domestic

to -> Roger Smith d/b/a Los Angeles County Assesor... or w/e

This concerns parcel/record # ... This is to inform you that your records are inaccurate. My private property appears to be incorrectly classified by you as "residential" or "public" rather than private.

You could probably even have the State Guard, US Marshalls, State Patrol or US Army guard your private property.

shikamaru
09-22-11, 02:45 PM
Very interesting.
I thought that the American revolution got us away from the Crown.
How did the feudalism creep back in?

Some argued that after the Revolution that people merely replaced one overlord for another.
Governments assumed the powers and prerogatives of the King.
(European) Land law has always had a very heavy feudal and servile tint to it :).
Land law is heavy in usage of feudal terms.

In Roman Civil Law, there is the concept of the peculium.
The peculium works like such: the property, de jure, is owned by the dominus (master), but in custom and practice is possessed, used, and enjoyed by the servus (slave).

One can see that there are similarities between "ownership" of land by a tenant and the peculium.



Was allodial title ever possible in this country since the Columbus invasion?

I don't know, but I am willing to find out :).
Allodial title may or may not be possible, but I believe if not possible, it can be approximated very closely :).



There is something totally perverse about this servitude that is being touted as freedom.
Like calling marshmallows and beer "food".

Indeed ....

Property taxes is rent on land.
My usage of rent in this case is in the signification of revenues (Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations).
Interestingly enough, some precursors to the modern day property tax were the rentcharge and quit-rent .....

It is all about revenue and revenue stream.

The King's hunger for revenues have had a major influence on the course of develop of the Common Law.

Treefarmer
09-25-11, 03:12 AM
A purpoted method for taking property off the books is to pay the property tax off (some suggest seven years worth) and notify the assessor that the property is ***private** rather than residential or public--OBVIOUS as in CAPTAIN OBVIOUS--dont use a zip code or a domestic address when doing this!



How is ownership of a parcel of land connected with a domestic ZIP code address?
It seems to me that a "residential address" which was issued by the Post Office refers to the mailbox on the side of the road.
The mailbox is on the federal, state, or county road right-of-way, and often it's not even on the side of the road on which the mailbox owners' land is located.
What contract, treaty, law or agreement ties a "residential address" and its mailbox to a piece of land on which someone makes their home?

Thank you

shikamaru
09-25-11, 11:28 AM
How is ownership of a parcel of land connected with a domestic ZIP code address?
It seems to me that a "residential address" which was issued by the Post Office refers to the mailbox on the side of the road.
The mailbox is on the federal, state, or county road right-of-way, and often it's not even on the side of the road on which the mailbox owners' land is located.
What contract, treaty, law or agreement ties a "residential address" and its mailbox to a piece of land on which someone makes their home?

Thank you

One of the hooks they get you with is an affidavit of residence.

shikamaru
09-25-11, 11:41 AM
How is ownership of a parcel of land connected with a domestic ZIP code address?
It seems to me that a "residential address" which was issued by the Post Office refers to the mailbox on the side of the road.
The mailbox is on the federal, state, or county road right-of-way, and often it's not even on the side of the road on which the mailbox owners' land is located.
What contract, treaty, law or agreement ties a "residential address" and its mailbox to a piece of land on which someone makes their home?

Thank you

Assumpsit.

motla68
09-25-11, 04:28 PM
Assumpsit.

Also "consent" when one just goes along to get along. That word seems to be a magical word that is used in a lot of different areas in the corporate trust structure.

- There usually always a deed of trust somewhere.
- A mortgage is a security contract for deed of trust through a third party.
- A certificate is a security for a title held in trust.

4 positions, Executor/Grantor, Title Owner, Beneficial owner, surety.

heir
n 1: a person who is entitled by law or by the terms of a will to
inherit the estate of another [syn: inheritor, heritor]
2: a person who inherits some title or office [syn: successor]

" HEIR. One born in lawful matrimony, who succeeds by descent, and right of blood, to lands, tenements or hereditaments, being an estate of inheritance. It is an established rule of law, that God alone can make an heir. Beame's Glanville, 143; 1 Thomas, Co. Lit. 931; and Butler's note, p. 938."
- Bouviers Dictionary

" Executor ; 9. - 3. The executor should prove the will in the proper office. "
- Bouviers Dictionary

Genesis 1:26 - 27 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

You got to make up your mind what position you are in and stick to it. If your going to be a surety then do it well, do not blame others for the position you accepted/consented to.

shikamaru
09-25-11, 05:37 PM
- There usually always a deed of trust somewhere.

A deed of trust (trust deed) is not used universally by all States. Although many States do, those that do not use a mortgage. This information was acquired by way of Wikipedia.



- A mortgage is a security contract for deed of trust through a third party.

Given what I have stated above, this would not be the case. A mortgage is a loan contract with the house or property as security (collateral) for the loan.



- A certificate is a security for a title held in trust.

This is interesting and I could see this. Would you happen to have any material concerning certificates and items held in trust or bail?



4 positions, Executor/Grantor, Title Owner, Beneficial owner, surety.

heir
n 1: a person who is entitled by law or by the terms of a will to
inherit the estate of another [syn: inheritor, heritor]
2: a person who inherits some title or office [syn: successor]

" HEIR. One born in lawful matrimony, who succeeds by descent, and right of blood, to lands, tenements or hereditaments, being an estate of inheritance. It is an established rule of law, that God alone can make an heir. Beame's Glanville, 143; 1 Thomas, Co. Lit. 931; and Butler's note, p. 938."
- Bouviers Dictionary

" Executor ; 9. - 3. The executor should prove the will in the proper office. "
- Bouviers Dictionary

Genesis 1:26 - 27 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

You got to make up your mind what position you are in and stick to it. If your going to be a surety then do it well, do not blame others for the position you accepted/consented to.

How would being an heir come into play with property acquired by sale? Does not heir invest by descent?

Treefarmer
09-25-11, 05:41 PM
One of the hooks they get you with is an affidavit of residence.

Who issues an affidavit of residence?
Where does it originate?

shikamaru
09-25-11, 06:16 PM
Who issues an affidavit of residence?
Where does it originate?

That is a good question. I simply remember signing one when upon buying a house.

motla68
09-25-11, 09:37 PM
A deed of trust (trust deed) is not used universally by all States. Although many States do, those that do not use a mortgage. This information was acquired by way of Wikipedia.
Given what I have stated above, this would not be the case. A mortgage is a loan contract with the house or property as security (collateral) for the loan.
This is interesting and I could see this. Would you happen to have any material concerning certificates and items held in trust or bail?
How would being an heir come into play with property acquired by sale? Does not heir invest by descent?

" most property ownership in the common law world—primarily, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland—described more properly as being in fee simple."
" in the United States, all land is subject to eminent domain by the federal government, and subject to the imposition of taxes by state and/or local governments, and there is thus no true allodial land."
- Wikipedia

A mortgage is a agreement with a bank, it serves it's purpose of hiding the trust cloaked behind it. Thus a trustee is appointed by them and not you.
On Certificate [of] title, your mind has been programmed to believe what it is not, you just have to see how it is setup in knowing who is claiming
absolute ownership. it is the "of" which is the flipping of title creating illusion. Look at it this way, if you truly had absolute ownership then why are
you not charging the state or the county for the privilege of serving bills of taxes on your own land? Who is charging who a tax, then you will see
who is claiming absolute ownership.

North Carolina State: The Republic [versus] State of North Carolina: The Democracy
Most people are enslaved to the delusional democratical strategy of using the democracies money to pay a democracy bill.

Our Ancestors already shed blood for the absolute legal ownership of this land, nobody has absolute ownership individually, we all have the blood title as a whole.
We are the usufruct, the state is the usufructuary.


" Art. 223. Parental usufruct on minor child's property

Parents have during marriage the enjoyment of the property of their children until their majority or emancipation.

This usufruct is nonalienable and exempt from seizure.

Acts 1986, No. 303, §1. "

" Art. 542. Divisibility of naked ownership.

The naked ownership may be partitioned subject to the rights of the usufructuary."

When we reach the age of majority we are Usufruct of our own Estates, the state remains the usufructuary.

Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. [B]The Hague, 18 October 1907.
ANNEX TO THE CONVENTION : Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land #Section III : Military authority over the territory of the hostile state
Art. 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.

Senate Resolution #62 doc#43 1933:

689

shikamaru
09-26-11, 12:26 PM
" most property ownership in the common law world—primarily, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland—described more properly as being in fee simple."
" in the United States, all land is subject to eminent domain by the federal government, and subject to the imposition of taxes by state and/or local governments, and there is thus no true allodial land."
- Wikipedia

A mortgage is a agreement with a bank, it serves it's purpose of hiding the trust cloaked behind it.


Of all this I am well aware and have no disagreements with.



Thus a trustee is appointed by them and not you.


Actually, you appoint the trustee upon beseeching of such services and signing of the agreement.
If you don't want do do business with any trustees (fiduciary would be a more appropriate term in this case), buy the property out right.



On Certificate [of] title, your mind has been programmed to believe what it is not, you just have to see how it is setup in knowing who is claiming
absolute ownership. it is the "of" which is the flipping of title creating illusion. Look at it this way, if you truly had absolute ownership then why are
you not charging the state or the county for the privilege of serving bills of taxes on your own land? Who is charging who a tax, then you will see
who is claiming absolute ownership.

This continues to interest me. Do you have any legal works concerning the certificate and items in trust or bail along with its origin and development throughout history?



North Carolina State: The Republic [versus] State of North Carolina: The Democracy
Most people are enslaved to the delusional democratical strategy of using the democracies money to pay a democracy bill.

Government is the trustee of an area to administrate the pooling of assets of all contributors therein.



Our Ancestors already shed blood for the absolute legal ownership of this land, nobody has absolute ownership individually, we all have the blood title as a whole.

This is not how I see it. Your ancestors fought to exchange one overlord for another. You see this throughout early colonial and American history.
Elites are always concerned with whom they can exploit as well as their assets (note I did not say property for good reason). All the better if you can persuade or con the vulgar into volunteering into just such schemes.



We are the usufruct, the state is the usufructuary.

This is fine and dandy if one considers them self an article of commerce.



[B}Louisiana Civil Code[/B]
" Art. 223. Parental usufruct on minor child's property

Parents have during marriage the enjoyment of the property of their children until their majority or emancipation.

This usufruct is nonalienable and exempt from seizure.

This cite sources from Napoleonic Code and thus ultimately, Roman Civil Law.

Trusts were not a feature of Roman Civil Law (Continental Law) until just recently adopted.

Trusts originate exclusively from English Common Law.

Chex
09-26-11, 01:29 PM
This is fine and dandy if one considers them self an article of commerce.

http://university.ucadia.info/e107_files/downloads/CORPORATE_BIRTH.pdf

shikamaru
09-26-11, 02:16 PM
This is fine and dandy if one considers them self an article of commerce.

http://university.ucadia.info/e107_files/downloads/CORPORATE_BIRTH.pdf

Thank-you for the document, Chex.
Having perused the document a bit, I must conclude it is Internet yarn, however.
Despite this, I'm sure there is value to mine from the contents therein.

Treefarmer
09-26-11, 04:10 PM
That is a good question. I simply remember signing one when upon buying a house.
I do not recall ever signing such a thing.
Since I bought my land with cash (lawful money) and it had no built structures on it, there was no bank, real estate agent or lender involved.
See my thread here for details. (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?193-Adventures-in-land-ownership)
My cabin is called a "shed" on the assessor's survey. There is no "house" or "residence" on my land.
I put up a mailbox by the road after consulting with the mailman, several years after I built my cabin. He told me where to put it on the County right-of-way. That side of the road does not even adjoin my land.

For years the mailbox address was Rt. 1 box XXX-b. Then in the mid-nineties it changed to 1234 Newly Named Rd. format. The post office insisted I mark my mailbox accordingly or they would not deliver to the box anymore.
Soon after I marked the box with the new address and made all the necessary paperwork changes, my neighbor said that the 911 service director wants me to call him so he can give me a new address, because the address I had was not 911 compliant.
It is possible that the 911 director would have asked me to fill out some type of affidavit of residence but it never came to that because I never contacted him.

My address is not in the 911 system to this day.

In the 2010 US census, in which I worked as a field worker, I noticed that every shed, roofed wood pile, travel trailer and my cabin-shed had been mapped with GPS coordinates.
Unfortunately I was not assigned to work my own street, but I talked with the lady who was. I explained to her how there was no "residence" on my land and she was polite about it and agreeable. I suspect though that she had no idea what I was talking about and I do not know what she ended up writing into her survey. That would have been interesting to see, but the entire Census process was shrouded in much mystery which I as a field worker was unable to penetrate.
I had a lot of questions to which the job coordinators and superiors standard answer was "I don't know".

shikamaru
09-26-11, 05:13 PM
I do not recall ever signing such a thing.
Since I bought my land with cash (lawful money) and it had no built structures on it, there was no bank, real estate agent or lender involved.
See my thread here for details. (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?193-Adventures-in-land-ownership)
My cabin is called a "shed" on the assessor's survey. There is no "house" or "residence" on my land.
I put up a mailbox by the road after consulting with the mailman, several years after I built my cabin. He told me where to put it on the County right-of-way. That side of the road does not even adjoin my land.

