I recall watching this fellow and enjoyed his style. But my exposure is quite minimal. What I recall is that I disagree with him on some points but admire his confidence and his technique.
I have attached a UCC-1 Claim.
Printable View
I recall watching this fellow and enjoyed his style. But my exposure is quite minimal. What I recall is that I disagree with him on some points but admire his confidence and his technique.
I have attached a UCC-1 Claim.
Here is his entire UCC-1. Click Document Number link at bottom of page. Page 2 has significant collateral description
Doug,
Boris mentioned he signed the back of the UCC-3 Assignment "Pay to the Order of the United States". Can you see if you can pull that from the UCC filings as well?
Anthony,
I cannot find his UCC-3 online... but I do remember him saying what you cite above.
Here is a previous UCC-1 filed in July 2012.
Here is a list of results in Florida UCC dept for "Boris Roger Erickson".
Perhaps the "indorsement" should be "For Deposit Only to the account of the United States" ??? and let the United States indorse it?
There are two separate filings: # 201308755849 and 201400717971. Again he might know something but I don't get the impression he wholly knows what he is doing. One might do better looking into Winston Shrout's teachings since they are very much tried.
I am wondering: why not do an Accepted For Value and call it a day. No UCC filing necessary.
What is the benefit of the Bill Indorsement over A4V?
Again?
I am not going to defend! I had a phone conversation with somebody who has been through this a few years ago and we agreed this is a pretty consistent way to end up on prison.
So just watch it everybody. Tapping into the stock of the United States is a serious crime. Assuming the birth certificate is in any way a stock certificate is reckless.
Anthony Joseph;
You are not portraying this tactic in light of the many pioneers doing it that have been sent to prison.
Your ignorance precedes you.
If you deem it beneath you to actually find out what this theory is all about, that is fine; but your continued misinterpretation of the theory is getting childlike.
THERE IS NO TAPPING INTO THE STOCK OF THE UNITED STATES.
Your phone conversation with whoever has ZERO to do with this subject matter but you are too narcissistic to even realize it.
No. I am experienced enough to spot this style of financial manipulation at a glance. It is obviously based in a mythology that the birth certificate has value.
That's because the file # ends in 5749 --> 2 pages http://www.floridaucc.com/uccweb/SearchResultsDetail.aspx?sst=&sov=0&sot=Filed%20Co mpact%20Debtor%20Name%20List&st=erickson&fn=&rn=24 6232&ii=Y&ft=&epn=
Filed 13 months ago.....looks to be the beginnings of the process filed Feb 2014....who knows....time & research made him do it differently in 2014
Pg 1
- call himself "Protected Purchaser"....address where he presumably rests his head at night
- lists Upper/Lower Boris as debtor w/ an address of the State Registrar's office in Tallahassee, an unknown SSN/EIN, and an organization ID # as birth cert #
- lists ALL CAPS BORIS as creditor with an address where he presumably rests his head at night
- lists collateral as "any or all interests now due or to become due"
- Alternative designation "non UCC filing" checked
- box checked "File in the real estate records"
Pg 2
- This finance statement covers [checked] "fixture filing"
- Description of real estate "Reference State file number 109-1971-095559, book entry number 109-71-095559"
- Name and address of record owner of above described real estate "State Registrar, State of Florida, [Tallahassee address]
- Check only if applicable "Debtor is [checked] "Decedents Estate"
Welcome jukegs;
I have seen nothing to secure any confidence in the process by Boris. But then he has failed to attract my attention too...
....still there george......look for ucc filing with last 4 of "5749"
http://www.floridaucc.com/uccweb/Sea...&ii=Y&ft=&epn=
A Birth Right vs Its Certification at Birth ones now becomes Bank Note PAPER obviously a Title and who owns the paper and how its use are regulated under title.How the paper trumps Birth Right or was it created to enhance a Title if so Many flourish and so many fail under its certification of Birth it has to be a commercial gain or a loss A Banking instrument drawn on Title. Books Balance Men hang on what balance a commercial title or a spiritual void monetized birth right is not a wealthy soul .what is left for barter is the lawful money or legal tender just two sets of Books that adjusts to its Entitled on any banking . again two sets of Law and books.against all ridicule for silence never comes in pairs.
Does this UCC or AV4 thing work? People indicate that through some laws people are supposed to pay off debts this way.
Found this someone posted in the comments section on the "Peaceful Inhabitants facebook page
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...98698928493624
DONE and ORDERED.
[1] The Secretary delegated the authority to issue third-party summonses to the IRS, which, in turn, re-delegated that authority to its agents. Anderson v. United States, 236 F. App'x 491, 496 (11th Cir. 2007); La Mura v. United States, 765 F.2d 974, 978-79 (11th Cir. 1985); 26 U.S.C. §§ 7602, 7609, 7801; 26 C.F.R. § 301.7701-9.
After reading this (there is no freeman on the land)
The Government can summon any person having possession, custody, or care of records or other documents relating to the tax liability of the taxpayer being investigated.
