Page 4 of 18 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 180

Thread: Redeem From Public To Private Venue

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
    What happened to the "bunny hole"? What happened to "he is fighting his way off the battlefield"?
    Collate please, describe the discrepancy you wish to point out.


    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    I can understand why Boris continues down that bunny hole; the initial presumption that the birth certificate is a financial security is so far-fetched that nobody in the State government will even try addressing it. - At least in the USA. Therefore we have to resort to a letter a little closer to the Crown, in Canada:




    I recall how during the development of this mythology Fidelity's "Random Number Generator" would throw people into thinking they had found a CUSIP # for their birth certificate. When I first linked to Fidelity though, I tried various tests and found that I could get a CUSIP # for anything at all, even for something in the future!

    Be careful.

    If you never get information that refutes your hypothesis, that does not mean you are onto a valid theory. If the birth certificate has monetary value then it is regulated by the SEC and has a valid CUSIP #. There has never been any CUSIP # ever, assigned to a birth certificate! Never! The reason is obvious to the most casual observer...


    Regards,

    David Merrill.

    I was unaware that I might be conceding that the birth certificate is or has ever been a security, or any kind of financial instrument. At least that is how I interpret your challenge.

    Maybe I am taking it the wrong way but you seem to be taunting me with a challenge?

    So point out the connections on the reading journey Some Dude points out that would indicate the birth certificate has any monetary value, or that governments have share capital?

  2. #32
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Collate please, describe the discrepancy you wish to point out.





    I was unaware that I might be conceding that the birth certificate is or has ever been a security, or any kind of financial instrument. At least that is how I interpret your challenge.

    Maybe I am taking it the wrong way but you seem to be taunting me with a challenge?

    So point out the connections on the reading journey Some Dude points out that would indicate the birth certificate has any monetary value, or that governments have share capital?
    The point is that 'Some Dude' is not promoting or indicating the birth certificate has any "monetary value".

    The point is that you lumped 'Some Dude' [Boris] in with Robert Menard and the 'freemen on the land'/'Security of the Person' process as evidenced by you attaching that Canadian letter. The inquiries made which resulted in that letter have little to nothing to do with what 'Some Dude' is offering.

    The point is that you welcomed 'Some Dude' joyfully ("What a great idea! Especially considering that Title 12 USC §95 is the codification of the Trading with the Enemy Act. It is great to have you around.") after stating (by presumption) that his "bunny hole" opinion is "...so far-fetched that no one in the State government will try addressing it"

    The point is you erroneously dismissed Boris and his "bunny hole" in one post and say how great his "idea" is in another.

    The point is you presume to know about something without fully comprehending what it is first.

  3. #33
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,415
    my trust has value. Where i place it is my choice. This idea that some military has seized control over everyone reminds me of a princess trapped in a high tower. HERE I COME TO SAVE THE DAY....

    A trust receipt has ZERO VALUE - that is the beauty of it. Anyone skilled at trust knows this fact and knows this is an easy remedy. Making a Use however does bind one in obligation be it CONSTRUCTIVE or de-jure. For even the military commander cannot claim sovereign status for that is an impossibility. Clearly the military commander does not act on his own orders.

    Value can only be determined at SALE. Some like to BARGAIN others EXCHANGE. And man BECAME a living soul.

    Shalom
    Micha'el ben Ha Elohim
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    https://www.lawfulmoneytrust.com

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  4. #34
    If you never get information that refutes your hypothesis, that does not mean you are onto a valid theory. If the birth certificate has monetary value then it is regulated by the SEC and has a valid CUSIP #. There has never been any CUSIP # ever, assigned to a birth certificate! Never! The reason is obvious to the most casual observer...

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
    The point is that you lumped 'Some Dude' [Boris] in with Robert Menard and the 'freemen on the land'/'Security of the Person' process as evidenced by you attaching that Canadian letter. The inquiries made which resulted in that letter have little to nothing to do with what 'Some Dude' is offering....
    I failed to get the impression of David Merrill lumping Boris in with the "CUSIP crowd".

    Re: CUSIPs and the SEC
    IMHO the truth of the matter is that if one knows what the birth certificate is or the persons named therein then one would know why it would NOT have a CUSIP or need to be registered with the SEC and why diversions off into CUSIP and SEC la-la land likely might be rather derogatory and misleading. It might be helpful to know that a birth certificate typically was evidence from a keeper of a register that an entry was made into the register with the particulars of the entry being displayed on the certificate.

    And no, I'm not necessarily slighting Boris's methodology. Its interesting at the least. Its similar to other things such as A4V which AFAIK involves accepting and returning (surrendering) the certificate to the Treasury.

    Re: CUSIPs and the SEC II
    P.S. The SEC regulates the companies that are use-ing assets that do not belong to them and because the assets DO NOT belong to the companies use-ing them there be regulations. It might help for anyone to get over, if and where applicable, being awestruck and mystified by "major corporations" which obtain their very existences and their operational resources from the likes of the State, elected officials or legislative bodies.