For years the mailbox address was Rt. 1 box XXX-b. Then in the mid-nineties it changed to 1234 Newly Named Rd. format. The post office insisted I mark my mailbox accordingly or they would not deliver to the box anymore.
Soon after I marked the box with the new address and made all the necessary paperwork changes, my neighbor said that the 911 service director wants me to call him so he can give me a new address, because the address I had was not 911 compliant.
It is possible that the 911 director would have asked me to fill out some type of affidavit of residence but it never came to that because I never contacted him.

My address is not in the 911 system to this day.

In the 2010 US census, in which I worked as a field worker, I noticed that every shed, roofed wood pile, travel trailer and my cabin-shed had been mapped with GPS coordinates.
Unfortunately I was not assigned to work my own street, but I talked with the lady who was. I explained to her how there was no "residence" on my land and she was polite about it and agreeable. I suspect though that she had no idea what I was talking about and I do not know what she ended up writing into her survey. That would have been interesting to see, but the entire Census process was shrouded in much mystery which I as a field worker was unable to penetrate.
I had a lot of questions to which the job coordinators and superiors standard answer was "I don't know".

Boy, are you interesting :).

I signed the affidavit of residence to go along to get along. I take care of another other than myself.
I'll clean this up later after emancipation :).

motla68
09-26-11, 06:53 PM
Of all this I am well aware and have no disagreements with.
Actually, you appoint the trustee upon beseeching of such services and signing of the agreement.
If you don't want do do business with any trustees (fiduciary would be a more appropriate term in this case), buy the property out right.
This continues to interest me. Do you have any legal works concerning the certificate and items in trust or bail along with its origin and development throughout history?
Government is the trustee of an area to administrate the pooling of assets of all contributors therein.
This is not how I see it. Your ancestors fought to exchange one overlord for another. You see this throughout early colonial and American history.
Elites are always concerned with whom they can exploit as well as their assets (note I did not say property for good reason). All the better if you can persuade or con the vulgar into volunteering into just such schemes.
This is fine and dandy if one considers them self an article of commerce.
This cite sources from Napoleonic Code and thus ultimately, Roman Civil Law.
Trusts were not a feature of Roman Civil Law (Continental Law) until just recently adopted.
Trusts originate exclusively from English Common Law.

I had assumed they appointed trustee because most people i know who have had situations with a mortgage have not a clue who the trustee was initially.

On certificates and titles try and see if you are able to obtain the original wet inked paper application for a Certificate of Live Birth, the original for application of a vehicle certificate, that is the title. I have not seen anyone get one as of yet.
What you hold is a artifact of evidence that a title exists somewhere. I have no
official legal constructs, this has come to me through my own awareness and trial an error leading to interpretation, I took this farther even on a drivers license, asked a judge if the state could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the photo on that document was me unless i consented to be it, they could not answer, I cannot be in 2 places at one time, right now that is physically impossible.

I understand the separation between man and a article of commerce quite well, " the person" is just a tool, it is why I put " per: " in front of the name whenever writing it down. Man is just man, until he uses a name where ink hits paper then it is just a mask in persona(legal construct) no matter how you slice it. You had seem to be talking legal constructs though by relying on something like Wikipedia, that being the language you wanted to use I return the same type of communication for your own benefit.

Trusts have always been there, just a different kind of trust, whether it be a handshake or in markings on a stick or chiselled into a rock. According to
Trust Law some trusts do not need a trustee.

motla68
09-26-11, 07:07 PM
I do not recall ever signing such a thing.
Since I bought my land with cash (lawful money) and it had no built structures on it, there was no bank, real estate agent or lender involved.
See my thread here for details. (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?193-Adventures-in-land-ownership)
My cabin is called a "shed" on the assessor's survey. There is no "house" or "residence" on my land.
I put up a mailbox by the road after consulting with the mailman, several years after I built my cabin. He told me where to put it on the County right-of-way. That side of the road does not even adjoin my land.

For years the mailbox address was Rt. 1 box XXX-b. Then in the mid-nineties it changed to 1234 Newly Named Rd. format. The post office insisted I mark my mailbox accordingly or they would not deliver to the box anymore.
Soon after I marked the box with the new address and made all the necessary paperwork changes, my neighbor said that the 911 service director wants me to call him so he can give me a new address, because the address I had was not 911 compliant.
It is possible that the 911 director would have asked me to fill out some type of affidavit of residence but it never came to that because I never contacted him.

My address is not in the 911 system to this day.

In the 2010 US census, in which I worked as a field worker, I noticed that every shed, roofed wood pile, travel trailer and my cabin-shed had been mapped with GPS coordinates.
Unfortunately I was not assigned to work my own street, but I talked with the lady who was. I explained to her how there was no "residence" on my land and she was polite about it and agreeable. I suspect though that she had no idea what I was talking about and I do not know what she ended up writing into her survey. That would have been interesting to see, but the entire Census process was shrouded in much mystery which I as a field worker was unable to penetrate.
I had a lot of questions to which the job coordinators and superiors standard answer was "I don't know".

Hey Treefarmer, did you ever consider that the box out by the road sitting in a " Public Easement " is the residence and that you do not live in that box?
It just might be a mailing location in which to communicate with " the person ".
If that is the public then what is the private? could it be the structure you are camped in temporarily on this earth that some would call a house?
I think as long as you take the numbers off the house and put " Care of" in front of the mailing location of all correspondence you might be able to sleep a little easier at night.

shikamaru
09-26-11, 07:20 PM
I had assumed they appointed trustee because most people i know who have had situations with a mortgage have not a clue who the trustee was initially.

With a deed of trust, I can concur.
With a mortgage, I cannot.

With a mortgage, the tenant has legal and equitable title. The tenant is responsible for "rent" on the land. Tenant is obviously in possession of, using, and enjoying the home. The lender retains a security interest in the property i.e. lien.

With a mortgage it is a conditional conferment, if you will.



On certificates and titles try and see if you are able to obtain the original wet inked paper application for a Certificate of Live Birth, the original for application of a vehicle certificate, that is the title. I have not seen anyone get one as of yet.

It is their account, my opinion of course.



What you hold is a artifact of evidence that a title exists somewhere. I have no
official legal constructs, this has come to me through my own awareness and trial an error leading to interpretation,

Fair enough. I bet you could find the historical treatment of certificates and items in bail or trust via Google Books.



You had seem to be talking legal constructs though by relying on something like Wikipedia, that being the language you wanted to use I return the same type of communication for your own benefit.

I merely used Wikipedia for convenience.
The substance of what I state come from legal treatises, legal dictionaries, and legal books of authority.

If you want my sources, feel free to ask.
Unlike most people, I can site and backup the vast bulk of my statements with references.
Otherwise, I qualify my statements as opinion, assertion, etc.



Trusts have always been there, just a different kind of trust, whether it be a handshake or in markings on a stick or chiselled into a rock.

There may have been some predecessors or quasi-trusts, but not in the official form known today.
The form today is born from the 'use upon a use'.

motla68
09-26-11, 08:02 PM
ok, we will just have to agree to slightly disagree on some points there on mortgage.

Yes, sometimes the answer one seeks is within the question.

Also concur with you about the " use upon a use", the word " usufructuary was first used in English Literature before used in a legal sense in 1828.

shikamaru
09-26-11, 08:16 PM
ok, we will just have to agree to slightly disagree on some points there on mortgage.

Yes, sometimes the answer one seeks is within the question.

Also concur with you about the " use upon a use", the word " usufructuary was first used in English Literature before used in a legal sense in 1828.

Clearly I wasn't around when all of these languages, customs, usages, and practices were devised and developed :).

I've found that much of what people state in patriot lore or internet yarn does not hold water upon probation by research. This is not stating or implying that what you present is such.

KnowLaw
10-04-11, 10:45 PM
It's been a while since I've been back to revisit this thread. Too many other projects on my plate.

In re-reading, a lot of what Michael Joseph had to say toward the beginning of the thread has sunk in and made sense according to the circumstances I have to work within. Primarily, the following:



The deed is an expression of Trust. The Grantee is a CESTUI QUE TRUST = LEGAL NAME = Beneficiary. Therefore the Deed is just a Transfer of Beneficial Interest. And Therefore the Grantor does not have the RIGHT to transfer the property without the State as the Property expressed Within the Deed is Equitable Interest.

Only the Trustee can do that action.

In one approach, I attempted to remedy the matter of property taxes by taking the "property" out of the State's jurisdiction to render it as being classified as "private property" by selling it back to myself (the non-fiction, flesh-and-blood man) using a Grant Deed and refusing to record it with the county recorder, since from what I was reading at the time, it seemed to make sense as "registration" (with the State) occurs when the property is recorded. And once the property is "registered" with the state, that creates the "contract" (or "trust," so to speak) which the State uses as authorization for levying the tax.

The problem with that was: the property was originally granted in a warranty deed to a relative (who paid for the property in full at the time of purchase, so it was owned outright, or so it seemed to me). The documentation, though, had the State's fingerprints all over it (in terms of its legal description and so forth among other things), nullifying any claim I might have tried to make. At this point, I'm not sure how such real property can be successfully loosened from the hands of the State given the documentation one has to work with.

This has been an eye-opening experience. It brings home the point that every situation in terms of property law is unique when it comes to dealing with law. You have to be aware of all the legal twists and turns within your specific circumstances within the law before you can make your way to solid ground regarding the process that you are pursuing.

All of which brings me back to the statement made by Anthony Joseph below:


The way the system is set up, there is no way around it if you respond the way they lead you or if you ignore them entirely. The "other" available option is never revealed for obvious reasons. Like a traffic citation; there are three options offered by the way they lead you respond. The "other" option is not disclosed... R4C; even though it IS available for those that choose to employ the method honorably and competently.

That is why I suggest that the provided and available coupon attached to the "tax bill" be sent back with instructions for them to settle their own account utilizing that valid instrument which they provided, and are BOUND to accept, according to the law they operate from and are under. Seems to be as simple an "option" as R4C'ing a Traffic Citation; utilize whatever instrument, tool or mechanism available in order to assist them in settling their account internally and to keep the peace. Their is NO disruption or challenge of the "system" on our part other than our justly and rightfully declared immunity from it and superiority over it. Any disruption of the peace or initiated "action" will be by them from a position of dishonor if they fail to, or refuse to, recognize the character and standing of the man or woman who exercises his/her inherent and Divine right of avoidance from being "ruled" or re-venued by men and/or their creations.

Having followed a similar process, this seems to be the only reasonable and honorable way to somewhat extricate oneself from the property tax situation. Although you might have to stick to your guns in order to make it stick. I provide an update further down regarding what has occurred in my case.

At the same time I was prosecuting the "private property" approach, I also went ahead and returned the property tax coupon (along with a Memorandum of Law very similar to Anthony Joseph's document) with instructions on how it was to be redeemed with the Secretary of the Treasury.

The county treasurer, however, didn't seem to want to take that option and returned a "delinquent tax notice" in June, a few days after the expiration date for the second half payment. I replied by reminding him of the draft for money order I sent in December along with a Letter of Credit and the Notice of Memorandum of Law instructions regarding how to redeem the tender of payment. And there the matter sits.

There is little doubt in my mind that he will eventually (if it has not already occurred) issue a tax lien on the property. Yet, I have proof of service of the correspondence sent to him along with a claim that this matter is out of any State court's jurisdiction and is within the UPU's (Universal Postal Union) jurisdiction. Any qualified attorney (or attorney in black robe) worth his salt should take a look at the papers I sent him and notice the canceled stamp on the pertinent documents, indicating that this matter falls within the UPU jurisdiction.

One last nice touch I noted in reading back over this thread was the suggestion to make payment of the coupon in lawful money as per Title 12 U.S.C. §411. I'll have to add that touch to my next process.

shikamaru
10-04-11, 10:58 PM
It's been a while since I've been back to revisit this thread. Too many other projects on my plate.

In re-reading, a lot of what Michael Joseph had to say toward the beginning of the thread has sunk in and made sense according to the circumstances I have to work within. Primarily, the following:



In one approach, I attempted to remedy the matter of property taxes by taking the "property" out of the State's jurisdiction to render it as being classified as "private property" by selling it back to myself (the non-fiction, flesh-and-blood man) using a Grant Deed and refusing to record it with the county recorder, since from what I was reading at the time, it seemed to make sense as "registration" (with the State) occurs when the property is recorded. And once the property is "registered" with the state, that creates the "contract" (or "trust," so to speak) which the State uses as authorization for levying the tax.

The problem with that was: the property was originally granted in a warranty deed to a relative (who paid for the property in full at the time of purchase, so it was owned outright, or so it seemed to me). The documentation, though, had the State's fingerprints all over it (in terms of its legal description and so forth among other things), nullifying any claim I might have tried to make. At this point, I'm not sure how such real property can be successfully loosened from the hands of the State given the documentation one has to work with.

This has been an eye-opening experience. It brings home the point that every situation in terms of property law is unique when it comes to dealing with law. You have to be aware of all the legal twists and turns within your specific circumstances within the law before you can make your way to solid ground regarding the process that you are pursuing.

All of which brings me back to the statement made by Anthony Joseph below:



Having followed a similar process, this seems to be the only reasonable and honorable way to somewhat extricate oneself from the property tax situation. Although you might have to stick to your guns in order to make it stick. I provide an update further down regarding what has occurred in my case.

At the same time I was prosecuting the "private property" approach, I also went ahead and returned the property tax coupon (along with a Memorandum of Law very similar to Anthony Joseph's document) with instructions on how it was to be redeemed with the Secretary of the Treasury.

The county treasurer, however, didn't seem to want to take that option and returned a "delinquent tax notice" in June, a few days after the expiration date for the second half payment. I replied by reminding him of the draft for money order I sent in December along with a Letter of Credit and the Notice of Memorandum of Law instructions regarding how to redeem the tender of payment. And there the matter sits.

There is little doubt in my mind that he will eventually (if it has not already occurred) issue a tax lien on the property. Yet, I have proof of service of the correspondence sent to him along with a claim that this matter is out of any State court's jurisdiction and is within the UPU's (Universal Postal Union) jurisdiction. Any qualified attorney (or attorney in black robe) worth his salt should take a look at the papers I sent him and notice the canceled stamp on the pertinent documents, indicating that this matter falls within the UPU jurisdiction.

One last nice touch I noted in reading back over this thread was the suggestion to make payment of the coupon in lawful money as per Title 12 U.S.C. §411. I'll have to add that touch to my next process.

Be sure to avoid the insurances particuarly title insurance.

In title insurance, the State is listed as a beneficiary :).

That tip is courtesy of "the Informer".

KnowLaw
10-05-11, 11:40 PM
Be sure to avoid the insurances particuarly title insurance.

In title insurance, the State is listed as a beneficiary :).

That tip is courtesy "the Informer".

Thank you for adding that comment. That's a very good point to bring up that others here should learn from.

No, I did not involve any title company in the Grant Deed transaction, since I have nearly all the paper work (going back to the Land Patent granted by the State) involved with the real property in question, there seemed to be no need. There have been three owners of the plot of land that the Grant Deed refers to.

The only paper work I don't have in my possession is the first buyer of the plot who sold it to my relative, who was the second owner of the land. I am the third owner of the lot. I am assuming I could obtain a copy of that paper work (I just haven't done so yet) from the title company that was involved in the sale to the first owner. Previous to the time it was sold to the first owner, it was bought by a land developer who then developed the land, obtained an Land Patent on it, and then sold the lot to the first owner. (For clarifications sake, obviously the land developer was the original first owner of the land; I'm just referring to the people he sold to in order to clarify that since the original owner, there have been three additional owners.)

Is it your understanding, too, that private transactions such as this would be lawful as it would fall under the common law? In other words, by not involving the State (or any of its corporate minions such as a title company), the transaction remains on the private side of the fence. If so, then perhaps I don't have that much to worry about in the face of new developments. I just need to maintain my stance and make sure my response to any "offers" that may come my way is in accord with my stance. (This can become a bit confusing, which is why I am asking a second opinion to make sure my thinking is correct.)

shikamaru
10-06-11, 12:40 AM
Is it your understanding, too, that private transactions such as this would be lawful as it would fall under the common law? In other words, by not involving the State (or any of its corporate minions such as a title company), the transaction remains on the private side of the fence. If so, then perhaps I don't have that much to worry about in the face of new developments. I just need to maintain my stance and make sure my response to any "offers" that may come my way is in accord with my stance. (This can become a bit confusing, which is why I am asking a second opinion to make sure my thinking is correct.)

The first title deed (land patent) as well as title abstract is what makes it "common law".

The title abstract is composed of an abstract of all deeds leading back to the patent.

The patent still includes the State in that the State created the patent as well as the survey of the land.

How it was procured would make it "common law" such as using gold and silver coin as well as drawing up the contract that the sale was effected at law.

Contract makes the law :). (maxim)

Registration is a statutory (Roman Civil Law) custom.

KnowLaw
10-06-11, 04:21 AM
The first title deed (land patent) as well as title abstract is what makes it "common law".

The title abstract is composed of an abstract of all deeds leading back to the patent.

The patent still includes the State in that the State created the patent as well as the survey of the land.

How it was procured would make it "common law" such as using gold and silver coin as well as drawing up the contract that the sale was effected at law.

Contract makes the law :). (maxim)

Registration is a statutory (Roman Civil Law) custom.

Thanks for your feedback. It has helped to clarify certain points.

Perhaps you can expand on one passage that you mentioned so that I could be clear what is meant by it. The passage about: "...drawing up the contract that the sale was effected at law."

Is there verbiage that you are aware of that accomplishes this? I'd just like to be clear about what you mean by this in my own mind.

Otherwise, yes, gold was mentioned in the sale (along with other consideration).

Frederick Burrell
10-06-11, 08:11 AM
Be sure to avoid the insurances particuarly title insurance.

In title insurance, the State is listed as a beneficiary :).

That tip is courtesy "the Informer".

If you are using the R4V method you would need to sent you coupon and money order to the IRS. There are only 3 offices that process R4V payments.

IRS technical Support
1500 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington, district of columbia

IRS crimminal division
Box 192
Lovington, Kentucky

and

IRS stop 4440
PO box 9036
Augdon, Utah.

Allow 3 weeks for processing if this is your first R4V. fB

shikamaru
10-06-11, 01:08 PM
Perhaps you can expand on one passage that you mentioned so that I could be clear what is meant by it. The passage about: "...drawing up the contract that the sale was effected at law."

Is there verbiage that you are aware of that accomplishes this? I'd just like to be clear about what you mean by this in my own mind.


I need to start a super duper land law research thread :).

Let's look at it this way.
Let's say we successfully negotiate with a seller to accept gold and silver coin.

The parties are free to draw up the contract to their mutual benefit.

The contract could say something to the effect that "$2000 in 40 $50 gold pieces and other valuable consideration tendered AT LAW for closure and settlement.

Remember contract makes the law. Contracts even supersede constitutions :).

The contract expresses the intent of the buyer.
There are other tricks too such as a absolute bill of sale rather than a receipt.
It has to do with common law vs equity if you will.

One is expressing intent to extinguish a debt at law rather than discharge in equity.

shikamaru
10-06-11, 01:09 PM
If you are using the R4V method you would need to sent you coupon and money order to the IRS. There are only 3 offices that process R4V payments.

IRS technical Support
1500 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington, district of columbia

IRS crimminal division
Box 192
Lovington, Kentucky

and

IRS stop 4440
PO box 9036
Augdon, Utah.

Allow 3 weeks for processing if this is your first R4V. fB

This has nothing to do with ACV/RCV.
This has to do with common law contracts vs. maritime contracts (insurance) as well as customs of law versus equity.

KnowLaw
10-06-11, 04:54 PM
Let's look at it this way.
Let's say we successfully negotiate with a seller to accept gold and silver coin.

The parties are free to draw up the contract to their mutual benefit.

The contract could say something to the effect that "$2000 in 40 $50 gold pieces and other valuable consideration tendered AT LAW for closure and settlement.

Remember contract makes the law. Contracts even supersede constitutions :).

The contract expresses the intent of the buyer.
There are other tricks too such as a absolute bill of sale rather than a receipt.
It has to do with common law vs equity if you will.

One is expressing intent to extinguish a debt at law rather than discharge in equity.
Excellent, Shikamaru.

That's what I was looking for. It's important to be clear about the verbiage, details matter in lawful and legal documents and proceedings. So, it is the words "at law" that are important to be included in the statement.

While we're at it, might you be able to clear up another question I have with regard to the wording of the deed. Because the underlying instrument was a warranty deed before the property succeeded to me, that document contains wording pertaining to certain mineral rights reserved by the State, which I have preserved in whole. Since that was part of the original instrument, it seems of necessity to be needing inclusion in the deed. I was also compelled to use the State's generated mapping coordinates in order to identify the lot. Do either of these factors pose any problem that you might see to the assertion that this document is being offered at common law?

Thank you for your feedback. It has been tremendously helpful.

shikamaru
10-06-11, 05:35 PM
While we're at it, might you be able to clear up another question I have with regard to the wording of the deed. Because the underlying instrument was a warranty deed before the property succeeded to me, that document contains wording pertaining to certain mineral rights reserved by the State, which I have preserved in whole.

This is common in land patents that were issued by Sovereigns. The king would reserve the mineral rights to the land while granting the surface rights.

I would even look into pursuing the mineral rights from the State in order to bring them all under one unified whole.



Since that was part of the original instrument, it seems of necessity to be needing inclusion in the deed. I was also compelled to use the State's generated mapping coordinates in order to identify the lot. Do either of these factors pose any problem that you might see to the assertion that this document is being offered at common law?

Neither of these should present a problem. The "common law" if you will is in the instrument.

Land patents as well as title abstracts are lawful paperwork. The reason for the abstract is that deeds are colorable. They color the patent as to who the owner is when land is conveyed. The original issuance of the patent is as is.

You could even look to acquire the land plat as well as all treaties and statutes on the books at the time the patent was issued. This would be your "sandwhich" if you will.

Some of these tidbits are courtesy of David Wilbur Johnson whose audios I highly recommend.



Thank you for your feedback. It has been tremendously helpful.

No problem. As always, do your own research. You are always welcome to my resources as well.

stoneFree
10-21-11, 03:46 PM
I heard some of Angela's Talkshoe call last night (10/20/11) http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/39904
and the guest was a "Robb Ryder" who talked of taking ownership of your property with a CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE. Essentially, as grantee on your deed you just accept it and acknowledge it before a competent officer. Sounds too easy, but then .. I'm new at this. His website is: http://robcourtofrecord.wordpress.com

"This evening I’ll be using the following as an example of how I might do an acknowledgment of a warranty deed. Over the last couple of weeks I’ve had the opportunity to talk to many who have interest but concerns.. or have met resistance by a counter troll.

In an effort to squash the latter …. and insure all of your interest are protected I might write it this way…… (and attached)..

A few have questioned where the “authority” comes from… that’s easy Article 4 Section 1 of the constitution they took an oath to… Full faith and credit to all public records, acts, and judicial proceedings…
As a sovereign man these are your records, acts, and judicial proceeding all done as a form of acknowledgment… and as long as lawful has full faith and credit..

IMO you do not need to get 3 witnesses.. as you already have them.. as a conscious man you are always witnessed.. (so do not charge your brother), and the notary under their seal is a witness, as is the competent court that holds the notary’s or similar competent officers oath.. Those are your 3 witnesses… and “they” have now said that your instrument is in due form of law.. and under their seal.. making it binding on all other courts, officers etc..

If it is an unlawful order, they are under no obligation to follow it…. however they have to put their reason under oath… (lawful affidavit) , what is unlawful about it… and as the king you are… simply ask for the remedy so the spirit of the order can be fulfilled..

But in the specific case of acknowledging your warranty deed (or similar) you are asking for a very much lawful recording to be done…. a deed is not completely executed until the grantee accepts it… and acknowledges it before a competent officer.. the paper it’s self is just a memorial to your wish… the wish happened before you wrote it down.. and a king merely wishes for things… comes with the office… office of king, the sovereign of your own nation state.. and you just made law.."
Word File: Acknowledgment Form

I Robert Allen the living man created in the image of god, with indefeasible title to my land and lawfull owner of the landed estate known as ROBERT ALLEN RYTLEWSKI and it’s real property and interest, under the seal Robert Allen Rytlewski, or it’s derivation am recorded as the grantee on the warranty (grant) deed for the real estate described on the attached certified copy of said deed.

It is my freewill act and deed, to execute this acknowledgement of my acceptance of the deed and lawfull ownership of the property under the terms of the deed.
I ask that the record on file in the office of register of deeds be updated to show my acceptance of the deed, as lawfull owner of the real estate.

All my other real property and interest issued for this real estate and its gain is to be immediately returned to me. What’s mine is mine, what’s yours is yours.

