PDA

View Full Version : Incorporation of the USA?



David Merrill
03-29-11, 02:57 PM
Hi there! Do you still have the link to the Articles of Incorporation? I seem to have misplaced them. Thanks!


David Merrill: Yes. Several - please be more specific?



Sorry. UNITED STATES CORP. and maybe a couple of states? Thanks!

Yesterday was the 150th Anniversary (http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/5135/adjournsinedie.jpg) of the Civil War btw.

Like many of us, before we develop a sense of Rules of Evidence (look at 803 and 804 (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/mcm.pdf)) I grabbed a myth that the USA and US etc. are corporations and held on to that in light of this same kind of lack of evidence demonstrated in the above conversation this morning. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist, so there might be some Articles of Incorporation for the USA somewhere, but like with this email inquiry from this morning, the main reason the Articles have been somehow misplaced, is that they do not exist.

The USA is a body politic, not a corporation. The states too, are bodies politic.

Also, as implied herein, one of the characteristics to prove a corporation exists is to show the Articles of Incorporation. Also, there needs to be a larger body politic or corporate for which the new applying corporation needs to apply, to be in-corporated into - incorporation. I am not all that fluent and persons, Persons, PERSONS etc. are or can be corporations too, as well as corporations acquire quasi-human rights as Persons etc. So I will stick to what I have found, and through my own application of what I believe valid Rules of Evidence, pretend to Know about the myth that the USA is a Corporation.

Somebody once showed me the Articles of Incorporation for the USA (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImNDllZDU0ODYtOTFkNC00ODdkLWFjY zItN2EwODFiYzk3N2Yz&hl=en). I cringe to share that over the Internet though. Like you see above, it is easy to think that the USA Inc. is something other than a little business in Delaware for promoting sports events. What you are reading above in that email conversation is a relic of somebody either intentionally or misintentionally construeing the USA Inc. to be government of some kind by the same Name.

This is the closest I can make of states incorporating (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImZTEyZGFhN2UtNzAxMi00MTU3LTlmY 2ItNTI3ZWVhOTZhZmNh&hl=en).

The USA Corporation mythology is the basis of RAP/RuSA, where James Timothy TURNER is allegedly the President of the real (de jure) USA; as opposed to the Corporation (de facto) USA. That still manifests in some folks minds as quite real, and considering this man is writing from federal prison (http://img859.imageshack.us/img859/7586/noticeterminatebcfranch.pdf) he probably had some help too (attached). Some of the issues evolving around the mythology arise from Eric W. MADSEN's Team Law. That is where the spokesman (the fellow who owns the server) for the Colorado Republic got this pile of garbage (http://www.coloradorepublic.org/). - Rather than learn by example; Eric has been the Governor and Senator etc. for the Colorado Republic for over a decade now; why would he give up that Seat for newbies to the mythology?

Rather than to make a presumption that Colorado is a corporation I found the corporation (http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4998/certificateofmailingfil.pdf) that the AG does business through for making a claim against the fungible fidelity bond known as the Oath of Office. The Articles of Incorporation (http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/153/coloradoarticlesofincor.pdf) are pretty clear, and this just makes a lot more sense to me about my description above about corporate formations (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImMWQ5OTBhODYtMGE2OS00MTg0LWFlZ TMtYTc5ZjQ3Y2RlY2Ix&hl=en). The State of Colorado is a body politic formed by the USA, which is a body politic (constitutional republic) and the State is capable of registering corporations at the Secretary of State's office.

The whole business about the USA Corporation seems to evolve around Washington DC being a municipality - city of Washington, District of Columbia - Now the Districts formed in 1789 and chartered in 1790 for the debts of the USA - that is what you might consider a fictional overlay municipality. That is the concept, the abracadabra that people keep thinking is the federal government out in the States. However, when I showed the RAP/RuSA gang what is actually going on, they latched on to the formation of Washington DC as a formal municipal corporation (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImN2Q3YTg1NzktOGEyNi00MTYzLThjM DAtZTBmNjllMWRjODA5&hl=en) in 1871 to be proof that the USA is a Corporation too, if you read some of the attachments a couple paragraphs back.

I tried to warn them, I assure you. But like with the correspondence quoted above, people like to hold their belief sets dear - regardless of how mature they (competence with running court) were when they formed them. I held on to the myth the USA and State of Colorado are corporations for quite a long time.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. The Administrative Acts around 1960-61 interleave well into the Corporation mythology too. I have a gob of information about this and will share as this thread develops.

Frederick Burrell
03-30-11, 03:01 AM
Thanks David

Interesting info to be sure. If the US in not a corp., which I believe now to be true. How is it we get entangled in contracts with them.

Is this contract situation more along the lines of the trust many are talking about. The united States of America held in trust by the United States. Is this due to the assumption of debt by the United States in relation to the debts owed by the states. Frederick Burrell.

Thanks for posting info on the Corporation, or lack there of.

Sovereignty
03-30-11, 03:35 AM
What was the District of Columbia 1871 if not a corp?

David Merrill
03-30-11, 04:04 AM
Thanks David

Interesting info to be sure. If the US in not a corp., which I believe now to be true. How is it we get entangled in contracts with them.

Is this contract situation more along the lines of the trust many are talking about. The united States of America held in trust by the United States. Is this due to the assumption of debt by the United States in relation to the debts owed by the states. Frederick Burrell.

Thanks for posting info on the Corporation, or lack there of.
I have heard about that. (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImZDllZGNmYjctN2NkOS00N2M0LTg0O TUtZmIwYjY4YTQwZTRj&hl=en) Formation of the Public Trusts.

motla68
03-30-11, 04:53 AM
If the land is under military siege, does it really matter whether the government who commands it is incorporated or not?

Authority;
2. Government; the persons or the body exercising power or
command; as, the local authorities of the States; the
military authorities. [Chiefly in the plural.]
[1913 Webster]

motla68
03-30-11, 05:35 AM
I have heard about that. (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImZDllZGNmYjctN2NkOS00N2M0LTg0O TUtZmIwYjY4YTQwZTRj&hl=en) Formation of the Public Trusts.

Last edited by David Merrill; Today at 12:29 AM.

I grabbed that Judiciary Act before you edited it out, interesting, the first page reveals a lot. You could not sell merchandise/goods made in the survey of the United States to the indians without a license, Also in last paragraph you cannot import merchandise/goods into there survey without paying duty fees. Sure sounds like being under military siege to me.
Additionally see back in the first paragraph where the merchandise/goods are forfeited and received by criminal charges for "partial benefit of the Person suing [ The State ] and for partial benefit of the United States".
This is an important key area in describing what I said about everything the state creates for themselves through their vendors is for their benefit, especially all that paper, seals and plastic cards called drivers licenses. make sense?

Frederick Burrell
03-30-11, 06:35 AM
Thanks David. Say it ain't so. lol

Brain teasers rule. FB

David Merrill
03-30-11, 11:32 AM
I grabbed that Judiciary Act before you edited it out...

That was because it is focused on Chapter 20 (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImYjhjMmE2OTYtYjA2MC00ODA3LTk2M 2MtNTk5ZGNhYzMzYTA0&hl=en) not Chapter 34 (http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/judiciary_1789.htm).



If the land is under military siege, does it really matter whether the government who commands it is incorporated or not?



We all have to claw our way through the conditioning!

Or Not!

The Emergency was terminated in 1976. The Senate Report is an entire book. I wont argue about the vestigial remains of the Emergency though - like that there is another Bankers' Holiday in the wings when enough people start redeeming lawful money.

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_PL94-412.jpg
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_PL94-412_stipulation.jpg

Mark Christopher
03-30-11, 12:22 PM
YES conditioning is really the problem. Like the boy who cried "Emergency!!", I don't flinch at that word anymore. I swear we are always in a state of emergency or doesn't really take much to make one in this state, well for banking at least ,see below:

17:9A-23.50. Definitions relative to emergency banking
1.As used in this act unless the context requires otherwise,

(a)"Commissioner" means the Commissioner of Banking and any other person lawfully exercising the powers of such commissioner;

(b)"Bank" includes banks, out-of-State banks and savings banks, and, to the extent the provisions hereof are not inconsistent with and do not infringe upon paramount federal law governing national banks, "bank" also includes national banks;

(c)"Officers" means the person or persons designated by the board of directors of a bank or the board of managers or trustees of a savings bank or the board of directors or managers or trustees of an out-of-State bank, as appropriate, to act for the bank, out-of-State bank or savings bank in carrying out the provisions of this act;

(d)"Emergency" means any condition which interferes with the conduct of normal business operations at one or more or all offices of a bank or banks, or which poses an imminent or existing threat to the safety and security of persons or property, or both. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, an emergency may arise as a result of any one or more of the following: fire; flood; wind, rain or snow storms; labor disputes; power failures; transportation failures; war; and riots, civil commotions, and other acts of lawlessness or violence;

(e)"Office" means any place at which a bank transacts business or conducts operations related to the transaction of business;

(f)"Person" includes natural persons (WHAT THE HECK IS THAT?), corporations, partnerships and associations.