    Re: Municipal corporations.

    Municipal corporations are creatures of the statute, and legislative power over them is plenary, except as otherwise limited by the constitution. Trimble v. People ex rel. Phelps, 19 C. 187, 190, 196 ('93'), 34 P. 981. (Mills Colorado Digest v 2 1901)
    Last edited by allodial; 05-10-14 at 02:12 AM.
    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.

  5. #35
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Joseph View Post
    my trust has value. Where i place it is my choice. This idea that some military has seized control over everyone reminds me of a princess trapped in a high tower. HERE I COME TO SAVE THE DAY....

    A trust receipt has ZERO VALUE - that is the beauty of it. Anyone skilled at trust knows this fact and knows this is an easy remedy. Making a Use however does bind one in obligation be it CONSTRUCTIVE or de-jure. For even the military commander cannot claim sovereign status for that is an impossibility. Clearly the military commander does not act on his own orders.

    Value can only be determined at SALE. Some like to BARGAIN others EXCHANGE. And man BECAME a living soul.

    Shalom
    Micha'el ben Ha Elohim
    Furthermore you can only Lease what has been leased. And that lease must be for a period of years. Consider beginnings. One must always consider the beginning was it a Freehold or a Leasehold tenancy?

    My mind can stretch to origins but it cannot go to a point before origins. Thus again I beg the meaning of the Capital Nouns.

    Shalom
    Micha'el ben Ha Elohim
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    https://www.lawfulmoneytrust.com

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Joseph View Post
    Furthermore you can only Lease what has been leased. And that lease must be for a period of years. Consider beginnings. One must always consider the beginning was it a Freehold or a Leasehold tenancy?
    Life estates ...period of time. Indeed.
    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.

  7. #37
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by allodial View Post
    I failed to get the impression of David Merrill lumping Boris in with the CUSIP crowd.

    Re: CUSIPs and the SEC
    IMHO the truth of the matter is that if one knows what the birth certificate is or the persons named therein then one would know why it would NOT have a CUSIP or need to be registered with the SEC and why diversions off into CUSIP and SEC la-la land likely might be rather derogatory and misleading. It might be helpful to know that a birth certificate typically was evidence from a keeper of a register that an entry was made into the register with the particulars of the entry being displayed on the certificate.

    And no, I'm not necessarily slighting Boris's methodology. Its interesting at the least. Its similar to other things such as A4V which AFAIK involves accepting and returning (surrendering) the certificate to the Treasury.

    Re: CUSIPs and the SEC II
    P.S. The SEC regulates the companies that are use-ing assets that do not belong to them and because the assets DO NOT belong to the companies use-ing them there be regulations. It might help for anyone to get over, if and where applicable, being awestruck and mystified by "major corporations" which obtain their very existences and their operational resources from the likes of the State, elected officials or legislative bodies.

    Re: Municipal corporations.
    I never mentioned the 'CUSIP crowd'.

    I believe that Canadian letter deals specifically with those who attempt to "access the STRAWMAN account" in order to gain the "funds" therein (a certain 'allotment' per each 'birth').

    I believe the CUSIP is "for the purposes of facilitating clearing and settlement of trades."

    I do not believe these two 'crowds' are directly related nor did I intend to address that part of David's post. If you read my post again, you will find it very clear what it is I am saying.

    In most of these other "processes", the idea is to claim, demand, "keep" or "take over" that which exists in the commercial realm - the DEAD world of paper. I believe Boris' approach is akin to "render unto Caesar..." in the FULLEST sense.

    Also, I do not believe anyone is suggesting that "...the military has seized control over everyone..."; again, that is an erroneous presumptive conclusion made due to not FULLY comprehending what Boris is putting forth.

    As man, I still retain my inherent right to property absent interference; as a son of the Most High, I still retain my heirship on the earth granted to me in covenant. The rest is just an illusionary PAPER GAME which I will gladly leave to those who are oath-bound to "play by the rules", and "protect the assets", of said GAME.

  8. #38
    CUSIPs help for tracking how securities affect the book value, balance sheet or the like of companies or entities some of which might be licensed under SEC regulations to carry out activities which require use-ing property that does not wholly belong to them (i.e. they dont have full title or allodial thus subject to regulations/rules since they are trustees). And yes it helps with settlements/clearing of trades which are facilitated through clearinghouses.

    I failed to get the impression of David Merrill lumping Boris in with the "CUSIP crowd".
    That was the only semi-response directed at you.
    Last edited by allodial; 05-10-14 at 02:12 AM.
    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.