I accept the oaths of all public officers and bind them to it, as well as bestow my sovereign immunity on them while administering my lawfull orders. This public record under the seal of a competent court is guaranteed full faith and credit per Article 4 Section 1 of your Constitution. Any officer of the public who does not immediately carry out these lawfull orders acknowledges warring with the constitution, and committing treason. So let it be written, so let it be done.

Done under my hand and seal of my freewill act and deed.




State of Michigan, County of ________________________ ss.

On this _______day of September 2011, before me the subscriber, ______________________ , Robert Allen; Rytlewski, to me known to be the living man described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged before me that he executed the same as his freewill act and deed.

motla68
10-22-11, 03:34 PM
I heard some of Angela's Talkshoe call last night (10/20/11) http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/39904
and the guest was a "Robb Ryder" who talked of taking ownership of your property with a CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE. Essentially, as grantee on your deed you just accept it and acknowledge it before a competent officer. Sounds too easy, but then .. I'm new at this. His website is: http://robcourtofrecord.wordpress.com

"This evening I’ll be using the following as an example of how I might do an acknowledgment of a warranty deed. Over the last couple of weeks I’ve had the opportunity to talk to many who have interest but concerns.. or have met resistance by a counter troll.

In an effort to squash the latter …. and insure all of your interest are protected I might write it this way…… (and attached)..

A few have questioned where the “authority” comes from… that’s easy Article 4 Section 1 of the constitution they took an oath to… Full faith and credit to all public records, acts, and judicial proceedings…
As a sovereign man these are your records, acts, and judicial proceeding all done as a form of acknowledgment… and as long as lawful has full faith and credit..

IMO you do not need to get 3 witnesses.. as you already have them.. as a conscious man you are always witnessed.. (so do not charge your brother), and the notary under their seal is a witness, as is the competent court that holds the notary’s or similar competent officers oath.. Those are your 3 witnesses… and “they” have now said that your instrument is in due form of law.. and under their seal.. making it binding on all other courts, officers etc..

If it is an unlawful order, they are under no obligation to follow it…. however they have to put their reason under oath… (lawful affidavit) , what is unlawful about it… and as the king you are… simply ask for the remedy so the spirit of the order can be fulfilled..

But in the specific case of acknowledging your warranty deed (or similar) you are asking for a very much lawful recording to be done…. a deed is not completely executed until the grantee accepts it… and acknowledges it before a competent officer.. the paper it’s self is just a memorial to your wish… the wish happened before you wrote it down.. and a king merely wishes for things… comes with the office… office of king, the sovereign of your own nation state.. and you just made law.."
Word File: Acknowledgment Form

I Robert Allen the living man created in the image of god, with indefeasible title to my land and lawfull owner of the landed estate known as ROBERT ALLEN RYTLEWSKI and it’s real property and interest, under the seal Robert Allen Rytlewski, or it’s derivation am recorded as the grantee on the warranty (grant) deed for the real estate described on the attached certified copy of said deed.

It is my freewill act and deed, to execute this acknowledgement of my acceptance of the deed and lawfull ownership of the property under the terms of the deed.
I ask that the record on file in the office of register of deeds be updated to show my acceptance of the deed, as lawfull owner of the real estate.

All my other real property and interest issued for this real estate and its gain is to be immediately returned to me. What’s mine is mine, what’s yours is yours.

I accept the oaths of all public officers and bind them to it, as well as bestow my sovereign immunity on them while administering my lawfull orders. This public record under the seal of a competent court is guaranteed full faith and credit per Article 4 Section 1 of your Constitution. Any officer of the public who does not immediately carry out these lawfull orders acknowledges warring with the constitution, and committing treason. So let it be written, so let it be done.

Done under my hand and seal of my freewill act and deed.




State of Michigan, County of ________________________ ss.

On this _______day of September 2011, before me the subscriber, ______________________ , Robert Allen; Rytlewski, to me known to be the living man described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged before me that he executed the same as his freewill act and deed.

Hey Stonefree, this guy Robb Ryder is definitely on to something good here. I shared such information towards the beginning of this year with this group and also was on a private conference call back then with RR and shared this with him. He is very thorough when it comes to explanations and I am glad he is able to do a better job then me in explaining all the technical aspects.
Some of you on the group here may have remembered me posting this showing a setoff of vehicle taxes:
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?109-Coresource-Solution-attempts-to-disclose-from-man-on-the-land-since-1968&p=510&viewfull=1#post510

I then later explained how when property is registered with government, they are just holders of the property, they do not own it:
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?109-Coresource-Solution-attempts-to-disclose-from-man-on-the-land-since-1968&p=1460&viewfull=1#post1460
(Read the next post after that one you will see where DM finally acknowledges this)

On another funny note though back then I was called a fraud and some conspiracy nut job for bringing this up if you read the posts before that on that same thread.
It's all good now though, Robb was able to take it to another level with other property taxes and to show that it is just there being held waiting for someone to claim ownership on it.
His talkshoe call with Angela Stark on myprivateaudio was fantastic, I could not have done it much better myself.

Who makes the law? Man makes the law, one man has just as much right to make law as the other, even a conditional acceptance is making the law:
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?277-Does-receiving-a-wet-ink-signature-or-seal-from-an-agent-on-a-doc-make-the-law&p=2576&viewfull=1#post2576
Law is contract, contract is law.

motla68

shikamaru
10-22-11, 04:32 PM
Law is contract, contract is law.


That is contract makes the law.

Contract is voluntary.
Law is compulsory.

motla68
10-22-11, 05:08 PM
That is contract makes the law.

Contract is voluntary.
Law is compulsory.

Did i say contract was mandatory? Can one choose not to contract? Yes, some kind of law was here before man came into the picture to create contracts. I guess whatever makes you feel good.

Anthony Joseph
10-22-11, 05:12 PM
Hey Stonefree, this guy Robb Ryder is definitely on to something good here. I shared such information towards the beginning of this year with this group and also was on a private conference call back then with RR and shared this with him. He is very thorough when it comes to explanations and I am glad he is able to do a better job then me in explaining all the technical aspects.
Some of you on the group here may have remembered me posting this showing a setoff of vehicle taxes:
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?109-Coresource-Solution-attempts-to-disclose-from-man-on-the-land-since-1968&p=510&viewfull=1#post510

I then later explained how when property is registered with government, they are just holders of the property, they do not own it:
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?109-Coresource-Solution-attempts-to-disclose-from-man-on-the-land-since-1968&p=1460&viewfull=1#post1460
(Read the next post after that one you will see where DM finally acknowledges this)

On another funny note though back then I was called a fraud and some conspiracy nut job for bringing this up if you read the posts before that on that same thread.
It's all good now though, Robb was able to take it to another level with other property taxes and to show that it is just there being held waiting for someone to claim ownership on it.
His talkshoe call with Angela Stark on myprivateaudio was fantastic, I could not have done it much better myself.

Who makes the law? Man makes the law, one man has just as much right to make law as the other, even a conditional acceptance is making the law:
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?277-Does-receiving-a-wet-ink-signature-or-seal-from-an-agent-on-a-doc-make-the-law&p=2576&viewfull=1#post2576
Law is contract, contract is law.

motla68

I am in the process of listening and studying Robb's offerings regarding the acknowledgement and acceptance of the deed and I also find his explanations and supporting law/definitions quite interesting and thorough.

I am still sketchy on the aspect of executing this same method on the birth certificate. He offers that the "Legal M. Name" (First Middle Last) is a "landed estate" granted by your natural father and is also awaiting acknowledgement and acceptance to obtain good and highest title to that "Legal M. Name" estate. Robb opines that once this is done, no one or nothing can charge that name under law unless a claim via sworn affidavit by a living man is presented stating the harm or injury which occured. He says that it will never happen since that requirement will never be met by any moving party under those conditions.

I am still trying to wrap my mind around this one since the discussions of the Legal M. Name being property of the creator of it; the STATE. However, if the birth certificate is considered a grant deed as well with the same defect as the warranty deed, which is in want of acknowledgement and acceptance, then completing that process and correcting that record could have the same effect; any and all claims, liens encumbrances against that name subsequent to the original birth certificate/deed is a nullity and void in law. It becomes our lawful property as a landed estate which we have highest and good title to. If it is possible to acknowledge and accept the birth certificate as a deed then that means the STATE that created it never did; perhaps they never can. It is abandoned property in limbo which allows the STATE, and any other rogue party, to charge against it and claim interest in it via notice.

shikamaru
10-22-11, 05:15 PM
Did i say contract was mandatory?

You said:



Law is contract, contract is law.

You mistook contracts as the element itself when it only has agency of that object, in this case, the force of law.



Can one choose not to contract?

This is not the element of dispute.



Yes, some kind of law was here before man came into the picture to create contracts. I guess whatever makes you feel good.

Pick whatever law floats your boat. Law implies compulsion whether it is your Creator or government.
The 10 Commandments is a covenant (contract). Is its terms and conditions voluntary or compulsory for those who entered that covenant?

Here again: contract MAKES the law not contract IS law.

motla68
10-22-11, 06:32 PM
I am in the process of listening and studying Robb's offerings regarding the acknowledgement and acceptance of the deed and I also find his explanations and supporting law/definitions quite interesting and thorough.

I am still sketchy on the aspect of executing this same method on the birth certificate. He offers that the "Legal M. Name" (First Middle Last) is a "landed estate" granted by your natural father and is also awaiting acknowledgement and acceptance to obtain good and highest title to that "Legal M. Name" estate. Robb opines that once this is done, no one or nothing can charge that name under law unless a claim via sworn affidavit by a living man is presented stating the harm or injury which occured. He says that it will never happen since that requirement will never be met by any moving party under those conditions.

I am still trying to wrap my mind around this one since the discussions of the Legal M. Name being property of the creator of it; the STATE. However, if the birth certificate is considered a grant deed as well with the same defect as the warranty deed, which is in want of acknowledgement and acceptance, then completing that process and correcting that record could have the same effect; any and all claims, liens encumbrances against that name subsequent to the original birth certificate/deed is a nullity and void in law. It becomes our lawful property as a landed estate which we have highest and good title to. If it is possible to acknowledge and accept the birth certificate as a deed then that means the STATE that created it never did; perhaps they never can. It is abandoned property in limbo which allows the STATE, and any other rogue party, to charge against it and claim interest in it via notice.

You may want to take into consideration that the law of equity or equitable interests still has a foothold in this country over any other law, first in line, first in time.
Check out some old law dictionaries on the term " FREEHOLD " and see how it may apply to what he is saying.
There is a philosphy here in line with the biblical jurisprudence that man was here before the paper, man was given earth to have dominion over and because
I know DM likes to hear it, am going to say it again Gen 1:26.
I cannot prove they will acknowledge this, but he does make mention of Canon law which I had also posted on here about in the past, all i can say is that when you bring this kind of stuff up to certain governmental entities the facial expressions can be a kodak moment, especially when there boss says we were correct, because of the above sentences you will have to find your own philosophy to it unfortunately.

motla68
10-22-11, 06:37 PM
You said:



You mistook contracts as the element itself when it only has agency of that object, in this case, the force of law.



This is not the element of dispute.



Pick whatever law floats your boat. Law implies compulsion whether it is your Creator or government.
The 10 Commandments is a covenant (contract). Is its terms and conditions voluntary or compulsory for those who entered that covenant?

Here again: contract MAKES the law not contract IS law.

Perhaps you have heard this phrase before; " What IS is, what was was " also ....." If you think you are right you are correct, if you think you are wrong you are correct."
If it works for you, use it, don't let me stop you.

shikamaru
10-22-11, 09:04 PM
Perhaps you have heard this phrase before; " What IS is, what was was " also ....." If you think you are right you are correct, if you think you are wrong you are correct."
If it works for you, use it, don't let me stop you.

A guillotine is not a scalpel, but both cut.
The difference between the two is in PRECISION, CONTROL, and SENSITIVITY.

If wielding language like a guillotine works for you, don't let me stop you.
However, let me point out you miss the finer elements while remaining none the wiser.

motla68
10-23-11, 02:21 AM
A guillotine is not a scalpel, but both cut.
The difference between the two is in PRECISION, CONTROL, and SENSITIVITY.

If wielding language like a guillotine works for you, don't let me stop you.
However, let me point out you miss the finer elements while remaining none the wiser.

Please I would rather hear of your own personal experience to rebut the point rather then unsubstantiated opinions. Yes, I plan to live and do not live to plan, so what is it you think
that you can do to change that? If you do not like it, or refuse to back yourself up then
please spare the forum space and do not even click the link to open my postings.

shikamaru
10-23-11, 01:33 PM
Please I would rather hear of your own personal experience to rebut the point rather then unsubstantiated opinions.
Yes, I plan to live and do not live to plan, so what is it you think
that you can do to change that? If you do not like it, or refuse to back yourself up then
please spare the forum space and do not even click the link to open my postings.

