Our ‘Military Rule’ Cause & Cure

[doug555]

Our ‘Military Rule’ Cause & Cure

The need for the remedy provided by common law and its ancient institutions (grand jury) is becoming more apparent as the "legalized plunder" by the unelected "runaway administrative agencies" that exist under current "military rule" is becoming more intrusive and abusive, and causing serious harm and injury to the people.

Likewise the need for the "Indorsed Bill Remedy" is becoming more apparent as more people lose their homes because they have lost their jobs and cannot pay their bills.

But when did we initially get under this "military rule", with all of its statutes, codes, rules and regulations?


... Continue reading -->

https://drive.google.com/folderview?...XM&usp=sharing

[Anthony Joseph]

Some material to ponder regarding the military occupation/control extant on this land.

http://www.iamsomedude.com/military_control.html

Further reading regarding the "forced pledge"; seizure of TITLE, by the occupying force, to the NAME/person/vessel in which man places his entire life's work (credit/value) - the transmitting utility for the usufruct.

http://www.iamsomedude.com/bailor.html

The premise here is that consideration was taken and thus consideration MUST be reciprocated. The consideration offered is the gift of 'safe harbor' on an occupied land. The gift, however, has yet to be completed since there is a possibility that the one who was seized of his Title to property may come forth and make a claim to that Title; claim OWNERSHIP. Since the State has appropriated said Title through emergency war measures, a claim of OWNERSHIP of said Title constitutes an adverse claim; hence the designation of 'enemy of the State'.

The "cure" or "remedy" for this presumption/designation is to surrender the reversionary interest of all Title to property in the NAME to and for the account of the United States hence completing the gift and removing all possibility of any adverse claim of seized Title. The man is now indemnified from all liability, charges or bills against the NAME since the United States has full vested interest in said NAME and any claim against it is an adverse claim against United States interests - piracy.

So, by accepting the gift and acknowledging the pledge (surrender the reversionary/usufructuary interest in the NAME), in fulfillment of the last line of the Declaration of Independence, we become valuable assets to the public trust and the United States, which will protect said assets with great vigor against all enemies foreign and domestic, according to this theory.

What say you?

[doug555]

Some material to ponder regarding the military occupation/control extant on this land.

http://www.iamsomedude.com/military_control.html

Further reading regarding the "forced pledge"; seizure of TITLE, by the occupying force, to the NAME/person/vessel in which man places his entire life's work (credit/value) - the transmitting utility for the usufruct.

http://www.iamsomedude.com/bailor.html

The premise here is that consideration was taken and thus consideration MUST be reciprocated. The consideration offered is the gift of 'safe harbor' on an occupied land. The gift, however, has yet to be completed since there is a possibility that the one who was seized of his Title to property may come forth and make a claim to that Title; claim OWNERSHIP. Since the State has appropriated said Title through emergency war measures, a claim of OWNERSHIP of said Title constitutes an adverse claim; hence the designation of 'enemy of the State'.

The "cure" or "remedy" for this presumption/designation is to surrender the reversionary interest of all Title to property in the NAME to and for the account of the United States hence completing the gift and removing all possibility of any adverse claim of seized Title. The man is now indemnified from all liability, charges or bills against the NAME since the United States has full vested interest in said NAME and any claim against it is an adverse claim against United States interests - piracy.

So, by accepting the gift and acknowledging the pledge (surrender the reversionary/usufructuary interest in the NAME), in fulfillment of the last line of the Declaration of Independence, we become valuable assets to the public trust and the United States, which will protect said assets with great vigor against all enemies foreign and domestic, according to this theory.

What say you?

AWESOME ANALYSIS!!!

OK, now we have a SOLID BENCHMARK for this PARADIGM from which to test practical applications thereof!

NOW, about this "surrender"... When and How is it executed?

1. Must it be a complete one-time transfer/surrender of ALL "reversionary/usufructuary interest in the NAME"?

OR

2. Can it be done as partial surrenders as each adverse claim (Ex: a "bill") is presented to the NAME?

Here is a test case template of what I have developed based on Boris's technology to-date, as of the "Surrender to Win" 3/3/14 Youtube video:

SURRENDER TEMPLATE (cf. my "Indorsed Bill Remedy" THREAD and POST)

Post feedback and questions here in this thread so we can prepare for a test case...

NOTE:
The above paradigm accommodates my assertion that: "Each bill one receives can act as lawful money (United States Notes)."

In this paradigm, the "bill" is simply the instrument (CURRENCY) used to effect the surrender/transfer of the "reversionary/usufructuary interest in the NAME" to the United States Treasury, and giving a due process PUBLIC NOTICE of same via a UCC-3 Assignment with the Secretary of State's office, who is the proper intermediary between the two worlds (real vs FICTION).

The BILL in effect is NOT a BILL. In the above scenario, it truly acts like a "credit voucher" that simply needs your approval, and indorsement "For Deposit Only to the US Treasury".

The "credit" is the "reversionary/usufructuary interest in the NAME" - which you are holding the COLB for as its "naked owner" who was re-vested with same interest when you "appeared" to be alive by using the NAME. The UCC-1 template is needed to show that you have accepted this "gift", on now CLAIM it (the "reversionary/usufructuary EQUITABLE interest in the NAME"). NOTE: The State always had the interest in the LEGAL title to the NAME ever since COLB was registered.

If you do not surrender this interest to enable the US to set-off the corresponding national debt, you will be seen as an "Enemy of the State" because you are causing an increase in the National Debt and endangering our National Security!