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by iamsomedude View Post
    First and foremost ... this is all operation of INTERNATIONAL LAW under Law of Nations and natural law. read Book 1 Articles 192-199, Book 2 Articles 104, 105, 107-109, 132, 133 .... then place 12 USC 95a (2) right after those and then take all those previous articles, reverse order them and re-read ... now you have the fundamental operation of the "treaty of protection" put into place for each and every man, woman, and child at birth ... just waiting for one to complete the delivery by way of a simple "public acceptance" ... the UCC ... the Birth Certificate is a "treaty" awaiting "ratification"

    ... same thing as the "native americans" we given ... they just did not "ratify" and "indorse" it back to bind the US ... they did not know with whom they were dealing.



    We see the effects. We have put all of this into play. We have consistent and predictable results simply by implementing the underlying philosophy and standing on the one rock of 12 USC 95a (2) ... hell, we even removed a matter into Federal Court w/o a filing fee and in a non-representative capacity with a simple "seaman suit" and 42 usc 1982 and here is the kicker, we made up the entire procedure on the way home from the court case we removed.

    Simple philosophy .... this is all I use ... everyone else I have spoken with brought me the "law" and each and everything done thereafter is "in harmony with the law" so, if you all wish to read anything else into this, I will not get in the way of your happiness and success.


    responses to some questions:

    1. Are not UCC Filings only NOTICE that an event has occurred, and not the event (transfer) itself? If so, then Boris's filings are not effective, and are "frivolous" if they are not based upon a event/transfer that occurred in reality via some other documents that have been executed?

    how can the event NOT have occurred if the birth was not first registered? How about it just registers the acceptance of the offer by the United States for "safe harbor" offered under 12 USC 95a (2) and Trading with the Enemy Act 1917? Can you all accept that or must there be some other mystical reason?

    Good point. OK, I will consider the birth application for registration (pledge) as the SOURCE EVENT for my UCC-1 NOTICE of Acceptance, and my DECISION to "surrender" usufruct as the SOURCE EVENT for my UCC-3 NOTICE of Assignment. I may also start using INDORSED BILLS as the SOURCE EVENT for additional UCC-3 filings to discharge future "charges/claims" presented to NAME after the initial UCC-3 is filed. What do you think?


    2. Such "STRAWMAN" filings have been addresses recently (April,2014) by the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) report (final-nass-report-bogus-filings-040914.pdf) located in same folder link above. Perhaps Boris's filings need to be revised to avoid earmarks defined in this report.

    Not sure if there is real comprehension over what I have done. The "estate" or "Name" as you all like to call it "underwrites" or "bails out" [secures] each of its "agencies" or "trusts" .. this is simple logic. I apologize if the simplicity of this logic confounds everyone.

    OK. The main concern I have is the name appearing to be the same for the Bailor and Bailee, even though one is an "Organization" and the other is an "Individual".


    3. I do not understand how the UNITED STATES became the Secured Party in Boris's filings. In particular, the box #2 "current record" entries do NOT make sense. Would not box 7 first be used to change the Parties BEFORE being listed as such in the box #2 "current record"?

    When it occurred, I thought it was a mistake and was prepared to cancel the whole filing and redo, but then I discussed it with some people and we came to the understanding, any full assignment coverts the current secured party to the one to whom the assignment is made. we later verified this ... also, we found you CAN make the debtor and secured party one and the same; just not on the original filing. It is done thru the assignment. We have done it ... we did it during a 3 party assignment of a bail bond from the holder of the receipt to the one whom was bailed out to the united states.

    OK, that makes sense to me now, but aren't they the same on your original UCC-1 filing?


    4. Can one legitimately make a full assignment conditional?

    the condition is per operation of law and in harmony with the intent of the law as it is based upon the workings of the 1864 Banking Act which is still the foundation of the banking system.

    OK, but can you specify what "operation of law" is effective here? The 1864 Banking Act law, or the law governing trusts?


    5. Perhaps it would be better to assign this property to "Alien Property Custodian" (APC) in accordance with 12 USC 95a and 50 USC App, section 6 and section 7 since the APC is charged with the duty of paying the bills of the "enemy"?

    The original text of the 1917 Trading with the enemy Act reads "United States" ... 12 USC 95a (2) reads "United States" ... Assign it to them and let them figure out to whom they forward the matter.

    OK. I agree. Did you know that the APC office was Abolished: By EO 11281, May 13, 1966, effective June 30, 1966? It now resides in DOJ Civil Division, with Stuart F. Delery as the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Director of the Office of Alien Property? Perhaps we should send the UCC filing acknowledgements to him?


    The "reversion" takes effect "at death" and each and every matter concerning the court is basically a probate matter, when the "claimant" petitions the court and the court probates the estate, VIOLA!!! the United States is now the "secured party" and "since a general assignment for the benefit of creditors also operates to transfer the property of the principle to his assignee, such an assignment, from the time it takes effect , revokes the authority of the agent [corpus juris secundum, agencies]" then the "agent" is now "burdened" with a "fiduciary duty" to the TRUST to "acquit and discharge from further obligation" and "restore quiet enjoyment of person and property to the estate" as per the TERMS of the trust [ucc filing] and this is what is claimed in recoupment.