L.1968,c.149,s.1; amended 1996, c.17, s.14.

17:9A-23.51. Proclamation of emergency
Whenever the commissioner is of the opinion that an emergency exists in this State or in any part or parts of this State, he shall, by proclamation, authorize those banks which, in the opinion of their officers, are directly or indirectly affected by such emergency to close one or more or all their offices.

L.1968, c. 149, s. 2, eff. July 12, 1968.

Oh BTW we are still in a state of emergency with respect to terrorist threats, see Bushbama's latest.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/09/10/letter-president-continuation-national-emergency-with-respect-certain-te

Let it snow!!

MC

motla68
03-30-11, 01:14 PM
The Emergency was terminated in 1976. The Senate Report is an entire book. I wont argue about the vestigial remains of the Emergency though - like that there is another Bankers' Holiday in the wings when enough people start redeeming lawful money.


There is an actual update to what you mentioned:

State of National Emergency in effect since September 2001

http://vodpod.com/watch/3601275-obama-continues-americas-perpetual-state-of-emergency-pt-1

David Merrill
03-30-11, 04:21 PM
There is an actual update to what you mentioned:

State of National Emergency in effect since September 2001

http://vodpod.com/watch/3601275-obama-continues-americas-perpetual-state-of-emergency-pt-1



The Emergency is that no State or Confederation of States may secede from the Union. [That is the Emergency (extraordinary occasion) that allows the President to perpetuate emergencies by Executive Order like you see in the Update Video you linked.] Some consider it a good thing (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImN2NiNTQ5ZjYtMzA5NS00MzM1LTllM DItNDY3N2EwYzcxNWNk&hl=en), that States may form into the Union and not be granted the freedom to leave again. As evidenced by the due date for an Income Tax Return still being April 15th and a declaration on all the fiat of the United States IN GOD WE TRUST. I will show you through it:


http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/5135/adjournsinedie.jpg
A few days ago I noticed it was the 150th Anniversary.

Ninety days later President Abraham LINCOLN started the emergency on July 4th declaring the extraordinary occasion from the Constitution.


http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/6479/conventionextraordinary.jpg
Notice the date he Notified Congress! April 15th, 2011 will be America's 150th Tax Year.

Maybe by watching graphically from the Congressional Record the readers will see that it is self-defeating to throw your hands up all:


If the land is under military siege, does it really matter whether the government who commands it is incorporated or not?

Rather, understand the trust structure - fiat commanded IN GOD WE TRUST. The only non-negotiable US currency is the US Note (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode31/usc_sec_31_00005115----000-.html).


The amount of United States currency notes outstanding and in circulation—
... may not be held or used for a reserve.

You cannot fractionalize on the US Notes. That is called just balance. Whereas the FRN is fractionalized and as you see in the notes, Congress thinks they can fudge the face value of the US Note too, and the Creator of the Trust will overlook that; like little children in the Garden the Congress thinks they can change the name of US Notes to US Currency Notes and that is different somehow! That somehow resolves the false weights.

The local chief judge (of the district, c. 1789 like I showed you with the Judiciary Act (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImYjhjMmE2OTYtYjA2MC00ODA3LTk2M 2MtNTk5ZGNhYzMzYTA0&hl=en)) demonstrated the Trust (http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/1743/1864brokemoneyclip.jpg) nicely for me. I demanded lawful money and paid for the matter (http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/8576/20mlien11.jpg) (rather than purchase or discharge) with the Secretary of State and published my $20M lien (http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/7398/20mlienoriginalreturn.jpg). Notice that within hours (http://img858.imageshack.us/img858/9650/20mliendateofpublicatio.jpg), chief district court judge Kirk Stewart SAMELSON entered into a new trust where there is no mention of the Creator - God.


http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/2062/oathsamelson103.jpgThis is the Oath I formed the Lien against.

Then very quickly that Oath of Office - fungible fidelity bond - was replaced to clarify the trust SAMELSON meant all along.



http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/9089/oathsamelson209.jpgOaths sworn without naming the punishing authority are nonsense.

Form of Oath (http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/6332/formofoath.jpg). Form of Affirmation (http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/1953/formofaffirmation.jpg). You cannot swear by no name of authority like My Mother's Grave; or A Stack of Bibles etc. Notice though, that the other party charged on the lien avoided a proper entry into our national trust (http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_John_Suthers'_AG_oath.jpg) all along!

Therefore I move forward on the solid ground of the truth and true balances, just weights; by knowing the nature of the trust and accepting the Emergency is still in effect. If you want to try going pre-War like RAP/RuSA and those guys, well that just gets unrealistic.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Another great word for it is Priestcraft.

Frederick Burrell
03-30-11, 04:29 PM
There is an actual update to what you mentioned:

State of National Emergency in effect since September 2001

http://vodpod.com/watch/3601275-obama-continues-americas-perpetual-state-of-emergency-pt-1

Amost always have been one and looking forward into the future, i think its safe to say there will always be one. They like having super powers. fb

motla68
03-30-11, 06:02 PM
Amost always have been one and looking forward into the future, i think its safe to say there will always be one. They like having super powers. fb

Boys and their toys, always after the next big thing [grin]

shikamaru
03-31-11, 06:13 PM
What was the District of Columbia 1871 if not a corp?

District of Columbia is a municipal corporation. A city-state if you will.

shikamaru
03-31-11, 06:27 PM
The United States is a corporation.

Respublica v. Sweers (http://supreme.justia.com/us/1/41/case.html)



From the moment of their association, the United States necessarily became a body corporate; for, there was no superior from whom that character could otherwise be derived. In England, the king, lords, and commons, are certainly a body corporate; and yet there never was any charter or statute, by which they were expressly so created.



BODY CORPORATE (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/body%20corporate). Corporation

Frederick Burrell
03-31-11, 06:41 PM
The United States is a corporation.

Respublica v. Sweers (http://supreme.justia.com/us/1/41/case.html)

Thanks for posting this. fB

David Merrill
03-31-11, 06:52 PM
The United States is a corporation.

Respublica v. Sweers (http://supreme.justia.com/us/1/41/case.html)

The United States was questionably deemed to be like a corporation ten years before it became a body politic. In 1789 it became a body politic. Look at the date on the case. Listen to the sentence before your quote:


The first exception was, 'that, at the time of the offence charged, the United States were not a body corporate known in law.' But the Court are of a different opinion.

In that period the prosecution was grasping for something to compare the loosely associated state to, so they did - the Parliament of England. In that time frame the US was no longer Colonies but again they were not a constitutional republic either.

Thanks though, that period is very interesting and I enjoyed you challenging my premise with that case.

shikamaru
03-31-11, 07:14 PM
The United States was questionably deemed to be like a corporation ten years before it became a body politic. In 1789 it became a body politic. Look at the date on the case.



BODY POLITIC (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Body+corporate+and+politic), government, corporations. When applied to the government this phrase signifies the state.
2. As to the persons who compose the body politic, they take collectively the name, of people, or nation; and individually they are citizens, when considered in relation to their political rights, and subjects as being submitted to the laws of the state.
3. When it refers to corporations, the term body politic means that the members of such corporations shall be considered as an artificial person.


I think what should be said is that whatever title is affixed to a given corpus (body), it all descends from the Law of Associations.
Now, I know most people don't know this for this is never spoken of or stated until now.

Any State or league is composed of two bodies: a body politic and a body corporate. Government is a political body corporate. The body politic is the society of people joined together in an association. Government IS NOT the State. The State is the people united into a society. A society is one type of association.

I will see what I can dig up to support all that I have stated above.

From most distinct to most broad:

Law of Corporations -> Law of Companies -> Law of Associations

shikamaru
03-31-11, 07:33 PM
From Blackstone's Commentaries (http://books.google.com/books?id=jAU9AAAAIAAJ&dq=Blackstone's%20Commentaries%20body%20corporate&pg=PA36#v=onepage&q&f=false):



And the king and these three estates, together, form the great corporation or body politic of the kingdom of which the king is said to be caput, principum et finis.

A body politic is a type of corporation.

Frederick Burrell
03-31-11, 07:33 PM
The first line would be what the defendant counsel was saying.

The first exception was, 'that, at the time of the offence charged, the United States were not
a body corporate known in law.'

The Second line is what the court was saying.

But the Court are of a different opinion. From the moment of their association, the United States necessarily became a body corporate; for, there was no superior from whom that character could otherwise be derived. In England, the king, lords, and commons, are certainly a body corporate; and yet there never was any charter or statute, by which they were expressly so created.

It would seem that the court is disagreeing with the lawyer, who is claiming they were not a body corp and the court is saying they disagree and that indeed from their first association, they were.

Am I reading this wrong? But the constitution was not ratified until 12 years later. So they were not talking about the US government but that of Pennsylvania.

shikamaru
03-31-11, 07:45 PM
The first line would be what the defendant counsel was saying.

The first exception was, 'that, at the time of the offence charged, the United States were not
a body corporate known in law.'

The Second line is what the court was saying.

But the Court are of a different opinion. From the moment of their association, the United States necessarily became a body corporate; for, there was no superior from whom that character could otherwise be derived. In England, the king, lords, and commons, are certainly a body corporate; and yet there never was any charter or statute, by which they were expressly so created.

It would seem that the court is disagreeing with the lawyer, who is claiming they were not a body corp and the court is saying they disagree and that indeed from their first association, they were.

Am I reading this wrong?

You are absolutely correct, sir.

Did you ever wonder where the terms body corporate and body politic originate?

David Merrill
03-31-11, 08:30 PM
I think what should be said is that whatever title is affixed to a given corpus (body), it all descends from the Law of Associations.
Now, I know most people don't know this for this is never spoken of or stated until now.

Any State or league is composed of two bodies: a body politic and a body corporate. Government is a political body corporate. The body politic is the society of people joined together in an association. Government IS NOT the State. The State is the people united into a society. A society is one type of association.

I will see what I can dig up to support all that I have stated above.

From most distinct to most broad:

Law of Corporations -> Law of Companies -> Law of Associations

Very enlightening!

So that disqualifies one without the other. My point was that there should not be a rogue faction calling the government disqualified because it is a de facto corporation like RAP/RuSA used to do - when it/they thought it existed anyway. I hear that President Tim is out of gas and nobody believes all his lies anymore.

So the people composing a nation are the body politic while the government itself, being bonded by the people becomes like a corporation formed under it. That makes sense. That explains why the USA can sue and be sued.

Thanks a lot.

shikamaru
03-31-11, 08:59 PM
So the people composing a nation are the body politic while the government itself, being bonded by the people becomes like a corporation formed under it. That makes sense. That explains why the USA can sue and be sued.

Thanks a lot.

No problem.

A constitution is a charter forming the political corporation. The body politic is the principal. Government is the agent.
I had a really good thread on SJC covering this, but I will see if I can recover some of it.

shikamaru
03-31-11, 09:52 PM
All definitions are from Black's Fourth Ed.



GOVERNMENT. From the Latin gubernaculum. Signifies the instrument, the helm, whereby the ship to which the state was compared, was guided on its course by the "gubernator" or helmsman, and in that view, the government is but an agency of the state, distinguished as it must be in accurate thought from its scheme and machinery of government ...

Not withstanding the Admiralty/Maritime reference, government is distinct from the state.



GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY. A subordinate creature of the sovereign created to carry out a governmental function. Frequently, a political subdivision or corporation. ....



REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated.

Where have you exercised the powers of sovereignty directly ??

shikamaru
03-31-11, 10:09 PM
Here we go!

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed.



MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. A legal institution formed by charter from sovereign (i.e. state) power erecting a populous community of prescribed areas into a body politic and corporate with corporate name and continuous succession and for the purpose and with the authority of subordinate self-government and improvement and local administration of affairs of state. A body corporate consisting of the inhabitants of a designated area created by the legislature with or without the consent of such inhabitants for governmental purposes, possessing local legislative and administrative power, also power to exercise within such areas so much of the administrative power of the state as may be delegated to it and possessing limited capacity to own and hold property and to act in purveyance of public conveniences.

Municipal corporation is a body politic and corporate, created to administer the internal concerns of the district embraced with its corporate limits, in matters peculiar to such place and not common to the state at large. .....




MUNICIPAL. In narrower, more common, sense, it means pertaining to a local governmental unit , commonly, a city or town or other governmental unit. In its broader sense, it means pertaining to the public or governmental affairs of a state or nation or of a people. ...

The latter definition with regard to the term municipal is an international law definition.

The Constitution of the United States is municipal resulting in a body politic and corporate. The body politic is private. The body corporate is public. The government itself is public. Public is a term synonymous with government.

If I say "public office", you know exactly what I am speaking of.

Please note that many of the terms we are using with respect to this subject matter i.e. constitution, citizen, municipal, etc. are Roman Civil Law terms and have their origins in Roman Law.

motla68
03-31-11, 10:28 PM
Here we go!

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed.





The latter definition with regard to the term municipal is an international law definition.

The Constitution of the United States is municipal resulting in a body politic and corporate. The body politic is private. The body corporate is public. The government itself is public. Public is a term synonymous with government.

If I say "public office", you know exactly what I am speaking of.

Please note that many of the terms we are using with respect to this subject matter i.e. constitution, citizen, municipal, etc. are Roman Civil Law terms and have their origins in Roman Law.

Cool man, good work.

If you go to the city council building and the county commissioners building, go do the admin office and ask if they can give you a copy of their charter, just tell them your doing research for an educational project. In there you will more then likely find that the State General Assembly chartered both of them. Sometimes it is online, sometimes not, Go check it out and tell us what you find?

Keep connecting them dots together, your doing it right.

shikamaru
03-31-11, 10:33 PM
Cool man, good work.

If you go to the city council building and the county commissioners building, go do the admin office and ask if they can give you a copy of their charter, just tell them your doing research for an educational project. In there you will more then likely find that the State General Assembly chartered both of them. Sometimes it is online, sometimes not, Go check it out and tell us what you find?

Keep connecting them dots together, your doing it right.

There used to be a guy online who titled himself "the Informer" under atgpress.com. He did some crazy research, but I learned a lot from his writings.
It is sad that his research and website are no longer online. You can catch some of his stuff on the Wayback machine.

motla68
03-31-11, 10:55 PM
There used to be a guy online who titled himself "the Informer" under atgpress.com. He did some crazy research, but I learned a lot from his writings.
It is sad that his research and website are no longer online. You can catch some of his stuff on the Wayback machine.

Yes, I am aware of the unsername. I have been in the free man movement i guess you could call it since late 2002. I have seen some sites come and go, it is easy to copy what someone else does and maybe get a partial understanding, but it is entirely different thing when you do it yourself and create your own materials from it, you will never lose that, it then becomes a part of you.

David Merrill
04-01-11, 12:04 AM
Where have you exercised the powers of sovereignty directly ??


That sounds general and rhetorical but I like to jump on it whenever I can.

The State is the typical trustee of the assets in registration. However if they breach an agreement that trust is up for grabs - an appointee can jump in as a resulting trust. Look how they had warned me two or three times already that my using the Great Seal of Authority without being affiliated with State Business would result in a Class 5 felony charge (http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/9166/20mlien23assent.jpg). This last time they sent my lien back rejected though, they included a breached trust - by one Donald DREW on the Colorado Republic (http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/9568/20mlien17.jpg). It is a chore to explain without your recent posts to stand on so I defer the reader to examine body politic and body corporate herein, thank you again, to grasp why the SoS was reluctant to admit the Colorado Republic still exists as a territorial domain. Examine the Notice on Page 2 (http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/5006/20mlien18.jpg) - which is a generic notice on Articles of Incorporation but mailing those Articles to DREW on the Colorado Republic would of course been an admission that it is still extant and the corporate SoS wanted to stay exclusively so. You can read for yourself my acceptance of the trustee position - and therefore I was affiliated (http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/8756/affiliations.jpg)with state business - statesman. That was when the SoS accepted (http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/3852/20mlien23.jpg) and published my lien (http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/1272/ucc20092001574cs.jpg).

There have been several occasions where I have taken the role of statesman, using the Great Seal, once I was even "arrested" in open court for it and never heard a word about it afterward.

It may not be what you were meaning exactly, but your explanations and definitions have helped me to be able to explain it more easily.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. I have a lot of Informer stuff on disk. When we get up to speed around here - meaning when Admin finds time for constructing an Upload/Download area, I will upload it for everybody. Between us we may be able to recompile some of that work.

shikamaru
04-01-11, 12:15 AM
That sounds general and rhetorical but I like to jump on it whenever I can.

The State is the typical trustee of the assets in registration. However if they breach an agreement that trust is up for grabs - an appointee can jump in as a resulting trust. Look how they had warned me two or three times already that my using the Great Seal of Authority without being affiliated with State Business would result in a Class 5 felony charge (http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/9166/20mlien23assent.jpg). This last time they sent my lien back rejected though, they included a breached trust - by one Donald DREW on the Colorado Republic (http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/9568/20mlien17.jpg). It is a chore to explain without your recent posts to stand on so I defer the reader to examine body politic and body corporate herein, thank you again, to grasp why the SoS was reluctant to admit the Colorado Republic still exists as a territorial domain. Examine the Notice on Page 2 (http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/5006/20mlien18.jpg) - which is a generic notice on Articles of Incorporation but mailing those Articles to DREW on the Colorado Republic would of course been an admission that it is still extant and the corporate SoS wanted to stay exclusively so. You can read for yourself my acceptance of the trustee position - and therefore I was affiliated (http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/8756/affiliations.jpg)with state business - statesman. That was when the SoS accepted (http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/3852/20mlien23.jpg) and published my lien (http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/1272/ucc20092001574cs.jpg).

There have been several occasions where I have taken the role of statesman, using the Great Seal, once I was even "arrested" in open court for it and never heard a word about it afterward.

It may not be what you were meaning exactly, but your explanations and definitions have helped me to be able to explain it more easily.


Regards,

David Merrill.

I don't think the State wants you to assume your role as one of the People of the nation. :)
William Thornton has some great material on the above.

The best way to do this studying of corporations, in my opinion, and their myriad of forms is to study Roman Law (Roman Civil Law) and English Common Law.

Our law system is a mix of Roman Civil Law and English Common Law. The Common Law is the private side. Roman Civil Law the public side. Common Law is of "the People" (although most English subjects hated Common Law). Roman Civil Law is of government.

The sovereignty of the King devolved on to "the People".



P.S. I have a lot of Informer stuff on disk. When we get up to speed around here - meaning when Admin finds time for constructing an Upload/Download area, I will upload it for everybody. Between us we may be able to recompile some of that work.

You rock, man. I will make sure to add it to my repository when available.

David Merrill
04-01-11, 02:25 AM
I don't think the State wants you to assume your role as one of the People of the nation. :)
William Thornton has some great material on the above.

The best way to do this studying of corporations, in my opinion, and their myriad of forms is to study Roman Law (Roman Civil Law) and English Common Law.

Our law system is a mix of Roman Civil Law and English Common Law. The Common Law is the private side. Roman Civil Law the public side. Common Law is of "the People" (although most English subjects hated Common Law). Roman Civil fLaw is of government.

The sovereignty of the King devolved on to "the People".



You rock, man. I will make sure to add it to my repository when available.


I wish those things were true. Common law is case law. And William THORNTON (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_William_Thornton.wmv) was a let-down. He spent a weekend trying to import California policy to Colorado which are two very different beasts since California became a state before the War Between the States. I sat with him for lunch and discovered his origins with Richard MacDONALD and Sri David Conrad ROBERTS, which is a book in itself. Mostly though, as he was giving his Bicycle Helmet case for an example of his methods, I realized that it was going for ten years without results! I mentioned that and the whole seminar really took on a different flavor.

The fellow promoting William, who made arrangements was coming out to Black Forest Sunday morning and was stopped. He tried a direct Refusal for Cause, where you just write it on the Uniform Summons, Complaint and Penalty Assessment and it worked so well, the officer made him surrender his copy and wrote a new one! That is pretty revealing. When the officer presented the second one he walked slowly up to the minivan and lunged forward, stuffed it in the window and ran back to his car! Unbelievable! Well, this confused the suitor to throw the presentment back out of the window. I suppose it would be a bit disconcerting.

The cop was back in his car so the suitor left. He was captured by about six cars from two counties, maybe eight LEOs with guns trained on him. I left the seminar early to go bail him out. He got his bail back with no hearings after I drew up this Order and Decree (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Order_and_Decree.rtf). It was a strange Refusal for Cause though, because of the unusual arrest and I suppose the cop wanted nothing to do with it actually - it was such a clerical mess!

That was an interesting ride though; while it lasted. Memories! I remember when that is what I thought though.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Frederick Burrell
04-01-11, 04:29 AM
Great work. Thanks for taking the time to post it. It clears up a lot of things for me, being a newbie to this stuff. fB

Mark Christopher
04-01-11, 04:56 PM
The Emergency is that no State or Confederation of States may secede from the Union. [That is the Emergency (extraordinary occasion) that allows the President to perpetuate emergencies by Executive Order like you see in the Update Video you linked.] Some consider it a good thing (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImN2NiNTQ5ZjYtMzA5NS00MzM1LTllM DItNDY3N2EwYzcxNWNk&hl=en), that States may form into the Union and not be granted the freedom to leave again. As evidenced by the due date for an Income Tax Return still being April 15th and a declaration on all the fiat of the United States IN GOD WE TRUST. I will show you through it:

Oh oh...the tax return is not the 15th it is the 18th this year. Why would they change it on the 150th year anniversary?(yes I know to give you more time to do them over the weekend but I dont recall them doing that unless it is a sunday!)

OK hope I am not beating a dead horse here but I am a little unclear about the state of emergency (SOE) you mention. Here are the things I understood
1. NO SOE can last more than 2 years with out a renewal.
2. There is a current SOE with regards to terrorist.
3. I may have misunderstood but it sounds like there is still a SOE from 1861 basically because the states may secede from the union at anytime?

Awesome thread so far
MC

shikamaru
04-01-11, 09:08 PM
Common law is case law.

In one context, yes.

In another context, Common Law is lex non-scripta or unwritten law.

Thornton's material helped me to connect many dots.
Whether it works in court is another story.
His theory, in my opinion, is sound. You can find historical precedence for much of it.

shikamaru
04-01-11, 09:14 PM
Great work. Thanks for taking the time to post it. It clears up a lot of things for me, being a newbie to this stuff. fB

Here is a pretty wicked treatise on corporations written in 1793 by Stewart Kyd

http://books.google.com/books?id=I5ADAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Law+of+Corporations&hl=en&ei=Yj-WTfvhMOew0QGA1_WGDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CEwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

As always, chain your knowledge from oldest to most recent rolling the aggregate of it all forward to the present.

This is a really interesting book on Roman Civil Law. A section is devoted to corporations
http://books.google.com/books?id=WwFbAAAAQAAJ&dq=Roman%20Civil%20Law%20corporations&pg=PA626#v=onepage&q=Roman%20Civil%20Law%20corporations&f=false

Corporations are societies. The formation, maintenance, and dissolution of societies.

David Merrill
04-01-11, 09:24 PM
In one context, yes.

In another context, Common Law is lex non-scripta or unwritten law.

Thornton's material helped me to connect many dots.
Whether it works in court is another story.
His theory, in my opinion, is sound. You can find historical precedence for much of it.

I would not bash THORNTON except that he was importing a State's law into Colorado, which never properly formed a Territory. The survey is skewed to allow that fiat began here (http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/533/gilpinswarmeasureszoom.jpg). I will connect that whole thing (http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/4255/monumentsfibonaccispira.jpg) together when a thread seems ready, or the lesson plan dictates it - soon! It is really fascinating how this all goes together into a giant mosaic (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_signs2.jpg). [That photo is from The Craft of Intelligence - by Allen Welsh DULLES the formative Director of Central Intelligence (he was actually the second Director but held that position for eleven years after the first only held it for over one).]





Oh oh...the tax return is not the 15th it is the 18th this year. Why would they change it on the 150th year anniversary?(yes I know to give you more time to do them over the weekend but I dont recall them doing that unless it is a sunday!)

OK hope I am not beating a dead horse here but I am a little unclear about the state of emergency (SOE) you mention. Here are the things I understood
1. NO SOE can last more than 2 years with out a renewal.
2. There is a current SOE with regards to terrorist.
3. I may have misunderstood but it sounds like there is still a SOE from 1861 basically because the states may secede from the union at anytime?

Awesome thread so far
MC


The ongoing Emergency, like shown in the video snippet, is that the President has power of Executive Order (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Let_Freedom_Ring.jpg) at all!

shikamaru
04-01-11, 10:35 PM
I would not bash THORNTON except that he was importing a State's law into Colorado, which never properly formed a Territory. The survey is skewed to allow that fiat began here (http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/533/gilpinswarmeasureszoom.jpg). I will connect that whole thing (http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/4255/monumentsfibonaccispira.jpg) together when a thread seems ready, or the lesson plan dictates it - soon! It is really fascinating how this all goes together into a giant mosaic (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_signs2.jpg). [That photo is from The Craft of Intelligence - by Allen Welsh DULLES the formative Director of Central Intelligence (he was actually the second Director but held that position for eleven years after the first only held it for over one).]



There does exist such a beast known as comity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comity) ....

WatchmanOnTheTower
04-01-11, 11:08 PM
Guys,
The reason tax day is April 18 this year is because April 15th is Emancipation Day, a Washington D.C. holiday (starting in 2005), normally falling on April 16th, but because April 16 is a Saturday, Emancipation Day is moved to Friday, thus making the filing deadline move to Monday.

Very weird set of circumstances.

shikamaru
04-01-11, 11:24 PM
What is the difference between an individual and a corporation?



Conceding that the witness was an officer of the corporation under investigation, and that he was entitled to assert the rights of corporation with respect to the production of its books and papers, we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to [201 U.S. 43, 75] act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that a state, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not, in the exercise of its sovereignty, inquire how these franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of the corporate books and papers for that purpose. The defense amounts to this: That an officer of a corporation which is charged with a criminal violation of the statute, may plead the criminality of such corporation as a refusal to produce its books. To state this proposition is to answer it. While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute, it does not follow that a corporation, vested with special privileges and franchises, may refuse to show its hand when charged with an abuse of such privileges.


