"And now, the Rest of the Story". Calling Mr Walker Todd to the stand for the defense

[Nukeweldor]

623

Some very revealing testimony by Dr. Walker Todd, Federal Reserve Lawer and Expert witness for the Defense. 132 Pages of un-molested text which I received directly from a trusted and well known source seeking fair justice, & the Truth on the Record in the Court. The torchbearer for "American's with Class", a group whom I support, in every way possible, the real man who is working for all Americans on his own dime and by donation...Rodney-Dale:Class.

He has, or rather his numerous supporters have several websites. The present main site is at and therein provides tangible documented proof of every element of the arguments he makes and the conclusions presented in his state and federal court cases taking the fight to the enemy by making them choke on their own words. So far, NO State or Federal Court has been able to make even a peep following the receipt of Rods paperwork on licensed travel and income taxes in America. Check it out!! An actual American Patriot!

Check him out if you are not already familiar with his work. No Paytriot Psychobabble Bullshit, just the facts and the law as it is now understood, thanks to Rod and his team.

[motla68]

Good chunk of history there in edification, although the validation of the monetary system goes much deeper then that, mainly who has faith and gives it credit. And also being deeper meaning a much simpler meaning, if the business is licensed by the state they are on the hook to accept certain forms of currency and if they refuse those certain forms then you can take them to court for them to speak to their superior, the licensor. It is the circle of life.
But aside from the currency we have today lets say your in a small town, you need fuel for your tractor but there is no paper currency in town. The merchant will only accept eggs, you do not have eggs and you grow grains, you have a farmer friend who has chickens to get eggs from that needs grains to feed his chickens. Your harvest has not come in yet so you setup an arrangement with your farmer friend, he holds the tractor in trust upon future performance and pays the merchant eggs so you can have fuel. Pretty slick hugh? You may not believe it, but this IS what is in place today, the only added difference is names our changed, the STATE(legal owner IN TRUST) holds the gold and is the insurance/assurance policy holder to redeem all the players on the board and that indemnity is HJR 192(House Joint Resolution), proof of indemnity is that Certificate of Live Birth/ Birth Certificate. 630 Cheers!

[shikamaru]

If the State is beneficial owner, who is the legal owner?

[David Merrill]

I believe it is much simpler than all that.

If the bail bond says pay under IN GOD WE TRUST then that sets the specie of the transaction. Therefore a proper Oath of Office, properly subscribed in proper form swearing by that same ever-living God and published with the correct clerk is a fungible fidelity bond. If you can see this connection of specie - US currency notes - and you can understand the relationships then the complicated stuff becomes nonsense.



http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/6152/suthersfungiblefidelity.jpg


Need I point out that Motla68 is not showing us any details or cause (forms) and effect (setoff)? I am not calling him a liar, I am just saying that it is dangerous to be dazzled by Internet posts into acting on them like actually filling out a 1099 and sending it all around hoping to make charges disappear.

[David Merrill]

Here are a couple items about that Walker Fowler TODD case. I have some more in a directory somewhere...


http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/6865/doc186testimonyofwalker.pdf
http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/1007/verdictformnotguilty.pdf
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/3558/birthcertworth635kwalke.jpg
http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/5859/walkerfowlertoddonhjr19.jpg


I have this much because I was teasing the Quatludes about it the other day.



Nope. Lewis Vincent and I go way back but that case is huge so I did not want to get wrapped up in it. Walker's testimony is Doc 186!


When the first 'leaked' Testimony of Walker Todd doc was passed on the Internet I called him to discuss it. He was planning to file that into a case when somebody grabbed it off his desk and put it out there. So he declined to file it, and apparently spent some time disavowing it. Attached is the early 'unfiled affidavit' rendition. Apparently now that nearly identical verbiage is on the USDC record, it can no longer be disavowed.

[motla68]

If the State is beneficial owner, who is the legal owner?

Sorry shikamaru, I mis-quoted that, but it is corrected now. State is legal owner, we are beneficial owner and shareholder;

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?377-Shareholders-of-the-land-in-equitable-interests.-A-beneficial-owner.&p=3946&viewfull=1#post3946

[motla68]

I believe it is much simpler than all that.

