Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 52

Thread: Boris

  1. #31
    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.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  2. #32
    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.

  3. #33
    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.

  4. #34
    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.

  5. #35
    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.

  6. #36

    upu, passports, and social security

    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!



    Quote Originally Posted by looking for truth View Post
    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.

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    The State of Soleterra
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by looking for truth View Post
    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.

  8. #38
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,596
    Quote Originally Posted by walter View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Michael Joseph; 05-17-15 at 09:48 PM.
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    Lawful Money Trust Website

    Divine Mind Community Call - Sundays 8pm EST

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  9. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    The State of Soleterra
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Joseph View Post
    Declare Thyself. Stake a Claim.
    and yet who does?
    oh wait...they did

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by looking for truth View Post
    ...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.
    Manufacturing (i.e. making things) or provision of labor is not commercial. As in, artificers are not merchants. Merchants do not necessarily manufacture anything and only buy, sell or speculate in things made by others.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •