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.