The district courts of the United States have the authority to enforce summonses issued by the IRS, See 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402(b), 7604.
The government may apply to a district court judge for an attachment against the taxpayer as for a contempt. 26 U.S.C. § 7604.
What happened and why didn't he use 12 USC 95a(2) ???????
If, after hearing the application, the judge finds that the government presented satisfactory proof, the judge has the duty to issue an attachment for the arrest of such person, and upon his being brought before the judge to proceed to a hearing of the case.
The judge shall have the power to enter an order he or she deems proper, not inconsistent with the law for the punishment of contempt, to enforce obedience to the requirements of the summons as well as to punish the taxpayer for his default or disobedience.
Notwithstanding the court's (really the Judge, Virginia M. Hernandez Covington ) inherent power, 18 U.S.C. § 401 provides that a court of the United States has the power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion.
The Government indicates: "Because of [Erickson's] evasiveness, indifference and pococurante attitude to the Government and this Court's Order, the undersigned attorney recommends incarceration to compel [Erickson's] compliance with the summons." (Id. at 3).
This burden of production is not satisfied by a "mere assertion of inability." Id. (quoting United States v. Hayes, 722 F.2d 723, 725 (11th Cir.1984)). Rather, in this Circuit, a party subject to a court's order demonstrates inability to comply only by showing that he has made "in good faith all reasonable efforts to comply."
Argument by assertion is the logical fallacy where someone tries to argue a point by merely asserting that it is true, regardless of contradiction.
Popular guy Shatraw . Betty J. Patriot met with the IRS Revenue Officer assigned to her case, John Shatraw, on August 23, 2006, to determine the options available to her in order to satisfy the amount the IRS said she owed. She asked him about submitting an offer in compromise or a payment plan, and she was told that neither would be accepted by him or the IRS. http://www.patriotnetwork.info/Objec...rov_oflevy.htm
Why didn’t he just go forward to what he was doing?
Hummm.
Judge working the system for Founded in 1989, Psychiatrist Donald R Taylor Jr M.D. Pa is a small physician in Tampa, Florida. It has 3 full time employees and generates an estimated $170,000 in annual revenue.
3450 E Fletcher Ave # 250
Tampa, Florida 33613-4655
United States
IMHO, Kickbacks anyone?
Another victim
Robert SHULTZ exposed that albeit inadvertently. There never has been any authority to these summonses! Well, except what banks and employers breathe into them. I should point out that one of the more common Miscellaneous Case files found on PACER is the IRS/DoJ petitioning for authorization of a summons...
If you challenge or ignore the unauthorized rendition the IRS agent knows how to rectify that for $46 of Taxpayer funds.
David do you agree? All these 26 USC codes are written by and for the federal reserve bank for an IRS agent to target the usage of the federal reserve notes.
Nice link.
Youtube.
Schulz to Judge Nap - "WHAT IF" A Massive Constitution Lobby.m4v https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBQuq8jkM48#!
5 Minute Speech that Got Judge Napolitano Fired from Fox News https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgGnBCDfCLM
Its all about the monetary policy, who prints it and what does it cost to use it and who is exempt from it.
To accept a draft is to promise to pay it. From observation, a bond or something is needed to back the acceptance such as hmm a bond or some assets or something.
hi all, its been a long time between drinks.
I don't want to step on any toes regarding whether the birth certificate has any value, but my feel of it is that when 'they' took away substance backed currency 'they' then gave us birth certificates, so i expect that a connection exists. obviously that is not satisfactory in regards to the concrete evidence that this site requires, and that is the charm of this website.
from my perspective, in regards to Boris' approach (although David makes the good point that no doubt his approach has been put forward earlier by others), Boris makes the point that he would "accept for honor" not "accept for value". the distinction being that when you accept for value you are creating new currency in the private; but via the view of Boris, everything is already owned by the corporate government, so why would you create new currency to accept that offer? he accepts for honor in the case that the corporate government defaults on settling the account in 'their' public. (the likelihood of which is nil without giving their their game away)
on an aggregate level, I like Boris' approach. essentially he is saying to assign all of the property to the de jure government in the corporate government public, so if the corporate government, or its licensed private pirates, should then make a claim against the property, they are then facing treason charges from their licensing authority by the attorney general, who is still of the dejure government, so they back right off.
essentially the nuance I am picking up is that there is still a de jure government, or at least that there are specific positions are still held by them. the REST is the corporate government and 'somehow' the corporate government seems to have thread the eye of the needle and created their trust bubble legitimately under the de jure constitution, and then created their own de facto constitution within that bubble that contravenes whatever they like about the de jure constitution...
and as long as they don't then attack the de jure government then they themselves have very little to worry about.
via the current approach, the corporate government supposedly securitises our offers, making ridiculous gains, via this process (from new zealand) : http://itnabit.com/assets/downloadab...NSTRUMENTS.pdf
those gains go toward increasing 'our' national debt. BUT, via the approach of Boris, we give back our offers and its interest to the de jure government, thereby reducing the national debt and stopping us from bequeathing 'our' debts to the next generation.