Off point and irrelevant to what we are discussing.
This discussion is not about you, but a comment you've made.

Let's try this again:

If clothes make the man, are the clothes the man?

Legem enim contractus dat.
The contract makes the law.



Law is contract, contract is law.

Now if you want to abandon reason, I'll let it be.

motla68
10-23-11, 07:43 PM
Off point and irrelevant to what we are discussing.
This discussion is not about you, but a comment you've made.

Let's try this again:

If clothes make the man, are the clothes the man?

Legem enim contractus dat.
The contract makes the law.



Now if you want to abandon reason, I'll let it be.

- No, clothes do not make the man, but they are connected to a man's "state of mind", it is not the only variable, but it is one of many and from that we can only make determinations or conclusions, it is NOT law.

- Eadem est ratio, eadem est lex. The reason being the same, the law is the same.
- Vitium est quod fugi debet, ne, si rationem non invenias, mox legem sine ratione esse clames. It is a fault which ought to be avoided, that if you cannot discover the reason you presently exclaim that the law is without reason.
- Ratio non clauditur loco. Reason is not confined to any place.
- Ratio legis est anima legis. The reason of the law is the spirit of the law.

IF 2 + 3 = 5 then 3 + 2 = 5, no not the same but connected in spirit to an end conclusion, both get you to the number 5. However if you are speaking in terms of man's consciousnous we can only assume what a man's plans are by the way one dresses, it is not law. We do not know until we ask and agree to what is said that there then is law.
If a man is dressed in long pants and long sleeved shirt on a Sunday in fall which you believe is warm day is their agreement or rule that the man feels cold? or would you have to ask to make the determination? It just could mean that it is the only thing clean the man had to wear.
It is all lies until there is agreement between 2 men that a connection exists.
You could be making determinations based upon some cooking cutter template, I could be making determinations based upon sentence structure. If man has a right to his own self determinations does that make your way any better then mine, if so then how? Again, Please show proof of your rebuttal?

David Merrill
10-23-11, 11:09 PM
1. Johnny's mother had three children. The first child was named April. The second child was named May. What was the third child's name?

2. There is a clerk at the butcher shop, he is five feet ten inches tall and he wears size 13 sneakers. What does he weigh?

3. Before Mt. Everest was discovered, what was the highest mountain in the world?

4. How much dirt is there in a hole that measures two feet by three feet by four feet?

5. What word in the English Language is always spelled incorrectly?

6. Billy was born on December 28th, yet his birthday is always in the summer. How is this possible?

7. In California, you cannot take a picture of a man with a wooden leg. Why not?

8. What was the President's Name in 1975?

9. If you were running a race, and you passed the person in 2nd place, what place would you be in now?

10. Which is correct to say, "The yolk of the egg are white" or "The yolk of the egg is white"?

11. If a farmer has 5 haystacks in one field and 4 haystacks in the other field, how many haystacks would he have if he combined them all in another field?

David Merrill
10-23-11, 11:10 PM
1. Johnny's mother had three children. The first child was named April. The second child was named May. What wasthe third child's name?
Answer: Johnny of course

2. There is a clerk at the butcher shop, he is five feet ten inches tall, and he wears size 13 sneakers. What does he weigh?
Answer: Meat.

3. Before Mt. Everest was discovered, what was the highest mountain in the world?
Answer: Mt. Everest; it just wasn't discovered yet. [You're not very good at this are you?]

4. How much dirt is there in a hole that measures two feet by three feet by four feet?
Answer: There is no dirt in a hole.

5. What word in the English Language is always spelled incorrectly?
Answer: Incorrectly

6. Billy was born on December 28th, yet her birthday is always in the summer. How is this possible?
Answer: Billy lives in the Southern Hemisphere

7. In California, you cannot take a picture of a man with a wooden leg. Why not?
Answer: You can't take pictures with a wooden leg. You need a camera to take pictures.

8. What was the President's Name in 1975?
Answer: Same as is it now - Barack Obama [Oh, come on ...]

9. If you were running a race, and you passed the person in 2nd place, what place
would you be in now?
Answer: You would be in 2nd. Well, you passed the person in second place, not first.

10. Which is correct to say, "The yolk of the egg are white" or "The yolk of the egg is white"?
Answer: Neither, the yolk of the egg is yellow [Duh]

11. If a farmer has 5 haystacks in one field and 4 haystacks in the other field,
how many haystacks would he have if he combined them all in another field?
Answer: One. If he combines all of his haystacks, they all become one big stack.

shikamaru
10-23-11, 11:32 PM
- No, clothes do not make the man, but they are connected to a man's "state of mind"

And what do you think a contract symbolizes?



, it is not the only variable, but it is one of many and from that we can only make determinations or conclusions, it is NOT law.

... and neither is a contract :)



- Eadem est ratio, eadem est lex. The reason being the same, the law is the same.
- Vitium est quod fugi debet, ne, si rationem non invenias, mox legem sine ratione esse clames. It is a fault which ought to be avoided, that if you cannot discover the reason you presently exclaim that the law is without reason.
- Ratio non clauditur loco. Reason is not confined to any place.
- Ratio legis est anima legis. The reason of the law is the spirit of the law.

I don't see any maxim in there that "contract is law". Perhaps you should manufacture one?



You could be making determinations based upon some cooking cutter template, I could be making determinations based upon sentence structure.

Then why did you resort to the cookie cutter of maxims of law none of which contained your statement by the way ....



If man has a right to his own self determinations does that make your way any better then mine, if so then how? Again, Please show proof of your rebuttal?

Perhaps you should clarify that "contract is law" is your opinion instead attempting to pawn it off as a (non-existent) maxim?
Enjoy your guillotine. Good day :).

Treefarmer
10-24-11, 02:45 AM
Hey Treefarmer, did you ever consider that the box out by the road sitting in a " Public Easement " is the residence and that you do not live in that box?
It just might be a mailing location in which to communicate with " the person ".
If that is the public then what is the private? could it be the structure you are camped in temporarily on this earth that some would call a house?
I think as long as you take the numbers off the house and put " Care of" in front of the mailing location of all correspondence you might be able to sleep a little easier at night.

Well yes, that's been my understanding all along. My PERSON resides in that federal box enclave. I don't live in the box of course, because I am not the PERSON, I merely use that PERSON for transactions in commerce.
This is what I was trying to explain to the Census lady, but without any visible success.

There are of course no numbers on any of my structures.
If I want FedEx to deliver a package to my house-shed, I park a truck out by the side of the road, a quarter mile away, with delivery instructions posted conspicuously in the window.
If I don't do that, FedEx will drop the package off at the nearest "residence" known to them, which happens to be an abandoned house on the opposite side of the road from my treefarm. No problem, I can go over there to fetch my packages.
Back when people lived there they'd give me a call to tell me my package had arrived.

If I really want to get stared at, all I need to do is explain that I don't have a telephone number because I am not a telephone.:p

motla68
10-24-11, 06:17 AM
And what do you think a contract symbolizes?



... and neither is a contract :)



I don't see any maxim in there that "contract is law". Perhaps you should manufacture one?



Then why did you resort to the cookie cutter of maxims of law none of which contained your statement by the way ....



Perhaps you should clarify that "contract is law" is your opinion instead attempting to pawn it off as a (non-existent) maxim?
Enjoy your guillotine. Good day :).

I was pointing out the narrow mindedness of your ideas and illusions, but if you really need help and kind find them here they are, including the resources from which they came so you can see who manufactured them, not me.

- Conventio vincit legem. The agreement of parties controls the law.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/agreement

- Modus et connentio vincunt legem. Custom, convention and an agreeeent of the parties overrule the law.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/contract

- Conventio facit legem. An agreement creates the law.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/agreement

I have tried to show you in so many ways that much like the bible, the law is open to interpretation no matter where it comes from, but you have been too hard headed to see it. You do not see that the trap of these courts is to get you to argue, spend more money in appeals and taking up to a higher court e.t.c. It is a business racket, i am sure you have heard that, but you go in there anyway just like the rest of the cattle being hearded and they win even if you think you won.

Since 2004 I may have went into a courthouse but have never had to step one foot inside the courtroom for some obligation of theirs, it has always been settled outside the courtroom and not one dollar spent out of my own pocket other then the expense to travel there and show that I have no fear of them. Can you honestly say you have done this with your methods?

motla68
10-24-11, 06:32 AM
Well yes, that's been my understanding all along. My PERSON resides in that federal box enclave. I don't live in the box of course, because I am not the PERSON, I merely use that PERSON for transactions in commerce.
This is what I was trying to explain to the Census lady, but without any visible success.

There are of course no numbers on any of my structures.
If I want FedEx to deliver a package to my house-shed, I park a truck out by the side of the road, a quarter mile away, with delivery instructions posted conspicuously in the window.
If I don't do that, FedEx will drop the package off at the nearest "residence" known to them, which happens to be an abandoned house on the opposite side of the road from my treefarm. No problem, I can go over there to fetch my packages.
Back when people lived there they'd give me a call to tell me my package had arrived.

If I really want to get stared at, all I need to do is explain that I don't have a telephone number because I am not a telephone.:p

Good on you treefarmer, keep discovering those distinctions. I was once there but do not worry about that kind of stuff generally anymore, always put " care of " in front of the mailing location and when receiving the packages in front of any signature or seal put " per: " A couple of forms filled out in the past few months I did not even sign and they got put through anyway.

shikamaru
10-24-11, 11:28 AM
I was pointing out the narrow mindedness of your ideas and illusions, but if you really need help and kind find them here they are, including the resources from which they came so you can see who manufactured them, not me.

No need. You are informing me of nothing.
I'm well aware whose materials they are as well as where the attornements are.
Let's put it this way: If I write a program in C++, I may not have been the creator of the language, but I can make the language do what I desire.
A computer with regard to its logical realms are virtual, but can generate real results.
The language is only necessary to navigate inside that realm.



Can you honestly say you have done this with your methods?

I can.
My method is to raise the heat so high, they don't invite you back :).
As you can see, I'm quite the handful :D.
When you make adversaries sweat by merely speaking, you know the temperature is rising :).
Can't raise the heat if you don't know the language and mindset of the natives.
What is even more smart is to avoid controversy.
Works great.

motla68
10-24-11, 06:18 PM
No need. You are informing me of nothing.
I'm well aware whose materials they are as well as where the attornements are.
Let's put it this way: If I write a program in C++, I may not have been the creator of the language, but I can make the language do what I desire.
A computer with regard to its logical realms are virtual, but can generate real results.
The language is only necessary to navigate inside that realm.



I can.
My method is to raise the heat so high, they don't invite you back :).
As you can see, I'm quite the handful :D.
When you make adversaries sweat by merely speaking, you know the temperature is rising :).
Can't raise the heat if you don't know the language and mindset of the natives.
What is even more smart is to avoid controversy.
Works great.

Certain kinds of conditional acceptances work too, ask them questions they cannot answer in a public court for if they do it lets the cat out of the bag, they would rather dismiss the case rather then expose what they have done, all without raising temperatures, goes much quicker that way.
Nowadays I just call it for what it is and it works out very much the same way, in that estates is usufruct, they are the usufructuary, now go settle the matter honorably in lawful money with your God. [ head shrugs, a mumble is heard " case dismissed "]

motla68
11-29-11, 10:59 PM
Under common law a signature is not required on a document if it contains a seal;

Deed ;
A sealed instrument in writing, on paper or parchment, duly executed and delivered, containing some transfer, bargain, or contract.

* The term is generally applied to conveyances of real estate, and it is the prevailing doctrine that a deed must be signed as well as sealed, though at common law signing was formerly not necessary.
- 1828 Websters Dictionary

North Carolina General Statutes:
Chapter 4.
Common Law.
§ 4-1. Common law declared to be in force.
All such parts of the common law as were heretofore in force and use within this State, or
so much of the common law as is not destructive of, or repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the
freedom and independence of this State and the form of government therein established, and
which has not been otherwise provided for in whole or in part, not abrogated, repealed, or
become obsolete, are hereby declared to be in full force within this State. (1715, c. 5, ss. 2, 3,
P.R.; 1778, c. 133, P.R.; R.C., c. 22; Code, s. 641; Rev., s. 932; C.S., s. 970.)

If you agree / consent and claim the name on an instrument that already has someone else's seal on it, then you come under that someone else's seal.