IMO...

What say you?

[Anthony Joseph]

I believe it best, if one chooses to execute this "assignment of reversionary interest", to make it a one-time FULL transfer/assignment thereby (theoretically) collapsing all presumptions/assumptions of "enemy of the State" status. This will, according to the theory, end the need to constantly "respond" or "answer" to each individual claim, charge or bill since the United States MUST now appoint an official trustee to handle these matters as the United States is now fully vested in the NAME as obligatory usufructuary.

We continue our inherent right of enjoyment as heirs to the earth in covenant with the Creator; and, 'Caesar' (the State) gets rendered unto it Title/Ownership of persons and property. This is what the sons and daughters of our Father in Heaven are commanded to do; give freely all that we have for the benefit of our brothers and sisters (surrender reversionary interest) and to 'come out of Her' so as to be in the world yet NOT of the world.

Be not a respecter of persons or flattering Titles. Do not claim to be OWNER since that cancels one's right and standing as heir.

So, what is it that we would really be giving up (surrendering)?

the notion/illusion of OWNERSHIP
flattering Titles
respect of persons
the desire to hang on to the material world

and what is it that we retain?

position and standing as heirs to the earth
[quiet] enjoyment of, and right to, property we deem necessary to fulfill our purpose
protection and defense of the above by those appointed and obligated to fulfill the same
our covenant with the Father as His sons and daughters


Sounds like where I want to be.

[Keith Alan]

It sounds to me like it boils down to accepting the role of agent in the agency organization that was created at birth. Any business transacted in the name of the agency then, is sent to the principal where it can be set off, settled, and discharged.

So how does redeeming FRN and/or bank credit for lawful money fit in with this?

[Chex]

So, what is it that we would really be giving up (surrendering)?

Jurisdiction generally describes any authority over a certain area or certain persons. In the law, jurisdiction sometimes refers to a particular geographic area containing a defined legal authority. For example, the federal government is a jurisdiction unto itself. Its power spans the entire United States. Each state is also a jurisdiction unto itself, with the power to pass its own laws. Smaller geographic areas, such as counties and cities, are separate jurisdictions to the extent that they have powers that are independent of the federal and state governments. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...m/Jurisdiction

CLICK ON UNDERLINED ITEMS BELOW TO GO TO THAT SECTION OF THE VIDEO

Published on Feb 27, 2014
Marc Stevens asks some very pertinent questions about court jurisdiction. This is the Public Comment portion of the 2-25-14 Tuesday City Council Meeting in Scottsdale Arizona. This affects us all across this land and may play a gigantic part in our awakening. Thank you Marc!
The full video is publicly posted here ;http://scottsdale.granicus.com/Media...6&clip_id=5741

[Chex]

So how does redeeming FRN and/or bank credit for lawful money fit in with this?

Who did this successfully? Proof Please.

I think your digging a hole for yourself with this man made law(s).

K.I.S.S.

[Anthony Joseph]

Jurisdiction generally describes any authority over a certain area or certain persons. In the law, jurisdiction sometimes refers to a particular geographic area containing a defined legal authority. For example, the federal government is a jurisdiction unto itself. Its power spans the entire United States. Each state is also a jurisdiction unto itself, with the power to pass its own laws. Smaller geographic areas, such as counties and cities, are separate jurisdictions to the extent that they have powers that are independent of the federal and state governments. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...m/Jurisdiction

CLICK ON UNDERLINED ITEMS BELOW TO GO TO THAT SECTION OF THE VIDEO

Published on Feb 27, 2014
Marc Stevens asks some very pertinent questions about court jurisdiction. This is the Public Comment portion of the 2-25-14 Tuesday City Council Meeting in Scottsdale Arizona. This affects us all across this land and may play a gigantic part in our awakening. Thank you Marc!
The full video is publicly posted here ;http://scottsdale.granicus.com/Media...6&clip_id=5741

How can a man be physically in 'Scottsdale'?

If a man claims to be in 'Scottsdale', it is true unless someone comes forth to make a verifiable claim otherwise.

If a man is in 'Scottsdale' what makes said man believe he is NOT also in the jurisdiction of 'Scottsdale'?

What else can in mean?

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=in

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/in

[Chex]

How can a man be physically in 'Scottsdale' What else can in mean?

prep.preposition

1. Within the limits, bounds, or area of.

was hit in the face; born in the spring; a chair in the garden.

2. From the outside to a point within; into.

threw the letter in the wastebasket.

3. To or at a situation or condition of.

was split in two; in debt; a woman in love.

4. Having the activity, occupation, or function of.

a life in politics; the officer in command.

5. During the act or process of.

tripped in racing for the bus.

I can see what you’re in to AJ, I guess when you can make wikipedia.org you can Etymology here

The paper boy is in route to deliver you the early morning news.

[Keith Alan]

Who did this successfully? Proof Please.

I think your digging a hole for yourself with this man made law(s).

K.I.S.S.

I'm not sure what you mean. Who did what? I'm just trying to connect the dots. I'm trying to understand the totality of what is being proposed.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the information being presented, but it appears to me that the idea under discussion involves accepting the agency that was created when the State made the birth certificate.

By accepting he appointment as agent for the NAME (I don't know how this would be done, but assuming that it could be done ...), wouldn't this bring the man into agreement with the State, thus removing the controversy that is caused by claiming the NAME as his own?

And, my question about redeeming lawful money was simply thinking of loud, as it were.