anyway, i know this site is a place of fact, not conjecture, so I am simply putting forth how it seems to me. apologies for polluting your site David.
hi ag maniac,
some points to ponder:
"COMMANDED Erickson to appear at a hearing before this Court on February 13, 2014", isn't commanded a term that would be used BY a trustee? (or is it a co-trustee)
"Dr. Taylor rendered his opinion as follows: "It is my opinion within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that THE RESPONDENT IS CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE AND CONSEQUENCES of the proceedings against him and is capable of assisting properly in his defense", is it not amazing how a doctor can surmise this without a question answered, thereby bringing into question the supposed claims of the previous State courts? (and of course that word UNDERSTANDING once again rears its ugly head)
"Specifically, the Government seeks Erickson's incarceration to COMPEL his compliance", isn't compel a term that would be used AGAINST a trustee (or a co-trustee)?
to me, it looks very much like the proposition that the corporate government is co-trustee and co-beneficiary of the estate (possibly the birth certificate estate?) and with the joinder of the living being to the person involved in that estate, allowing them to construe the "living being-person" as co-trustee and co-beneficiary, seems valid.
"They" are co-trustee when they are dealing out the punishment, of a discretionary trust whereby they do not have to treat each beneficiary similarly, and the person is also the co-trustee and deemed responsible for the upkeep/cost/fines/offers of the property, and when they do not pay, the person is THEN construed to be the co-beneficiary of the benefit/detriment, with the concordant benefit of securitisation going to themselves, who are then conveniently construed as the lucky c0-beneficiary...
the point of this in regard to this thread is, Boris is overtly (expressly perhaps?), in the defacto governments public, assigning the legal ownership (title) over to the de jure governement, making them the trustee. meaning that the private mercantile agents/pirates are now trying to steal from the master, which is not going to go down very well when the master is noticed... so they drop the matter like a hot potatoe.
anyway, once again its subjecture, not fact. i think i might grow tired of apologising David, alot of how i view this stuff is from sources from everywhere and is not supported in an A to B style format; please be frank with me if you want me to stop posting without supporting evidence.
that is very cute. and it shows how the system plays it out until the very end before providing remedy/relief.
being in australia makes it largely useless to me, however, it's heart warming to know such a provision exists.
hi EZrhythm,
i wonder if it has truly "worked" if it has only been discharged, and not set-off? in theory if it was set-off, then it will be as if it never existed.
from my humble current perspective, it would appear that we are all still operating in commerce, and signing with either an unrestricted signature, or a (commercially) restricted one, like "without prejudice", "all rights reserved", "agent" etc... ALL of which allow 'them' to construe us as in commerce, and as debtor. From that they can construe themselves to have our power of attorney. When we then try to revoke/rescind our signature, with our intent balanced against their construed power of attorney, they trump us with their claim of legal title over the implied trusts. (foreign situs trust = birth certificate, cestui que trusts = social security or tax or bank accounts or drivers license or passport etc....). That means they do not have to do what we ask them, as they believe as our power of attorney that it is not in our best interests.... a sick joke to be sure.
this is the work of Christian Walters, and it makes sense. we desperately need to be signing all corporate government and bank and court documents as "by (our signature) GRANTOR/SETTLOR". This undeniably expresses the document to be a trust, with us in the controlling position of settlor, for later clarification as to the express terms of the deed. It also blocks them from construing as as operating in commerce, or being a debtor, or them having our power of attorney.
with this approach we 'should' then be able to achieve set-off. there is more to it naturally, but that is the fundamental beginning of it.
anyway, again i provide no verifiable proof for my beliefs, but it feels right.
this is more from the Boris camp, but it is mainly from a guy named Eddie, and it is a step by step process of reclaiming the recognition of being a man.
i think this forum would like it, it references specific acts etc...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7AG9FqunN0
best of luck to all!
Interesting video.
But I see errors.
There is no way in hell that by claiming your natural status makes you a nation in your own.
That is only done by self determination.
The state still holds the original "Statement of Live Birth" and until you make your own compact and deposit the SOLB in it you will always have an obligation. If not as a public citizen to the federal government but as as a man to the territorial state.
I got news for someone who wants to reclaim being a man. If you want me to acknowledge your manhood then you are already bowing your knee to me. For at once I will not recognize your standing BEFORE ME and what are you left with? The command to the Israelites was to go in and begin to possess the land. But they were afraid for they thought themselves to be mere grasshoppers in the "eyes of their [mental] giants".
Rather, I see your feeble petition as suppliant before my court. Since you ask you must trust in me. Therefore you are my subject.
A living man is a mighty God.
It is simple - Declare Thyself. Stake a Claim. Undertake to steward said Claim serving others. Sit in your court as Sovereign under Christ in I AM.
If this is your will and not the Will of I AM in Christ, then most likely you will fail. If this use is placed in you by God, then nothing can stop you. For I do not count it robbery to be equal with God.
Nevertheless, it is not about me in what i can get to set my weary mind at ease. It is about what I can give by and thru the hands of God.