Non Assumpsit; no contract, no assurance

748

David Merrill
11-29-11, 11:07 PM
Certain kinds of conditional acceptances work too, ask them questions they cannot answer in a public court for if they do it lets the cat out of the bag, they would rather dismiss the case rather then expose what they have done, all without raising temperatures, goes much quicker that way.
Nowadays I just call it for what it is and it works out very much the same way, in that estates is usufruct, they are the usufructuary, now go settle the matter honorably in lawful money with your God. [ head shrugs, a mumble is heard " case dismissed "]

I think you have gone a little overboard. You signed a contract, you have just prevented any extraneous details to boil over into your contract with "non-assumpsit".

motla68
11-29-11, 11:16 PM
I think you have gone a little overboard. You signed a contract, you have just prevented any extraneous details to boil over into your contract with "non-assumpsit".

Even with that though it does not pass the scientific test of rules of evidence in court (it is not a certified copy), that is just a copy of that little piece of paper you put words on. I watched the DMV employee stick that little piece in the shredder after it was transferred to the card. Also the ticket had on it " per: Non true name " , that is the name on their account, not me. Notice on the ticket " Persona Non Grata " , no want for person.

doug-again
01-16-12, 06:11 AM
This thread has:
been derailed for three pages, at least.


not a damn thing to do with "Saying Goodbye to Property Taxes" anymore


a bad case of the 'mots

David Merrill
01-16-12, 03:44 PM
I think the better way to bump the thread would be simply post a post that is on track?

shikamaru
01-16-12, 11:16 PM
This thread has:
been derailed for three pages, at least.


not a damn thing to do with "Saying Goodbye to Property Taxes" anymore


a bad case of the 'mots


My bad, yo.

David Merrill
01-17-12, 01:00 AM
My thought was something that Motla68 brought up but did not follow through with.

Simply look on the CAFR and break out the per capita amounts that one citizen pays in the county per year for the services that you want. Notify the sheriff or county tax board exactly what you are paying for and do that on a yearly basis.

KnowLaw
06-15-12, 06:10 AM
Let's look at it this way.
Let's say we successfully negotiate with a seller to accept gold and silver coin.

The parties are free to draw up the contract to their mutual benefit.

The contract could say something to the effect that "$2000 in 40 $50 gold pieces and other valuable consideration tendered AT LAW for closure and settlement.

Remember contract makes the law. Contracts even supersede constitutions :).

The contract expresses the intent of the buyer.
. . .
It has to do with common law vs equity if you will.

One is expressing intent to extinguish a debt at law rather than discharge in equity.
Quick question about the usage of "at law" in the above context of a contract for the sale of land.

What you've expressed here makes sense if your use of the terms is correct. I'm not sure, so that's why I'm asking.

I've been reading Lee Brobst's material, as well as doing a bit of web searching to confirm usage of certain terms. Perhaps in my desire to simplify the usage of the terms in my mind ("at law" as negative in terms of "the courts declare the law which is the will of the legislature in trust with the person;" "in law" as positive in terms of "the courts reveal your position in the Law which is not restrictive..."), I'm not taking the context of their usage into consideration in certain instances. Generally speaking, I'm wanting to be "in law" (de jure) in my dealings rather than "at law" which connotes dealing with fictions at law [according to statute]. Can you understand my dilemma here in mentally associating "in law" with a positive and "at law" with a negative in terms of how these two terms generally work with regard to the law (common law as opposed to statutory law or Roman civil law)?

Yes, the idea of "extinguishing the debt" [using lawful money] is the idea I wish to convey. So, "at law" is the correct terminology rather than "in law" in this instance?

Here are Lee's explanations of these terms in his piece USA The Republic, Is The House That No One Lives In:


85. To function "in law" means to function where the courts reveal your position in the Law which is not restrictive, because they are involved with promoting and expanding your unalienable rights by way of constitutional mandate.

86. To function at law and its equity means to function where the courts declare the law which is the will of the legislature in trust with the person. It is restrictive in nature, because there is no constitutional mandate due to the fact that it operates outside the Constitution.

So, is the reasoning here that equity in this case sides with "payment" which extinguishes debt as being higher than the legal obligation to "discharge" the debt (which fixes any controversy, except that in law that which is "discharged" is still not deemed to have been "paid for" with substance of value)? This is where I'm needing clarification with regard to which term is the more appropriate to use in this instance.

shikamaru
06-15-12, 01:07 PM
Quick question about the usage of "at law" in the above context of a contract for the sale of land.

What you've expressed here makes sense if your use of the terms is correct. I'm not sure, so that's why I'm asking.

Common law courts are typically referred to as courts at law.
I don't know why this is, but I suspect the term "at law" has partly to do with Norman French influence and phraseology.
It could even be a hold over from Law French.

I would use the 'at law' clause in any contract in which gold and/or silver coin is tendered in payment of debt.



I've been reading Lee Brobst's material, as well as doing a bit of web searching to confirm usage of certain terms. Perhaps in my desire to simplify the usage of the terms in my mind ("at law" as negative in terms of "the courts declare the law which is the will of the legislature in trust with the person;" "in law" as positive in terms of "the courts reveal your position in the Law which is not restrictive..."), I'm not taking the context of their usage into consideration in certain instances. Generally speaking, I'm wanting to be "in law" (de jure) in my dealings rather than "at law" which connotes dealing with fictions at law [according to statute]. Can you understand my dilemma here in mentally associating "in law" with a positive and "at law" with a negative in terms of how these two terms generally work with regard to the law (common law as opposed to statutory law or Roman civil law)?

That is very interesting. If you can find any treatises or reference books supporting this, please share. I've been looking and I haven't found anything substantive yet, but I haven't given up!

The term positive such as positive law definitely refers to will.
I've frequently stated on this and other boards that law is the will of the political power holder.



Yes, the idea of "extinguishing the debt" [using lawful money] is the idea I wish to convey. So, "at law" is the correct terminology rather than "in law" in this instance?

Here are Lee's explanations of these terms in his piece USA The Republic, Is The House That No One Lives In:



So, is the reasoning here that equity in this case sides with "payment" which extinguishes debt as being higher than the legal obligation to "discharge" the debt (which fixes any controversy, except that in law that which is "discharged" is still not deemed to have been "paid for" with substance of value)? This is where I'm needing clarification with regard to which term is the more appropriate to use in this instance.

I respect Lee Brobst's materials a great deal.
I'll will consider and weigh all this data.
Thanks for the great info!

I got the idea of the 'at law' phraseology from William Thornton, I believe.

shikamaru
06-15-12, 01:45 PM
Pay dirt !!

Source (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/At+law)



According to law; by, for, or in the law, as in the professional title attorney at law. Within or arising from the traditions of the Common Law as opposed to Equity, the system of law that developed alongside the common law and emphasized fairness and justice rather than enforcement of technical rules.

AT LAW. This phrase is used to point out that a thing is to be done according to the course of the common law; it is distinguished from a proceeding in equity.
2. In many cases when there is no remedy at law, one will be afforded in equity. See 3 Bouv. Inst. n. 2411.

KnowLaw
06-15-12, 05:22 PM
Pay dirt !!

Source (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/At+law)
According to law; by, for, or in the law, as in the professional title attorney at law. Within or arising from the traditions of the Common Law as opposed to Equity, the system of law that developed alongside the common law and emphasized fairness and justice rather than enforcement of technical rules.

AT LAW. This phrase is used to point out that a thing is to be done according to the course of the common law; it is distinguished from a proceeding in equity.
2. In many cases when there is no remedy at law, one will be afforded in equity. See 3 Bouv. Inst. n. 2411.

Thanks for your feedback, shikamaru. Very much appreciated.

The first definition seems to seal the deal. And that last case of the definition also seems to fit the instance in which I would like to use it. "In many cases when there is no remedy at law, one will be afforded in equity."

I suppose it all depends on whose law one is using. Fictions at law, of course, would prefer us to use their law; I, however, would prefer not to use their law. Choice of law and jurisdiction being the main source for many of the problems that suitors like us encounter these days. It just seems like there's no holding these fictional public actors accountable using their law. (Well, there is, if you can get them to go after their own.)

As I recall from Brobst's piece, he described "our law" (as it pertains to "payment" of debt as opposed to "discharge" of debt) as being rooted in the substance of the medium we use as "money," that is, gold and silver. When the corporate government abandoned the Gold Standard in 1933 and then again in 1971 when Nixon closed the government's gold window, it effectively left us without "our law" as our law (the common [sense] law) is based in substance.

I'm just not wanting to get my connotations mixed up between the way certain people use these terms in their treatises and essays and how it is recognize "in law." As we all know, definitions COUNT when we're using these terms in our legal documents.

I'll stick with "at law" for now (until I see evidence to the contrary). I was just interested to hear how you came about to be using this term and recommending its use to us. Thanks.

KnowLaw
06-15-12, 05:34 PM
Common law courts are typically referred to as courts at law.
I don't know why this is, but I suspect the term "at law" has partly to do with Norman French influence and phraseology.
It could even be a hold over from Law French.

I would use the 'at law' clause in any contract in which gold and/or silver coin is tendered in payment of debt.
That's interesting.




The term positive such as positive law definitely refers to will.
I've frequently stated on this and other boards that law is the will of the political power holder.
Yes. I agree. Understanding this one concept will change a person's perspective of what we are attempting to accomplish.



I respect Lee Brobst's materials a great deal.

I got the idea of the 'at law' phraseology from William Thornton, I believe.
Ahh. That last answers my question regarding where you encountered this idea.

And yes, I too, have a new respect for Lee's material, after having read the aforementioned internet essay which has really helped me to view all this in a slightly different light. The way he laid everything out in that piece helped me to connect a lot of dots. I'll have more to say about this in a separate thread.

shikamaru
06-16-12, 01:19 AM
As I recall from Brobst's piece, he described "our law" (as it pertains to "payment" of debt as opposed to "discharge" of debt) as being rooted in the substance of the medium we use as "money," that is, gold and silver. When the corporate government abandoned the Gold Standard in 1933 and then again in 1971 when Nixon closed the government's gold window, it effectively left us without "our law" as our law (the common [sense] law) is based in substance.


The gold standard is a ruse.

The gold standard is a march toward pure fiat currency.
The gold standard is fiat money in disguise.

Rather than valuing gold in silver, gold is valued in paper or "bills of credit" as was issued by the colonies in early American history.

David Merrill
06-16-12, 09:25 AM
The gold standard is a ruse.

The gold standard is a march toward pure fiat currency.
The gold standard is fiat money in disguise.

Rather than valuing gold in silver, gold is valued in paper or "bills of credit" as was issued by the colonies in early American history.

Good point.

Fiat is only allowed in America by Abraham LINCOLN's ongoing extraordinary occasion. Note that this is also the origin of the April 15th "Tax Year":



http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/6479/conventionextraordinary.jpg

shikamaru
06-16-12, 05:18 PM
Good point.

Fiat is only allowed in America by Abraham LINCOLN's ongoing extraordinary occasion. Note that this is also the origin of the April 15th "Tax Year":


I'm certain the suspension of the redemption of notes or bills of credit by government upon request of banks has occurred multiple times throughout American history.

I'll have to post the treatise that would have such information.

shikamaru
06-16-12, 05:58 PM
Here you go:

A History of Money and Banking in the United States (http://mises.org/books/historyofmoney.pdf) by Murray N. Rothbard

powder
08-19-12, 03:17 PM
i know i am late to the party. why not issue your own funds on a new purchase and express your own deed? seems easier.

shikamaru
08-19-12, 08:31 PM
i know i am late to the party. why not issue your own funds on a new purchase and express your own deed? seems easier.

That's a pretty radical idea :). Not sure how that would hold up in court.

I say use what exists, but I'm sure they wish it didn't :).

powder
08-20-12, 03:20 AM
The major reason PERSONS go to court is to fight their mortgage. if I purchase a house with my own funds, in full. No mortgage. why would i want to sign up for the tax roll or other caveats (one way promises) ? I wouldnt do it.

stoneFree
08-20-12, 03:28 PM
I suppose the main reason to sign is because you don't have $171,250 (average US home price) in funds. Via the Federal Reserve system, a bank can conjure (from thin air?) new currency from a well-qualified buyer's signature. If you've found a way to conjure up your own funds outside the FR system, do tell.

shikamaru
08-20-12, 05:23 PM
The major reason PERSONS go to court is to fight their mortgage. if I purchase a house with my own funds, in full. No mortgage. why would i want to sign up for the tax roll or other caveats (one way promises) ? I wouldnt do it.

That and answer for debt owed .....

Treefarmer
08-20-12, 11:56 PM
The major reason PERSONS go to court is to fight their mortgage. if I purchase a house with my own funds, in full. No mortgage. why would i want to sign up for the tax roll or other caveats (one way promises) ? I wouldnt do it.

Have you bought a house or land that way?
I'd like to know how that works.