HALE v. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43 (1906) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=201&invol=43)

Can you dig it? :cool:

motla68
04-02-11, 04:45 AM
There is much debate even on these such things these days, the typical chicken and egg argument of what came first and of which has more authority. Natural rights which seem to existed before government was created or legal rights which are derived from a social contract. The architects of this country have done their best to split the conscience for us to give us a choice I believe. A woman was said to have asked Ben Franklin something that goes like this; " senator Franklin, what have you give us? " and Ben replied " a Republic if you can keep it ". It appears that at this point the equitable trust was created. Now most of these guys were avid readers of biblical doctrines and in that book there is 2 of everything and the demand for Gold coin from the Republic government was at a all time high and it was getting quite a inconvenience to carry all them coins and it left them vulnerable to pirates and thieves, they needed a way to bond up the currency and make it easier to carry along with providing security for the men and women that used it and a way to secure the currency as well,
A new trust had to be formed for this new plan so the representatives from each state got together and created a constitution, this led the the creation of legal persons, the second part that would spread like wildfire across the country and the people wanting to be protected from savages were more then happy to accept a security blanket.

The point I am trying to make here is that one has natural rights to roam the land and live their life, prosper and be happy, equitable exchanges were made without the need for money for every exchange that took place, this is when equity courts were the authority, BUT then here comes a monetary system, waiving the proverbial golden carrot literally and Big Corporations the headmaster of the system. When one accepts a Person(piece of paper) as themselves for money they have basically traded the abundant foundation the creator had given us for a bowl of soup then soon after the moral decay to follow. When one makes such a choice if violates the Maxim of Law: Disparata Non Debent Jungi (Unequal things ought not to be joined)
Further we have traded what was acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence of all men being created equal to a monetary system as noted in the Constitution. A free will choice was given to us. Does any of the commandments from the creator say " let their be money "?

Further discussions from other consciences on these 2 subjects can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

David Merrill
04-02-11, 11:50 AM
What is the difference between an individual and a corporation?



HALE v. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43 (1906) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=201&invol=43)

Can you dig it? :cool:

Note the Date - 1906. That was before the Fed Act - 1913.



P.S. Motla68;

The solution you propose is by and large impracticable. Redeeming lawful money by demand is much easier for fixing a flat or putting food in your mouth. There was a promoter of the same approach you propose on SJC named Bean. He even told us that he never uses money at all, only specie but he never really would tell us how to buy a burrito at Taco Bell without being taken to the cleaners.

motla68
04-02-11, 03:24 PM
Note the Date - 1906. That was before the Fed Act - 1913.



P.S. Motla68;

The solution you propose is by and large impracticable. Redeeming lawful money by demand is much easier for fixing a flat or putting food in your mouth. There was a promoter of the same approach you propose on SJC named Bean. He even told us that he never uses money at all, only specie but he never really would tell us how to buy a burrito at Taco Bell without being taken to the cleaners.

Ok, so are you saying the Fed Act of 1913 nullifies this, can you show me that reference?

We are working hard on this to get to our end goal for CS. We have had spotted access to the equity, but we are working towards full access. Why would you want food from taco bell anyway, that is disgusting. Any ways because of statements made in the Liber Code doing something like that has to do with the receipts, they are securities.

Liber Code : Article 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.

Indemnity;
That which is given to a person to prevent his suffering damage. 2 McCord, 279. Sometimes it signifies diminution; a tenant who has been interrupted in the enjoyment of his lease may require an indemnity from the lessor, that is, a reduction of his rent.

3. Contracts made for the purpose of indemnifying a person for doing an act for which he could be indicted, or an agreement to, compensate a public officer for doing an act which is forbidden by law, or omitting to do one which the law commands, are absolutely void. But when the agreement with an officer was not to induce him to neglect his duty, but to test a legal right, as to indemnify him for not executing an execution, it was held to be good. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 780.
- 1856 Bouviers Dictionary

Think of " officer " as the trustee for Cesti que vie.

I am trying to help make some connections here for you, but it is difficult if you will not even consider the time we have invested in our beliefs or the fact that we have a right to self determination NOT by a legal sense but by the grace of the one most high himself. We put the natural rights from the creator, above any legal rights here on earth in which we "waive all the benefits thereof".

David Merrill
04-02-11, 03:50 PM
You twisted that into nullify. A new contract option opened up in 1913!


Why would you want food from taco bell anyway, that is disgusting.

I like Taco Bell. Coming from you though...


Excuses, excuses...

Frederick Burrell
04-02-11, 04:16 PM
ummmmm Taco Bell. Now this is starting to get personal. lol. fB

motla68
04-02-11, 04:27 PM
ummmmm Taco Bell. Now this is starting to get personal. lol. fB

I prefer Chipolte Grill myself. But I have to admit I did go try the new tacos at taco bell with the shrimp in them and not bad of a taste, love the cilantro, I can do without the MSG though, detox.. detox.

shikamaru
04-03-11, 01:10 PM
Note the Date - 1906. That was before the Fed Act - 1913.


It isn't the Fed Act of 1913 that would incorporate you into the US body corporate.

It is the birth certificate and SSN.

I would like to step back a bit concerning the term incorporate.

Incorporate, in an elementary sense, means to bring one body into another. Typically, this is done formally either by ceremony or by documentation.

The incorporation may be a franchise, contract, or servitude. I guess these could be termed estates (states).

David Merrill
04-03-11, 01:33 PM
It isn't the Fed Act of 1913 that would incorporate you into the US body corporate.

It is the birth certificate and SSN.

I would like to step back a bit concerning the term incorporate.

Incorporate, in an elementary sense, means to bring one body into another. Typically, this is done formally either by ceremony or by documentation.

The incorporation may be a franchise, contract, or servitude. I guess these could be termed estates (states).

Agreed; and thank you for explaining that so that even I can understand now. I am an American man. I was born in Colorado. There is no problem with being part of that body corporate until it effects contracts and obligations to perform. That is where endorsement comes into play.

As I understand your welcome explanation Shikamaru, there cannot be one without the other. We all play a dual role in functional government, that's sole purpose is self-governance. A constitutional republic is only established, complete with a Constitution, so that government can provide an infrastructure for our self-governance. The suitor who R4C'd the next court appointment, right there in the traffic courtroom, The Ranger. Remember? He called me up and thanked me because he and his wife are enjoying convening court at their kitchen table to produce true judgments, orders and decrees upon the process they bring in daily from the federal enclave out front (mailbox).

They too are Americans. They have birth certificates registered with the health department here in Colorado too.

If there were funds (http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/7078/birthcertnobond.jpg) being hypothecated or even actually on account based in that Birth Certificate, then we might have the problems arising you imply.

shikamaru
04-03-11, 01:44 PM
They have birth certificates registered with the health department here in Colorado too.

If there were funds (http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/7078/birthcertnobond.jpg) being hypothecated or even actually on account based in that Birth Certificate, then we might have the problems arising you imply.

Here is something else to consider:

A birth certificate may (theory) be a tenancy for life. A birth certificate is an estate. The grantor is government. The grantee is the person.

The certificate links to a birth record. The record is the property of government.
A birth certificate is proof of citizenship, another estate.

A license is an estate. A tenancy at will to be exact. Same parties (legal relationship) described above.

David Merrill
04-03-11, 01:51 PM
Here is something else to consider:

A birth certificate may (theory) be a tenancy for life. A birth certificate is an estate. The grantor is government. The grantee is the person.

A license is an estate. A tenancy at will to be exact. Same parties (legal relationship) above.


I think I am making sense of that in something Michael Joseph says here - about property is never anything but use. We contract for the use with the trustee, in charge of Schedule A - assets on the registration.

You have lost me a little with:

A license is an estate. A tenancy at will to be exact.

shikamaru
04-03-11, 01:56 PM
I think I am making sense of that in something Michael Joseph says here - about property is never anything but use. We contract for the use with the trustee, in charge of Schedule A - assets on the registration.

I'll post a thread showing exactly why ownership of property is use. Give me time. I shall do this sometime today.



You have lost me a little with:

A license is an estate. A tenancy at will to be exact.

We know from the bellows of attorners that a license is not a contract.
Cody, an old "friend" of ours, also showed that a license is not a franchise either.
We also know that a license is not considered property as well.

There was a term that jumped out at me concerning the license (SEE SERVITUDE).
I looked up the term SERVITUDE from Bouvier's. Servitudes have their roots in Roman Civil Law. This particular servitude has many names: benefices, munera, etc.

A servitude can be a tenancy for life or at will mainly in favor of the grantor. If you want, I can post this information as well.

A tenancy is an estate. The subject of a tenancy is titled a tenant. Think of Thomas DeLittleton and his treatise on tenures ...

motla68
04-03-11, 03:12 PM
I was born in Colorado.

You were born 6 feet under, that explains it! ;-) but seriously you were born on the land, correct?

motla68
04-03-11, 03:21 PM
Here is something else to consider:

A birth certificate may (theory) be a tenancy for life. A birth certificate is an estate. The grantor is government. The grantee is the person.

The certificate links to a birth record. The record is the property of government.
A birth certificate is proof of citizenship, another estate.

A license is an estate. A tenancy at will to be exact. Same parties (legal relationship) described above.

First 2 lines are good, you got it.
In the material that I have seen a Birth Certificate is not to be used as identification, so to use this as proof of citizenship is a bit of a deception.
The Birth Record is held in trust and the Birth Certificate is proof of record held in trust.

License is permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal, such as using the name of the person for travelling purposes, so your
statement on tenancy would be more exact yes.

David Merrill
04-03-11, 04:01 PM
You were born 6 feet under, that explains it! ;-) but seriously you were born on the land, correct?

That is just childish. If I was born underground, I would suffocate. You will not find these unrealistic gyrations of yours going on in real life.


I'll post a thread showing exactly why ownership of property is use. Give me time. I shall do this sometime today.



We know from the bellows of attorners that a license is not a contract.
Cody, an old "friend", of ours also showed that a license is not a franchise either.
We also know that a license is not considered property as well.

There was a term that jumped out at me concerning the license (SEE SERVITUDE).
I looked up the term SERVITUDE from Bouvier's. Servitudes have their roots in Roman Civil Law. This particular servitude has many names: benefices, munera, etc.

A servitude can be a tenancy for life or at will mainly in favor of the grantor. If you want, I can post this information as well.

A tenancy is an estate. The subject of a tenancy is titled a tenant. Think of Thomas DeLittleton and his treatise on tenures ...

Thanks for developing this for me/us to read.

Keep in mind that in reality, these close must be breached before the tort manifests. In other words, the idealism of Motla is upsetting to people who have real life experience. Motla68 has no success in court, he would know that if he were indeed a court of competent jurisdiction. If he were then he would understand that there is no use trying to convince one without respecting rules of evidence. He says he gives the DA a robin egg-blue wrapped papering package and the case goes away but that has never actually happened. That is why he stops there. He has no evidence. If you can't show it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhLpy-1pVfI) to us Motla, it does not exist! Well, maybe to people who like to believe without evidence... incompetent courts.

The effective application of remedy is to supersede the words of art with reality. I was born within the survey called Colorado.


P.S.


First 2 lines are good, you got it.
In the material that I have seen a Birth Certificate is not to be used as identification, so to use this as proof of citizenship is a bit of a deception.
The Birth Record is held in trust and the Birth Certificate is proof of record held in trust.

License is permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal, such as using the name of the person for travelling purposes, so your
statement on tenancy would be more exact yes.


You don't listen to yourself. If you had any answers, then you might have the respect to swallow your arrogance. You just think you have the answers and are so far above us all that you don't needs to show us how you got to be so smart.

Anthony Joseph
04-03-11, 04:07 PM
I am aware (now) that the BC is documentation from within the STATE OF XXXX that a vessel (person) has been "birthed" and that the STATE awaits the assumed voluntary acceptance of the living soul, around whom the BC was formed, to take on the burden of fiduciary/surety of that vessel. This is an automatic action whenever a child is born into the world on this land AT A HOSPITAL. If a child is born at home or elsewhere absent STATE cognizance or interference, the STATE, once aware of a "new energy-source prospect", does everything in its power to bring that child unto itself and within the U.S. trust-system. After all, the scheme does not work well if you allow any "fish" to "get away".

I contend that the main purpose behind this activity and mechanism is DISHONORABLE AT ITS CORE since the STATE acts as nothing more than a "soul harvester" without any regard for whats best for that living soul it is after. The main concern and purpose is to harness the energy and sweat equity of any and ALL living souls on this land BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY in order to continue maintaining the "beast" which serves the few who are in control of it at the expense and detriment of unsuspecting, unwitting and intentionally conditioned/misinformed people.

I ask any and all here...

WHAT RIGHTFUL AND LAWFUL CLAIM CAN BE VALID FROM THAT DISHONORABLE POSITION AND STANDING?

I opine that from that dishonor, all claims of sovereignty, authority, power and jurisdiction over the creations from that dishonorable entity and mechanism are NULL AND VOID when attempted against a righteous and peaceful inhabitant on the land who declares and exhibits competence and superior honorable standing within the supreme Divine Trust in the Almighty Creator.

What that translates to, in my opinion, is FREE REIGN USUFRUCT over any creation of man, in our own right, for the righteous purposes of living life on this land in peace but NOT for material or personal gain. We use whatever tool or creation we deem as necessary in this day and age in order to "live a life" and provide and protect ourselves and our families.

If the STATE and its U.S. TRUST principal wish to claim rightful sovereignty over what it creates, then start acting in honor with FULL DISCLOSURE and an OVERT GOOD FAITH EFFORT to not continue the intentional deception, conditioning, concealment, omission and overall DISHONOR it displays and acts upon whenever it decides to target and entrap a living soul on this land. Until then, the claims from that dishonrable position and standing have ZERO significance or force of law upon a righteous man or woman who is aware and "calls them on it".

No "government" is deserving of respect or obedience if its main objective is to chattelize the flesh and bone of God's children under less than honest means to say the least. This is repugnant and an abomination before our Creator and that renders the creations of men responsible for this evil FREE GAME for those of us who have gained this knowledge.

After all, I believe that this government/trust is here to charitably protect and defend our interests and claims. We are the heirs to God's Kingdom on earth and these "oath-takers" are to be doing God's Work; giving freely their service to that end.

David Merrill
04-03-11, 04:18 PM
I am aware (now) that the BC is documentation from within the STATE OF XXXX that a vessel (person) has been "birthed" and that the STATE awaits the assumed voluntary acceptance of the living soul, around whom the BC was formed, to take on the burden of fiduciary/surety of that vessel. This is an automatic action whenever a child is born into the world on this land AT A HOSPITAL. If a child is born at home or elsewhere absent STATE cognizance or interference, the STATE, once aware of a "new energy-source prospect", does everything in its power to bring that child unto itself and within the U.S. trust-system. After all, the scheme does not work well if you allow any "fish" to "get away".

I contend that the main purpose behind this activity and mechanism is DISHONORABLE AT ITS CORE since the STATE acts as nothing more than a "soul harvester" without any regard for whats best for that living soul it is after. The main concern and purpose is to harness the energy and sweat equity of any and ALL living souls on this land BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY in order to continue maintaining the "beast" which serves the few who are in control of it at the expense and detriment of unsuspecting, unwitting and intentionally conditioned/misinformed people.

I ask any and all here...

WHAT RIGHTFUL AND LAWFUL CLAIM CAN BE VALID FROM THAT DISHONORABLE POSITION AND STANDING?

I opine that from that dishonor, all claims of sovereignty, authority, power and jurisdiction over the creations from that dishonorable entity and mechanism are NULL AND VOID when attempted against a righteous and peaceful inhabitant on the land who declares and exhibits competence and superior honorable standing within the supreme Divine Trust in the Almighty Creator.

What that translates to, in my opinion, is FREE REIGN USUFRUCT over any creation of man, in our own right, for the righteous purposes of living life on this land in peace but NOT for material or personal gain. We use whatever tool or creation we deem as necessary in this day and age in order to "live a life" and provide and protect ourselves and our families.

If the STATE and its U.S. TRUST principal wish to claim rightful sovereignty over what it creates, then start acting in honor with FULL DISCLOSURE and an OVERT GOOD FAITH EFFORT to not continue the intentional deception, conditioning, concealment, omission and overall DISHONOR it displays and acts upon whenever it decides to target and entrap a living soul on this land. Until then, the claims from that dishonrable position and standing have ZERO significance or force of law upon a righteous man or woman who is aware and "calls them on it".

No "government" is deserving of respect or obedience if its main objective is to chattelize the flesh and bone of God's children under less than honest means to say the least. This is repugnant and an abomination before our Creator and that renders the creations of men responsible for this evil FREE GAME for those of us who have gained this knowledge.

After all, I believe that this government/trust is here to charitably protect and defend our interests and claims. We are the heirs to God's Kingdom on earth and these "oath-takers" are to be doing God's Work; giving freely their service to that end.


That is the beauty of Refusal for Cause (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImMWYwMWVkNmItODg4MS00YzY2LTljM mItY2Q4ZmVjZGU2M2Rh&hl=en). When you know your identity and you understand the public trust, then you have control over new presentments and even innovations (novation) of the current standing trusts/agreements. But you have already said the same thing several times already.

My point is that person created through the constructions you describe is for your use and when you don't need it, it is inconsequential. Any time they need you to use it, they will ask you for the Information and you must indict yourself.