If the bail bond says pay under IN GOD WE TRUST then that sets the specie of the transaction. Therefore a proper Oath of Office, properly subscribed in proper form swearing by that same ever-living God and published with the correct clerk is a fungible fidelity bond. If you can see this connection of specie - US currency notes - and you can understand the relationships then the complicated stuff becomes nonsense.



http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/6152/suthersfungiblefidelity.jpg


Need I point out that Motla68 is not showing us any details or cause (forms) and effect (setoff)? I am not calling him a liar, I am just saying that it is dangerous to be dazzled by Internet posts into acting on them like actually filling out a 1099 and sending it all around hoping to make charges disappear.

Yes David, good posting. It is pretty obvious there is a ecclesiastical side to this as well, you can follow the commercial lineage back to the Papas Bull where the Pope names himself Vicar of the world, that be their God. Here is some interesting language from state statutes relating to their trust structure:

North Carolina General Statutes § 36C-1-111 Nonjudicial settlement agreements

(a) For purposes of this section, "interested persons" means persons whose consent would be required in order to achieve a binding settlement were the settlement to be approved by the court.

(b) Interested persons may enter into a binding nonjudicial settlement agreement with respect to any of the following matters involving a trust:

(1) The approval of a trustee's report or accounting;

(2) Direction to a trustee to perform or refrain from performing a particular administrative act or the grant to a trustee of any necessary or desirable administrative power, including a power granted under G.S. 36C‑8‑816;

(3) The resignation or appointment of a trustee and the determination of a trustee's compensation;

(4) Transfer of a trust's principal place of administration; and

(5) Liability of a trustee for any action taken under subdivisions (1) through (4) of this subsection.

(c) A nonjudicial settlement agreement is valid only to the extent it does not violate a material purpose of the trust and includes terms and conditions that could be properly approved by the court under this Chapter or other applicable law.

(d) Any interested person may request the court to approve a nonjudicial settlement agreement, to determine whether the representation as provided in Article 3 of this Chapter was adequate, and to determine whether the agreement contains terms and conditions the court could have properly approved. (2005‑192, s. 2.)

There you go, the possibility of settling something non-judicially before a public court appearance ever happens.

You are also correct on the latter, I cannot guarantee that the 1099-C thing will work for anyone else as it has done for me or others that have done it. I also cannot guarantee the frame of mind the clerk will be in at the time either for which you may have to go through red tape to accomplish the same thing. Due diligence of course is needed to find out exactly what 1099-C is for, just do not take my word for it. Next time I go get a copy of the driving record I will be sure to try and remember to post it here though.

[Michael Joseph]

in my opinion, the State ACTS as Beneficiary because the Presumption of the true Beneficiary has not been settled. The Trust Certificate in my opinion is a Certificate of Beneficial Interest. It has no value in itself as value in a trust cannot be known until the Trust Corpus has been valued.

As such, I have been fond of CLAIMING the Beneficial Interest. I then issue ORDERS.

Stop and think. The Judge is asking for an ORDER, yes? From whom? The Trustee? Hardly. The Executor seeks an ORDER from the Beneficiary. That only leaves one office and that is Trustee. That would be your office if you do not settle the fact that you are Beneficiary prior to the Board of Trustees meeting.

Else, you are Beneficiary of the estate FIRST MIDDLE LAST and who better to Administer the estate than you. So why don't you appoint yourself as Executor with the Power of Direction. Now that only leaves one office and that would be Trustee. But there are two players right? The Judge/State. Is that two or is that really just one? In fact it is just one - Trustee. And the Trustee awaits your Order.

The Claim is powerful as I see nowhere in any Notice where any Claim has been made. So why go "At Law" where the Attorner's are "at Large"? Why not go "In Law" - Equity - where the Attorner's are estopped at the Bar.

Example. The Whore who was to be stoned for being caught in the act.

The Law said she is to be stoned. But Yehoshuah went to Equity - and in equity you must have clean hands. Yehoshuah asked "who here is without sin"? Then for the fourth time the hand of God wrote with the Finger of God - I wonder what he wrote? Yet all of her accusers packed up and left.

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

Back to Trustee....If you ACT as a Trustee when you are NOT that is a de son tort Trustee.

[motla68]

in my opinion, the State ACTS as Beneficiary because the Presumption of the true Beneficiary has not been settled. The Trust Certificate in my opinion is a Certificate of Beneficial Interest. It has no value in itself as value in a trust cannot be known until the Trust Corpus has been valued.