    FYI, we also found a one page description of each and every court case in the untied states, along with how to respond properly. It is on the www.iamsomedude.com website under "legal scans", titled "3 -feasences" ... this is really much simpler than people are making it out to be ... and as we move along using the philosophy, it gets even clearer and easier.

    I had to start here to find above cited page. This is VERY helpful!

    Firstly, Thanks for being here, Boris, and for posting such a comprehensive and helpful response. I am still learning about your material and the last video I've watch is your Mar 3, 2014 "Surrender" video in Colorado.

    Secondly, I posted my replies to you in quoted section above. I hope you will continue to share your insights and successes with us and expect that we will be able to post some of our own here too in the near future!

    Thanks again!
    Doug

  10. #40
    Anthony Joseph;


    We all filter our perceptions through various conditioned sound bytes. I will concede that value is imprinted through trust and so one is easily drawn into the delusion (abomination) that debt is money (of value). Michael Joseph puts it quite elegantly in that one can only lease what is Leased. I prefer the same mental model in that debt can only have value to the lender, and cannot sustain any value to others leaching value off that lender - or in other words you cannot lease the same room or apartment to multiple parties (families for example).

    I recall how we attended a National Common Law Grand Jury in Wichita - way back when.


    Name:  Merrill_Let_Freedom_Ring.jpg
Views: 583
Size:  159.0 KB


    Eugene SCHROEDER testified about War and Emergency Powers and I am afraid that the Economist's name escapes me but he testified about the Federal Reserve and used a great example of 'fractional leasing' let's call it - fractional lending. He compared it to a great race horse but you would lease this fine horse on a particular day. Then boasting in the bar Tuesday challenges Friday to a race...

    So FDR steps in and makes horse racing (or even possessing a horse) illegal and closes down the track for a Horse Racing Holiday!

    And since these are so evolved around the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act you might comprehend how this all relates allegorically to Title 12 USC §95 - especially as applied to the next run on the Fed, which is the same run and seizure on gold, the next Bankers' Holiday.

    I am going to refrain from comment about the dynamic emerging simply because it is unbecoming and people jockey their mouses toward what they enjoy reading and participating in. I will feed that when it is unpleasant, as little as I can. Rather I will try approaching this with logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
    The Birth Certificate is evidence of interest in an estate created when one is born. The foreign state [baby] is born on this occupied and conquered land and is immediately "forced to pledge" via seizure of the usufructuary interests and all potential TITLE and PROFITS derived therefrom. The energy and labor of the grown baby is funneled through the vessel furnished to execute the pledge ('FIRST MIDDLE LAST'). Since the baby was not of the age of majority at the time of the "pledge", a resulting trust forms whereby the seizure demands indemnity by the rules of usufruct for the one who has been seized of TITLE and PROFITS from future fruits.

    The "agreement" awaits completion since there is always a chance the "baby" will return to make claim to what was originally his - reversion. Acknowledgment of the seizure and surrender of claim(s) [assignment] to what has already been seized (reversionary/usufructuary interests in 'FIRST MIDDLE LAST') is required to complete the "gift" of safe harbor and exercise the indemnification from ALL charges when using the 'NAME' which is demanded of the party who seized by International Law - Law of Belligerent Occupation.


    Use of the 'NAME', in this fully assigned capacity, benefits ONLY the 'United States' public trust.
    At this timing in the thread you would seem to be trying to summarize and espouse what you are learning from Boris. I am not impressed. There are some aspects within clauses that portray reality as I perceive it but connecting all the clauses and sentences together actually does need you to verify that the birth certificate is directly in the CUSIP sense valuable as some kind of a security. And there you have it - that if it takes a process that requires me to accept secret markets then I categorize that illegal, an abomination and requiring a syndicalism to maintain the illusion of sustainability and even functionality. Quite often these are called bubbles because they are designed to pop.

    As with Boris, I never spend too much time on these things so I will concede that if this is an example of Boris and his doctrine, I am somewhat ignorant. I have a $20M lien that ties directly to the oaths and lawful money (look on the coins) being bonded by the IN GOD WE TRUST Trust. I hold a lot more confidence in my lien than any negative averment or IN THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE WE TRUST Trust.



    Regards,

    David Merrill.


    P.S. My education about Boris and whatever he teaches is almost entirely off a UCC-3 I viewed a couple weeks ago linked from here on StSC. I started a thread hoping that somebody might start shedding some light for me, rather than spending my time reading through what is coming off as insubstantial from the start.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 05-10-14 at 10:13 AM.

Posting Permissions

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