Hbert997
04-03-11, 04:23 PM
I am aware (now) that the BC is documentation from within the STATE OF XXXX that a vessel (person) has been "birthed" and that the STATE awaits the assumed voluntary acceptance of the living soul, around whom the BC was formed, to take on the burden of fiduciary/surety of that vessel. This is an automatic action whenever a child is born into the world on this land AT A HOSPITAL. If a child is born at home or elsewhere absent STATE cognizance or interference, the STATE, once aware of a "new energy-source prospect", does everything in its power to bring that child unto itself and within the U.S. trust-system. After all, the scheme does not work well if you allow any "fish" to "get away".

I contend that the main purpose behind this activity and mechanism is DISHONORABLE AT ITS CORE since the STATE acts as nothing more than a "soul harvester" without any regard for whats best for that living soul it is after. The main concern and purpose is to harness the energy and sweat equity of any and ALL living souls on this land BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY in order to continue maintaining the "beast" which serves the few who are in control of it at the expense and detriment of unsuspecting, unwitting and intentionally conditioned/misinformed people.

I ask any and all here...

WHAT RIGHTFUL AND LAWFUL CLAIM CAN BE VALID FROM THAT DISHONORABLE POSITION AND STANDING?

I opine that from that dishonor, all claims of sovereignty, authority, power and jurisdiction over the creations from that dishonorable entity and mechanism are NULL AND VOID when attempted against a righteous and peaceful inhabitant on the land who declares and exhibits competence and superior honorable standing within the supreme Divine Trust in the Almighty Creator.

What that translates to, in my opinion, is FREE REIGN USUFRUCT over any creation of man, in our own right, for the righteous purposes of living life on this land in peace but NOT for material or personal gain. We use whatever tool or creation we deem as necessary in this day and age in order to "live a life" and provide and protect ourselves and our families.

If the STATE and its U.S. TRUST principal wish to claim rightful sovereignty over what it creates, then start acting in honor with FULL DISCLOSURE and an OVERT GOOD FAITH EFFORT to not continue the intentional deception, conditioning, concealment, omission and overall DISHONOR it displays and acts upon whenever it decides to target and entrap a living soul on this land. Until then, the claims from that dishonrable position and standing have ZERO significance or force of law upon a righteous man or woman who is aware and "calls them on it".

No "government" is deserving of respect or obedience if its main objective is to chattelize the flesh and bone of God's children under less than honest means to say the least. This is repugnant and an abomination before our Creator and that renders the creations of men responsible for this evil FREE GAME for those of us who have gained this knowledge.

After all, I believe that this government/trust is here to charitably protect and defend our interests and claims. We are the heirs to God's Kingdom on earth and these "oath-takers" are to be doing God's Work; giving freely their service to that end.

Very nicely put, AJ!

Hbert

Anthony Joseph
04-03-11, 04:30 PM
That is the beauty of Refusal for Cause (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImMWYwMWVkNmItODg4MS00YzY2LTljM mItY2Q4ZmVjZGU2M2Rh&hl=en). When you know your identity and you understand the public trust, then you have control over new presentments and even innovations (novation) of the current standing trusts/agreements. But you have already said the same thing several times already.

My point is that person created through the constructions you describe is for your use and when you don't need it, it is inconsequential. Any time they need you to use it, they will ask you for the Information and you must indict yourself.

I agree with that; my point is... that is NOT how it is presented to ANYONE by the constructing entity. IT instead deceives people into "using it" in the manner that benefits IT rather than you. The fact that these creations were all along created for our own FREE USE as WE see fit is not what I am contesting; I am lending my opinion that the CONSTRUCTORS have implemented and maintained a mechanism by which that truth is obfuscated under their magic spell of "legal jargon" for numerous unrighteous incentives which should be evident by the fruits of that endeavor.

David Merrill
04-03-11, 04:43 PM
I agree with that; my point is... that is NOT how it is presented to ANYONE by the constructing entity. IT instead deceives people into "using it" in the manner that benefits IT rather than you. The fact that these creations were all along created for our own FREE USE as WE see fit is not what I am contesting; I am lending my opinion that the CONSTRUCTORS have implemented and maintained a mechanism by which that truth is obfuscated under their magic spell of "legal jargon" for numerous unrighteous incentives which should be evident by the fruits of that endeavor.

This sounds all Devil's Advocate but;


Look over the construction of DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT:

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certification.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certification2.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certification3.jpg

Now you should ask yourself who is the constructing party, there at the bottom of doc 3 - in 1971? The constructing party was obviously me, the 12-year old boy with a paying steady job as maintenance man.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certification4.jpg

I deconstructed the properties of my construction by simply stating the truth, decades later in life. I formed the same quorum on the original birth certificate to witness I am David Merrill. Still David Merrill.

Frederick Burrell
04-03-11, 04:46 PM
I agree AJ, but they have the guns. So as far as they are concerned might is right.

Here is one I heard from a guy promoting remedy on a talkshoe program today. See how this sets with you.

"All the New World Order is trying to do is get people to work together, thats all there trying to do." quote from imbatman57.

He is using the 4 corners method. fB

Anthony Joseph
04-03-11, 04:53 PM
This sounds all Devil's Advocate but;


Look over the construction of DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT:

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certification.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certification2.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certification3.jpg

Now you should ask yourself who is the constructing party, there at the bottom of doc 3 - in 1971? The constructing party was obviously me, the 12-year old boy with a paying steady job as maintenance man.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certification4.jpg

I deconstructed the properties of my construction by simply stating the truth, decades later in life. I formed the same quorum on the original birth certificate to witness I am David Merrill. Still David Merrill.

I get what you are saying; ultimately is it us that brings "life" to the construction. However, when a young boy or girl is taught from the very beginning that his/her "name" is 'First Middle Last' and the "birth certificate" presented to him/her shows that "name" as "proof" of what was taught, then the '12-year old boy' has been deceived into using those constructions in a manner which mostly benefits the facilitator of the deceit rather than the 12-year old boy's best interests. The evidence of that engrained and intentional false conditioning and deceit is the length of time it took you to realize that - "decades later".

motla68
04-03-11, 05:04 PM
That is just childish. If I was born underground, I would suffocate. You will not find these unrealistic gyrations of yours going on in real life.



Thanks for developing this for me/us to read.

Keep in mind that in reality, these close must be breached before the tort manifests. In other words, the idealism of Motla is upsetting to people who have real life experience. Motla68 has no success in court, he would know that if he were indeed a court of competent jurisdiction. If he were then he would understand that there is no use trying to convince one without respecting rules of evidence. He says he gives the DA a robin egg-blue wrapped papering package and the case goes away but that has never actually happened. That is why he stops there. He has no evidence. If you can't show it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhLpy-1pVfI) to us Motla, it does not exist! Well, maybe to people who like to believe without evidence... incompetent courts.

The effective application of remedy is to supersede the words of art with reality. I was born within the survey called Colorado.


P.S.




You don't listen to yourself. If you had any answers, then you might have the respect to swallow your arrogance. You just think you have the answers and are so far above us all that you don't needs to show us how you got to be so smart.

hmmm, what is more childish, making a joke or counterfeiting posts? Is there anything in your character other then always being a critic and judgmental yourself?

AS for the other stuff, I have provided links to information as to how I know what I have come to know, where I get information from, if your too lazy to click on them then stop making comments about your presumptions and assumptions, Just admit to it that your so conceited you think your better then me by not giving me the same consideration that I have given you when it comes to clicking on links and downloading files from your google account public repository.

motla68
04-03-11, 05:18 PM
I am aware (now) that the BC is documentation from within the STATE OF XXXX that a vessel (person) has been "birthed" and that the STATE awaits the assumed voluntary acceptance of the living soul, around whom the BC was formed, to take on the burden of fiduciary/surety of that vessel. This is an automatic action whenever a child is born into the world on this land AT A HOSPITAL. If a child is born at home or elsewhere absent STATE cognizance or interference, the STATE, once aware of a "new energy-source prospect", does everything in its power to bring that child unto itself and within the U.S. trust-system. After all, the scheme does not work well if you allow any "fish" to "get away".

I contend that the main purpose behind this activity and mechanism is DISHONORABLE AT ITS CORE since the STATE acts as nothing more than a "soul harvester" without any regard for whats best for that living soul it is after. The main concern and purpose is to harness the energy and sweat equity of any and ALL living souls on this land BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY in order to continue maintaining the "beast" which serves the few who are in control of it at the expense and detriment of unsuspecting, unwitting and intentionally conditioned/misinformed people.

I ask any and all here...

WHAT RIGHTFUL AND LAWFUL CLAIM CAN BE VALID FROM THAT DISHONORABLE POSITION AND STANDING?

I opine that from that dishonor, all claims of sovereignty, authority, power and jurisdiction over the creations from that dishonorable entity and mechanism are NULL AND VOID when attempted against a righteous and peaceful inhabitant on the land who declares and exhibits competence and superior honorable standing within the supreme Divine Trust in the Almighty Creator.

What that translates to, in my opinion, is FREE REIGN USUFRUCT over any creation of man, in our own right, for the righteous purposes of living life on this land in peace but NOT for material or personal gain. We use whatever tool or creation we deem as necessary in this day and age in order to "live a life" and provide and protect ourselves and our families.