As such, I have been fond of CLAIMING the Beneficial Interest. I then issue ORDERS.

Stop and think. The Judge is asking for an ORDER, yes? From whom? The Trustee? Hardly. The Executor seeks an ORDER from the Beneficiary. That only leaves one office and that is Trustee. That would be your office if you do not settle the fact that you are Beneficiary prior to the Board of Trustees meeting.

Else, you are Beneficiary of the estate FIRST MIDDLE LAST and who better to Administer the estate than you. So why don't you appoint yourself as Executor with the Power of Direction. Now that only leaves one office and that would be Trustee. But there are two players right? The Judge/State. Is that two or is that really just one? In fact it is just one - Trustee. And the Trustee awaits your Order.

The Claim is powerful as I see nowhere in any Notice where any Claim has been made. So why go "At Law" where the Attorner's are "at Large"? Why not go "In Law" - Equity - where the Attorner's are estopped at the Bar.

Example. The Whore who was to be stoned for being caught in the act.

The Law said she is to be stoned. But Yehoshuah went to Equity - and in equity you must have clean hands. Yehoshuah asked "who here is without sin"? Then for the fourth time the hand of God wrote with the Finger of God - I wonder what he wrote? Yet all of her accusers packed up and left.

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

Back to Trustee....If you ACT as a Trustee when you are NOT that is a de son tort Trustee.

Yes, you are correct on that. Reread the linked posting carefully, there is a distinction there between Beneficiary and beneficial-owner which
is the same thing as saying one with a beneficial interest or shareholder;

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?377-Shareholders-of-the-land-in-equitable-interests.-A-beneficial-owner.&p=3946&viewfull=1#post3946

[David Merrill]

She was caught in the act...


Hmmm! So Jesus was actually saying, Which one of you men had his pants down, entrapping this poor woman?

Think about it. How can you catch just a woman alone in The Act?


There is an inscription written on paper, and this is steeped in hot water to make a tea. That tea is given to the woman and if it makes her sick, that indicts her for adultery. Sounds sort of Salem Witch Hunt to us these days. I have heard speculation that inscription is what Jesus was writing in the sand.

[David Merrill]

Yes David, good posting...


(d) Any interested person may request the court to approve a nonjudicial settlement agreement, to determine whether the representation as provided in Article 3 of this Chapter was adequate, and to determine whether the agreement contains terms and conditions the court could have properly approved. (2005‑192, s. 2.)

There you go, the possibility of settling something non-judicially before a public court appearance ever happens.

You are also correct on the latter, I cannot guarantee that the 1099-C thing will work for anyone else as it has done for me or others that have done it. I also cannot guarantee the frame of mind the clerk will be in at the time either for which you may have to go through red tape to accomplish the same thing. Due diligence of course is needed to find out exactly what 1099-C is for, just do not take my word for it. Next time I go get a copy of the driving record I will be sure to try and remember to post it here though.

Thank you for posting that information about that possibility.

When I feel a twang of anger to hear somebody saying that my ego around here comes off in my postings, I have to figure they are probably right. Especially when nobody else is chiming in with me in support.

What you say though, to me anyway, is that you could run your process across your scanner and show us 'what worked for you' yet you will not do so. To me, that is teasing - at best. Worse though, is that you did not get the results you say or you are keeping the superfluous fluff about the 1099-C Form front stage when redeeming lawful money is what triggered setoff.

If nobody else minds useless undetailed descriptions followed by lack of guarantee I guess I will bite my tongue.

Here is a little more on it though for Motla68 to please point out some details:

1099-C Form. (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1099c.pdf)

The Instructions for both the debtor and the creditor are included in the Form. Please tell us in a little more detail how these are used to make a ticket or charge disappear?

[motla68]

This was another one of them things I did back in 2004 so I no longer have the copies of my work, but I can describe per your link to the form:

- Creditors name is the Person you use, in federal ID field put the SSN (no dashes )

- Debtors ID is the courthouse EIN if you can get it, otherwise leave it blank, debtor name is the courthouse , Account # is the case number.

- put in date ticket was paid box 1, amount in line 2, leave line 3 blank.

- Description put in " Settled Bonded Transaction ".

- The rest leave blank.

Should only take 2 weeks, no more then 3 weeks after they receive the paperwork. I would include a copy of the ticket or DMV printout if you can. Follow IRS form instruction of what copy of 1099C goes where.