When I bought some land, using cash lawful money to buy it, I was told I had to go register the WARRANTY DEED at the county courthouse.
The DEED REGISTRATION is what got me on the property tax roll.
I never had a bank loan, but the property assessor comes out every few years to see what I've built, and jacks up the assessment accordingly.

powder
08-21-12, 05:21 AM
Look at your purchase agreement. I am positive it had 'terms and conditions' in it, which you agreed to.

Treefarmer
08-22-12, 02:47 AM
Look at your purchase agreement. I am positive it had 'terms and conditions' in it, which you agreed to.

I have a copy of the purchase agreement posted over here (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?193-Adventures-in-land-ownership/page7).

Where did I sign up for property taxes?
Is it reversible?

LearnTheLaw
12-02-12, 04:28 AM
That and answer for debt owed .....

This may be of some use to you.

Allodial title
http://freedom-school.com/land_patents-allodial_title.pdf

shikamaru
12-02-12, 12:06 PM
This may be of some use to you.

Allodial title
http://freedom-school.com/land_patents-allodial_title.pdf

I believe land titles vest by descent, but don't quote me on that.

Did you know with land patents in the States, it only conveys surface rights only ?
You'll have to work a bit to get the mineral, riparian, or other rights associated with the land.

shikamaru
12-02-12, 12:25 PM
I have a copy of the purchase agreement posted over here (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?193-Adventures-in-land-ownership/page7).

Where did I sign up for property taxes?
Is it reversible?

I believe it to be. Your land, now on the property tax roles, has public debts and obligations attached thereto. Those may need to be discharged before seeking removal.

Your land is collateral for the commercial paper issued by the State. The county is a public corporation established in part to collect revenues for its lord (the State).

David Merrill
12-02-12, 12:57 PM
I wonder if anything has developed on my original premise - that one can pay a per capita payment in advance per year?

walter
12-02-12, 09:06 PM
wow, what a long read,
there are some excellent points being brought up,
let me see if i can touch on a few of them,

the civil war was not about freeing the slaves in the south,
it was about taking the allodial title farm land away from the confederation to be used as surety for the union's debt,
they possessed perfect title to the land before the war,

torrens title system is the model used to separate perfect title into a split title system with 1/10th legal title,
9/10th equity title (possession is 9/10th of the law)

the easement that goes from the main road or hwy across the ditch to your property is what holds the legal address,
that's why the mail box's and address number used to be posted on them,

this is a hidden easement that is not on the public record of land titles,
we make the joinder ourselves by placing the address number on the house and saying that the house is where we re-side,

where i live (in the bush) the property tax is municipal here in canada,
they first need to have jurisdiction in order to collect property tax and they get it through the hidden easement that i mentioned above,
it is filed through the department of transportation,
and it is a small form and free to file,

right now i to am in a battle to stop paying this tax,
i am doing it different then what everyone else is doing,

property tax is for government services, eg. police, hwy, fire, garbage, school, etc.
if you don't pay then in three years they will forfeit the title back to them,
they can only forfeit the title, we make the connection of the title to the land,
but when they have the title you can not sell the title or convey it,

statements, remittances, voucher, coupons are not all the same thing as i found out,
they look the same but don't act the same,
it all depends on the corporations access the the private side window,

all corporations like hydro, telephone, credit cards etc, that send you a bill are not sending vouchers or coupons,
they send statements, they have no access to the private side window,

where as the IRS or CRA send you a bill they state on them voucher or coupon,
these i found out can be A4V because of the access to the private side window,

what makes a statement a bill here in canada is the Canadian Payments Act through the Canadian Payments Association,

the rules of the act indicate that the 96 on the bottom of the statement is code for "bill",

all "bills" are governed through the Bills of Exchange Act,

no accepted for value has succeeded here in canada on property tax,
tried many times different ways and they all fail the test,

its failed because i was looking at it wrong (i think)
i hope i am looking at it right now,
time will tell because i just sent in the last method of payment the other day,

so as i mentioned the government is charging the land owners for a service they provide,
we are acting as consumers and purchasing these government services,

goods and services are regulated through "consumer bills and notes",

http://canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-b-4/latest/rsc-1985-c-b-4.html

Consumer bill or note to be marked

190. (1) Every consumer bill or consumer note shall be prominently and legibly marked on its face with the words “Consumer Purchase” before or at the time when the instrument is signed by the purchaser or by any person signing to accommodate the purchaser.

Effect where not marked

(2) A consumer bill or consumer note that is not marked as required by this section is void, except in the hands of a holder in due course without notice that the bill or note is a consumer bill or consumer note or except as against a drawee without that notice.

Obtaining signature to unmarked instrument

192. (1) Every person who, knowing that an instrument, other than an instrument described in paragraph 189(1)(a) or (b), has been, is being or is to be issued in respect of a consumer purchase, obtains the signature of the purchaser or of any person signing to accommodate the purchaser to that instrument without its being or having been marked as required by section 190 is guilty of

(a) an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars; or

(b) an indictable offence and liable to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars.

Transfer of unmarked consumer bill or note

(2) Every person who, knowing that a consumer bill or consumer note not marked as required by section 190 is a consumer bill or consumer note, transfers it is, unless he is the purchaser or any person signing to accommodate the purchaser, guilty of

(a) an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars; or

(b) an indictable offence and liable to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars.



i had an issue with the agents coming after me for land transfer tax and i followed this method and that was over 7 months ago and i have not heard anything from them since, and they were sending me crap every month,

now the same agency was coming after me for delinquent property tax and threatening forfeiture of the title,
so i did the same method to that as i did with the transfer tax issue,

time will tell here, i did it last week,
a quick note to add is the land is held out right with no mortgage or loans on it,
and i sent it to the acting minster in charge of the accounts and not to the address they say to send payment to,

if i am going to hold someone to the punishment of law as stated in section 192 it will be the top dog,

Treefarmer
12-03-12, 03:57 AM
I believe it to be. Your land, now on the property tax roles, has public debts and obligations attached thereto. Those may need to be discharged before seeking removal.

Your land is collateral for the commercial paper issued by the State. The county is a public corporation established in part to collect revenues for its lord (the State).

Interesting shikamaru, in light of the fact that the attorney who wrote up my WARRANTY DEED was always asking me if I had registered to vote yet.
Every time he saw me at the post office, he urged me to register to vote.
Evidently he knew that I was not registered to vote, and never had been.

One day I did register, because there was a county wheel tax proposal on the ballot.
So I registered in order to vote NO on the tax, but I suppose this was a trap of sorts, because I registered myself onto their slave-roll voluntarily.

I'm thinking of un-registering.

Treefarmer
12-03-12, 03:58 AM
This may be of some use to you.

Allodial title
http://freedom-school.com/land_patents-allodial_title.pdf

I wonder if land patents ever existed for the eastern states which are not under the BLM?

Michael Joseph
12-03-12, 05:25 AM
attached find the commercial endeavor for Carolina. - 8 shares issued.

Chex
12-03-12, 01:04 PM
There should be a law for corporations killing our trees on our property(s): http://proliberty.com/observer/20100416.htm

LearnTheLaw
12-03-12, 03:01 PM
I wonder if land patents ever existed for the eastern states which are not under the BLM?

In Tennessee, I believe they can be found at the State Library in Nashville.

They call them "treaty of Grants".

615-741-2764

This is purely just an educated guess though....;)

walter
12-03-12, 05:38 PM
I wonder if anything has developed on my original premise - that one can pay a per capita payment in advance per year?

i think that rumor was started with pastor tony king when he was making his BS claims about the DTC,
and i believe there was someone in one of the seminars that said they tried to pay for years in advance and they were not allowed to,

shikamaru
12-03-12, 10:11 PM
I wonder if land patents ever existed for the eastern states which are not under the BLM?

They do. David Wilbur Johnson has good information on this.

I would study both land patents and land grants.

shikamaru
12-03-12, 10:17 PM
Interesting shikamaru, in light of the fact that the attorney who wrote up my WARRANTY DEED was always asking me if I had registered to vote yet.
Every time he saw me at the post office, he urged me to register to vote.
Evidently he knew that I was not registered to vote, and never had been.

One day I did register, because there was a county wheel tax proposal on the ballot.
So I registered in order to vote NO on the tax, but I suppose this was a trap of sorts, because I registered myself onto their slave-roll voluntarily.

I'm thinking of un-registering.

You should.

Voting becomes consent and assent to being represented.
Being represented means the actions of the agent are presumed to be the actions of elector.
If legislature proposes to raise taxes and succeeds despite your disapproval, you assent to the tax.

Definitely a trick for their benefit.
Think of representation as a perfected and sophisticated form of servitude.

Treefarmer
12-04-12, 01:25 AM
They do. David Wilbur Johnson has good information on this.

I would study both land patents and land grants.

Do you have any links for that?

Mark Christopher
12-05-12, 01:27 PM
I believe it to be. Your land, now on the property tax roles, has public debts and obligations attached thereto. Those may need to be discharged before seeking removal.

Your land is collateral for the commercial paper issued by the State. The county is a public corporation established in part to collect revenues for its lord (the State).

Hey Shikamaru, I am following the tax trail to the beginning. It all started with a lien when the place was bought with Fed credit. Now it is a magical lien as far as I can tell. Why? because it exists in minds but not on paper. I have been quoted statutes and laws from the town attorney but for some reason when I ask for a certified copy of the original signed by the tax assessor I received no response. Now I went into the township hall and filled out a request form for a copy of the lien. When they called me to let me know it was ready there was no lien in the package only a sales certificate for taxes I did not pay (they sold the taxes and created another lien). Hmm...I see why that original lien is not so easy to aquire and they don't even acknowledge it (but the insurance company did on the original policy).

David Merrill
12-05-12, 01:33 PM
Hey Shikamaru, I am following the tax trail to the beginning. It all started with a lien when the place was bought with Fed credit. Now it is a magical lien as far as I can tell. Why? because it exists in minds but not on paper. I have been quoted statutes and laws from the town attorney but for some reason when I ask for a certified copy of the original signed by the tax assessor I received no response. Now I went into the township hall and filled out a request form for a copy of the lien. When they called me to let me know it was ready there was no lien in the package only a sales certificate for taxes I did not pay (they sold the taxes and created another lien). Hmm...I see why that original lien is not so easy to aquire and they don't even acknowledge it (but the insurance company did on the original policy).


That is the kind of research that makes this website great!

shikamaru
12-05-12, 09:42 PM
Hey Shikamaru, I am following the tax trail to the beginning. It all started with a lien when the place was bought with Fed credit. Now it is a magical lien as far as I can tell. Why? because it exists in minds but not on paper. I have been quoted statutes and laws from the town attorney but for some reason when I ask for a certified copy of the original signed by the tax assessor I received no response. Now I went into the township hall and filled out a request form for a copy of the lien. When they called me to let me know it was ready there was no lien in the package only a sales certificate for taxes I did not pay (they sold the taxes and created another lien). Hmm...I see why that original lien is not so easy to aquire and they don't even acknowledge it (but the insurance company did on the original policy).

That is interesting.

A lien is a security interest. It essentially is a holding of who gets paid first, next, and so on.
Liens are removed upon satisfaction and closure of a debt.

You should be able to find out what bonds are attached to your land too. This information is available online.
The bonds and liens will need to be satisfied before you can "close the account" i.e. remove the home from registration.

Homes are treated like investments. Deeds act as a type of commercial paper. Multiple parties have an interest in the "investment". There is a hierarchy of who gets paid first in the event of bankruptcy (liquidation).

The home "owner" has an equity position in the home. The "owner" gets paid last in the event of liquidation. The "owner" also has the burden of maintenance and upkeep. Banks, governments, and insurance companies derive profit off of the "investment". Those entities income is from "dividends".

THIS is why your position in a house is called EQUITY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_%28finance%29) and banks are always keen on selling you home EQUITY loans .....

When you ain't borrowing against your house, they don't make dividends.

The home is registered .... like a security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_%28disambiguation%29) i.e. like a financial instrument.
The home is insured ... like some securities.


There is an art to asking from auricular requests to using the courts (writs) to bring the rain :D.

shikamaru
12-05-12, 09:54 PM
Do you have any links for that?

BAM!

http://freedom-school.com/private-property-rights.html

shikamaru
12-05-12, 10:16 PM
the civil war was not about freeing the slaves in the south,
it was about taking the allodial title farm land away from the confederation to be used as surety for the union's debt,

Can you explain why then Vice-President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, had this to say in his Cornerstone Speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech)?





The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.

So, secession by the South was due, in part, to preservation of slavery and thus precipitating the Civil War.

In light of this, how was the Civil War not about freeing the "slaves"?



....they possessed perfect title to the land before the war

Land, at best, was held as a freehold. The land was taxed in every State as well.

walter
12-06-12, 01:58 AM
A LETTER FROM PRESIDENT LINCOLN.; Reply to Horace Greeley. Slavery and the Union The Restoration of the Union the Paramount Object.
Published: August 24, 1862


WASHINGTON, Aug. 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:

DEAR SIR: I have just read yours of the 19th, addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements or assumptions of fact which I may know to be erroneous, I do not now and here controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here argue against them. If there be perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing," as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save Slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy Slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free. Yours,

A. LINCOLN.



the civil war was about saving the union and nothing else,
so the question is why did he want to save the union?

walter
12-06-12, 02:09 AM
It all started with a lien when the place was bought with Fed credit.

so then if gold or silver was used to buy the land then there would be no lien?
gold and silver backed the green back until 1933 no?
if so then any land bought pre 1933 would not have to pay tax's, but they did have to pay tax's,
i am i missing something here?

Treefarmer
12-06-12, 04:11 AM
BAM!

http://freedom-school.com/private-property-rights.html

Thank you very much.
That will take some time to check out...

shikamaru
12-06-12, 09:12 PM
the civil war was about saving the union and nothing else,
so the question is why did he want to save the union?

Incorrect.
Saving the union was a component of it, but so was slavery.

I'm not sure if you know how deeply slavery has affected the very nature and development of the United States. It had deep impact on representation, taxation, law, and more still with us today.
It seems to me you are seeking to reduce the importance of slavery and its effect on the United States.

The North was was made up of mercantalists as well as workers. Those workers did not want competition from slaves; therefore in light of this, it makes sense why the North would outlaw slavery. It is always about economics, assets, and the goodies.

It is simple why he wanted to save the union: tax revenues and outstanding obligations of the political corporation.

By the by, could you cite that letter you posted?

shikamaru
12-06-12, 09:20 PM
so then if gold or silver was used to buy the land then there would be no lien?

Liens come about from taxation or borrowing money with some property pledged as collateral for a loan.



gold and silver backed the green back until 1933 no?

Silver was demonitized as a standard of payment in 1873.
Gold was demonitized as a standard of payment and removed from circulating currency in 1933.
Silver was removed from circulating currency beginning in 1964.



if so then any land bought pre 1933 would not have to pay tax's, but they did have to pay tax's,
i am i missing something here?

It is the registration of the land that gets you as far as property taxes go.

Keith Alan
12-06-12, 09:58 PM
I used to have a Cherokee friend in Oklahoma who had an original land patent on 160 acres. Sometime during the 30's, (I don't remember the exact date) one of his ancestors mortgaged 80 acres, and subsequently paid it off over the course of years. He still received a tax notice on the mortgaged 80 acres every year, but the first un-mortgaged 80 acre parcel was not taxable. I saw all his records about 15 years ago, and the original patent was still intact at that time.

Just an interesting sidenote to the thread.

shikamaru
12-06-12, 10:05 PM
I used to have a Cherokee friend in Oklahoma who had an original land patent on 160 acres. Sometime during the 30's, (I don't remember the exact date) one of his ancestors mortgaged 80 acres, and subsequently paid it off over the course of years. He still received a tax notice on the mortgaged 80 acres every year, but the first un-mortgaged 80 acre parcel was not taxable. I saw all his records about 15 years ago, and the original patent was still intact at that time.

Just an interesting sidenote to the thread.

And that 80 acres was registered.

When you register, you grant the public corporation an interest in the res.
In fact, it may be a gift followed by a gifting back....

Remember the whole episode of King John and Pope Innocent III?

Keith Alan
12-06-12, 10:08 PM
And that 80 acres was registered.

When you register, you grant the public corporation an interest in the res.
In fact, it may be a gift followed by a gifting back....

Remember the whole episode of King John and Pope Innocent III?

No, I don't remember that. I'd like to hear about it though.

Regarding his patent, there were certain terms and conditions that ran with the land, so it wasn't allodial title. One of the conditions was to never rebel or engage in insurrection against the United States. I don't remember the exact words, but they were to that effect.

shikamaru
12-06-12, 10:14 PM
No, I don't remember that. I'd like to hear about it though.

King John was having it out with Pope Innocent III.
Innocent III excommunicated King John from the Roman Catholic Church, hereto after referred to as RCC.

After some back and forth, King John turns over his lands and crown to the Pope only to have the Pope (or rather his legate) convey them back with stipulations and a rent charge.



Regarding his patent, there were certain terms and conditions that ran with the land, so it wasn't allodial title. One of the conditions was to never rebel or engage in insurrection against the United States. I don't remember the exact words, but they were to that effect.

I can live with that. So long as there are no property taxes, I am good.

Patents are a form of conveyance from the sovereign whether king or government. Patents are a form of writ.

Keith Alan
12-06-12, 10:41 PM
King John was having it out with Pope Innocent III.
Innocent III excommunicated King John from the Roman Catholic Church, hereto after referred to as RCC.

After some back and forth, King John turns over his lands and crown to the Pope only to have the Pope (or rather his legate) convey them back with stipulations and a rent charge.



I can live with that. So long as there are no property taxes, I am good.

Patents are a form of conveyance from the sovereign whether king or government. Patents are a form of writ.

I thought it was very interesting at the time. Still do, for that matter. It's funny how the Indian nations ended up under the boot, even though the word sovereign is used in describing their status.

Regarding King John and Pope Innocent III, thanks for the info. I do remember it now that you reminded me in detail.

shikamaru
12-06-12, 10:59 PM
I thought it was very interesting at the time. Still do, for that matter. It's funny how the Indian nations ended up under the boot, even though the word sovereign is used in describing their status.

Regarding King John and Pope Innocent III, thanks for the info. I do remember it now that you reminded me in detail.

You may want to review the term suzerainty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzerainty) with regard to the status of Native Americans.

David Merrill
12-07-12, 01:39 AM
You may want to review the term suzerainty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzerainty) with regard to the status of Native Americans.


Thanks for that link!

walter
12-07-12, 01:58 AM
By the by, could you cite that letter you posted?

The New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/1862/08/24/news/letter-president-lincoln-reply-horace-greeley-slavery-union-restoration-union.html

walter
12-07-12, 03:03 AM
Incorrect.
Saving the union was a component of it, but so was slavery.

I'm not sure if you know how deeply slavery has affected the very nature and development of the United States. It had deep impact on representation, taxation, law, and more still with us today.
It seems to me you are seeking to reduce the importance of slavery and its effect on the United States.

The North was was made up of mercantalists as well as workers. Those workers did not want competition from slaves; therefore in light of this, it makes sense why the North would outlaw slavery. It is always about economics, assets, and the goodies.

It is simple why he wanted to save the union: tax revenues and outstanding obligations of the political corporation.



No i don't know to much about slavery back then except the slavery we live in today,
When you enslave everyone then it only makes sense that you can let the ones that were already slaves walk around with the rest.
More production is created when you get to chose what work you want to do then when you are forced into a job.

Abraham Lincoln got in office in 1860 and the war stared in 1861.
He was a lawyer and suspend habeas corpus.
And then he was extinguished.
To me I smell a rat.

Why would anyone think government cares about what workers jobs and what they have to say?
Look at the USA now.
All the factories and jobs have been removed to countries that resemble slave labour.
They don't care about the working class of people.
Never have and it looks like they never will.

Enough for me about the civil war on this property tax topic.
There was so much that happened that we will never know.

walter
12-07-12, 03:22 AM
government only have a mandate to Act through statutes.

i can not find a statute that has anything about a hidden lien,

but i found a statute that has a hidden easement,


In Canada

Land Act

Right of way and easement
40* (1)*The minister may, subject to terms and conditions the minister considers advisable,
(a)*grant or otherwise create a right of way or easement over Crown land, and
(b)*grant or otherwise create over Crown land, the title to which is not registered under the Land Title Act, an easement without a dominant tenement for any purpose necessary for the operation and maintenance of the grantee's undertaking, including a right to flood.
(2)*An easement of the kind described in subsection*(1)*(b)
(a)*is not registrable, and
(b)*ceases to exist over land forming all or part of its servient tenement the title to which becomes registered under the Land Title Act, but continues over any part of its servient tenement the title to which remains unregistered.


Easements are incorporeal hereditament, an intangible right.
Everything the government does is intangible.
All invisible borders only existing on paper.

Because your land can be expropriate or have the mineral rights given away it seems that fee simple is closer to a profile a prendre.

shikamaru
12-07-12, 09:21 PM
No i don't know to much about slavery back then except the slavery we live in today,

It has had such impact and influence on the United States, its resultants are still with us today.
It has impacted representation, commerce, marriage laws, gun laws, taxation, sociology, land law, entertainment and other areas.
There is also the results after slavery: Reconstruction, Jim Crow, redlining, the Great Migration, sundown towns, restrictive covenants, the re-enslavement of African-Americans after the Civil War through the penal system, etc.

Being the US is about 225 years old with nearly half of that age spent with slavery, you may want to study this most important part of US history.



When you enslave everyone then it only makes sense that you can let the ones that were already slaves walk around with the rest.
More production is created when you get to chose what work you want to do then when you are forced into a job.

That's a separate system. You are conflating slavery with voluntary servitude. There is a stark difference between the two systems.



Abraham Lincoln got in office in 1860 and the war stared in 1861.
He was a lawyer and suspend habeas corpus.
And then he was extinguished.
To me I smell a rat.

You'll want to study the history of habeus corpus. Habeus corpus is privilege.
What's so big about suspending habeas corpus? Constitutions are suspended all the time under states of emergency.



Why would anyone think government cares about what workers jobs and what they have to say?
Look at the USA now.
All the factories and jobs have been removed to countries that resemble slave labour.
They don't care about the working class of people.
Never have and it looks like they never will.

Your beef is with servitude in general.



Enough for me about the civil war on this property tax topic.
There was so much that happened that we will never know.

Only one way to dig through this is to get the history books and records from archives concerning that period.
We can gain some glimpse from such an excavation.

Concerning the image you posted:

The first 16 names or so were Presidents under a different charter for a different political corporation.
A federation is different from national. Both are different from a confederation.
The formation and reformation of the charters and political corporations were for purposes of devising better ways of extracting revenues to satisfy debts and obligations of the previous corporation.

pumpkin
04-02-15, 11:34 AM
I have been working on this for quite some time. What I have learned about property taxes for my state is this. The code specifically defines 'taxpayer' as a business or commercial entity. Which makes sense, and would seem perfectly lawful. The constitution of the state (original) protects the right of property of the people by excepting that right and all inalienable rights from the general powers of government, and declares them forever inviolable. The problem is identification. When you borrow to buy land, the bank makes you agree to pay the property tax. However, that agreement is a private contract and the state is not a party, and cannot question or enforce it. You are then thrown into an administrative machine of the state to collect property taxes. That machine is not judicial, it is purely a function of the legislature (it can involve the courts, but only as an administrative process). That court is a limited jurisdiction court called a tax court. Only the state and a taxpayer can go to a tax court, so if you make an appearance there, you will get told how much and when to pay. The question, does one of the people have to pay property taxes, is a judicial question, not administrative. The tax court is not the place for such a question (though I have seen several cases, even involving lawyers, go there to ask such a question). A general jurisdiction, judicial court is the proper place. Property taxes is a very simple question of inalienable rights. The government of a state was constituted to protect the rights of their creator, the people. The courts however are full of lawyers (judges), and their fraud upon the people will be protected to the fullest extent of their ability. Thank God for the greater judgment.

walter
04-02-15, 11:37 PM
Everything in their world is commercial. That's why we got an assignment of a judicial person to play the game.

There is a flaw in your statement.
I have bought land with cash.
And same same.

Chex
04-03-15, 02:28 PM
I have been working on this for quite some time. What I have learned about property taxes for my state is

Important widely recognized types of property include real property (the combination of land and any improvements to or on the land), personal property (physical possessions belonging to a person), private property (property owned by legal persons, business entities or individual natural persons), public property (state owned or publicly owned and available possessions) and intellectual property (exclusive rights over artistic creations, inventions, etc.), although the latter is not always as widely recognized or enforced.[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property

An article of property may have physical and incorporeal parts.

A title, or a right of ownership, establishes the relation between the property and other persons, assuring the owner the right to dispose of the property as the owner sees fit.

If this below is a done deal than going to a title insurance company should not be a big deal to find out who was the very first “person or legal persons, business entities" who has their name on your title.

In United States law, typically evidence of title is established through title reports written up by title insurance companies, which show the history of title (property abstract and chain of title) as determined by the recorded public record deeds;[1] the title report will also show applicable encumbrances such as easements, liens, or covenants.[2]
In exchange for insurance premiums, the title insurance company conducts a title search through public records and provides assurance of good title, reimbursing the insured if a dispute over the title arises.[3] In the case of vehicle ownership, a simple vehicle title document may be issued by a governmental agency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_(property)