If the STATE and its U.S. TRUST principal wish to claim rightful sovereignty over what it creates, then start acting in honor with FULL DISCLOSURE and an OVERT GOOD FAITH EFFORT to not continue the intentional deception, conditioning, concealment, omission and overall DISHONOR it displays and acts upon whenever it decides to target and entrap a living soul on this land. Until then, the claims from that dishonrable position and standing have ZERO significance or force of law upon a righteous man or woman who is aware and "calls them on it".

No "government" is deserving of respect or obedience if its main objective is to chattelize the flesh and bone of God's children under less than honest means to say the least. This is repugnant and an abomination before our Creator and that renders the creations of men responsible for this evil FREE GAME for those of us who have gained this knowledge.

After all, I believe that this government/trust is here to charitably protect and defend our interests and claims. We are the heirs to God's Kingdom on earth and these "oath-takers" are to be doing God's Work; giving freely their service to that end.

Can you find any evidence beyond a reasonable doubt it is not the states who have Full Faith and Credit and NOT the State usufructuary itself?

See attachment:
217

Anthony Joseph
04-03-11, 05:20 PM
Can you find any evidence beyond a reasonable doubt it is not the states who have Full Faith and Credit and NOT the State usufructuary itself?

See attachment:
217

You'll have to rephrase your question; double negative.

David Merrill
04-03-11, 05:27 PM
hmmm, what is more childish, making a joke or counterfeiting posts? Is there anything in your character other then always being a critic and judgmental yourself?

AS for the other stuff, I have provided links to information as to how I know what I have come to know, where I get information from, if your too lazy to click on them then stop making comments about your presumptions and assumptions, Just admit to it that your so conceited you think your better then me by not giving me the same consideration that I have given you when it comes to clicking on links and downloading files from your google account public repository.

I consider that an attack on my character, based in a false accusation that I have been counterfeiting posts; whatever that means.

Hopefully you will support that soon. You admit that the missing links to understanding your technology are secret and yet you will call me lazy because you will not just attach the source materials within this forum. I think if you are here on this forum, you best start using it to make it easier to understand what you preach around here, and fast.



Seriously,

David Merrill.

motla68
04-03-11, 05:29 PM
You'll have to rephrase your question; double negative.

oops, talking to my wife at same time, sorry.

Can you find any evidence beyond a reasonable doubt it is not the state usufructuary who have Full Faith and Credit versus the inhabitant people themselves as so many believe it relates to?
Yes, there is people in the state, people who signed the Constitution BUT the word " people " is pretty general statement unless it specifies what people, would you agree?

The Paderford vs. City of Savannah Case seems to make this distinction I believe.

218

David Merrill
04-03-11, 05:36 PM
oops, talking to my wife at same time, sorry.

Can you find any evidence beyond a reasonable doubt it is not the state usufructuary who have Full Faith and Credit versus the inhabitant people themselves as so many believe it relates to?
Yes, there is people in the state, people who signed the Constitution BUT the word " people " is pretty general statement unless it specifies what people, would you agree?

The Paderford vs. City of Savannah Case seems to make this distinction I believe.

218


Ms. PEET signing her oath of office makes her a party to the Constitution.

Her oath of office is a fungible fidelity bond assuring her performance will be as such - pursuant to the constitutions. Your misinterpretation of the Padelford opinion is common.

motla68
04-03-11, 05:43 PM
I consider that an attack on my character, based in a false accusation that I have been counterfeiting posts; whatever that means.

Hopefully you will support that soon. You admit that the missing links to understanding your technology are secret and yet you will call me lazy because you will not just attach the source materials within this forum. I think if you are here on this forum, you best start using it to make it easier to understand what you preach around here, and fast.


2nd sentence relating to the image above it using the link below from this forum, is this not you?

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?109-Coresource-Solution-attempts-to-disclose-from-man-on-the-land-since-1968&p=1468&viewfull=1#post1468

Maybe next time remember to make a notation to the readers that it was you that put the insertion in?

If you missed it, the consideration is since we have to click on a link to download from your public google repository why will you not give us the same consideration?

motla68
04-03-11, 05:48 PM
Ms. PEET signing her oath of office makes her a party to the Constitution.

Her oath of office is a fungible fidelity bond assuring her performance will be as such - pursuant to the constitutions. Your misinterpretation of the Padelford opinion is common.

Alright now in that thought, where is our oath of office a fungible fidelity bond we signed off on assuring performance to be a part of the Constitution?

Please do explain your position on this case with inserted documentation to back up your position? thank you

David Merrill
04-03-11, 06:01 PM
2nd sentence relating to the image above it using the link below from this forum, is this not you?

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?109-Coresource-Solution-attempts-to-disclose-from-man-on-the-land-since-1968&p=1468&viewfull=1#post1468

Maybe next time remember to make a notation to the readers that it was you that put the insertion in?

If you missed it, the consideration is since we have to click on a link to download from your public google repository why will you not give us the same consideration?

Simply because I provide source and otherwise productive learning explanatory documentation in the Google Link Library. All you have been providing is the excuse that your source docs are secret.

You are telling us, on the other thread that Coresource Solution can pay a roofer for his work. That is what you keep evading by quibbling about my misjudgment about inserting my name in red, in brackets for some people who can't wrap their minds around your obfuscation.

This is really a compliment though - to StSC that you will not or cannot play nicely in a learning forum, yet you cannot find any other sandbox to play in!

David Merrill
04-03-11, 06:05 PM
Alright now in that thought, where is our oath of office a fungible fidelity bond we signed off on assuring performance to be a part of the Constitution?

Please do explain your position on this case with inserted documentation to back up your position? thank you


I guess it does not dawn on you that for people to want to learn from you they have to like you first.

I am not going to keep trying to mop up after you, or try to stay ahead of your misdirection. I know many of the folks here are smart enough not to bother with your kind of fun.

motla68
04-03-11, 06:23 PM
Coresource Solution can pay a roofer for his work. That is what you keep evading by quibbling about my misjudgment about inserting my name in red, in brackets for some people who can't wrap their minds around your obfuscation.

This is really a compliment though - to StSC that you will not or cannot play nicely in a learning forum, yet you cannot find any other sandbox to play in!

I did not say Coresource Solution can pay a roofer for his work, you have misinterpreted this and keep throwing it back in my face as I have explained already among your fascinations with Sheriff Harrison.

Ok, what have you not addressed the links I have provided information to in the context of consideration? A lot of that information is how the documents happened in the first place directly linking to what I consider private and it would be of dishonor to those who own the property. So links is all that I can give on it.

Please explain to me how misjudments is playing nicely both in quoting of posts and what was mentioned above?

motla68
04-03-11, 06:29 PM
I guess it does not dawn on you that for people to want to learn from you they have to like you first.

I am not going to keep trying to mop up after you, or try to stay ahead of your misdirection. I know many of the folks here are smart enough not to bother with your kind of fun.

This just simply does not address what I asked, if anything your reply here is a misdirection of assumption and presumption.

David Merrill
04-03-11, 08:22 PM
I did not say Coresource Solution can pay a roofer for his work, you have misinterpreted this and keep throwing it back in my face as I have explained already among your fascinations with Sheriff Harrison.

Ok, what have you not addressed the links I have provided information to in the context of consideration? A lot of that information is how the documents happened in the first place directly linking to what I consider private and it would be of dishonor to those who own the property. So links is all that I can give on it.

Please explain to me how misjudments is playing nicely both in quoting of posts and what was mentioned above?


Right! While you are the one who linked your post to the other thread, you say I am off topic!

I've spent enough time bickering with you. You posted what you posted and it is easy to interpret even without my interpretation. You imply that there is a funding program in the Treasury for private business in a privy purse. I say you are in error and keep showing the proof (http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/7078/birthcertnobond.jpg).

Richard Earl
04-03-11, 08:42 PM
I can't wrap my head around the AFV method. This, to me, seems it would just constantly increase the country's debt - expanding the obligations of the United States. I just don't see how that is a good thing.

motla68
04-03-11, 09:19 PM
Right! While you are the one who linked your post to the other thread, you say I am off topic!

I've spent enough time bickering with you. You posted what you posted and it is easy to interpret even without my interpretation. You imply that there is a funding program in the Treasury for private business in a privy purse. I say you are in error and keep showing the proof (http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/7078/birthcertnobond.jpg).

Fine, you did not have to comment on it. You had a choice written on the wall. Sometimes "we" ( you and I without perfection) make mistakes all the time, that is just nature of man.
Unfortunately the public got a benefit they had not signed up for, for that I do apologize to the public.

motla68
04-03-11, 09:23 PM
I can't wrap my head around the AFV method. This, to me, seems it would just constantly increase the country's debt - expanding the obligations of the United States. I just don't see how that is a good thing.

It is not a good thing and I do not think either schools of thought here suggest such a thing. People have mistaken what we do with CS method on remittances as AFV, but Indemnification is not the same thing.