Redeem From Public To Private Venue

[Michael Joseph]

I find a lot of people talking about theory and very few who actually do what they talk about. Therefore I find many "with child and giving suck". A king knows he has full liability for his words therefore he is careful about his issue. If I have written anything it means I have incorporated that philosophy and begun to make its use.

I suppose I grow tired of those who speak boldly only to be shown incompetent without standing. There are no short cuts. The path is hard. Those are the facts. Those who do not declare themselves have no standing.

Looking around I see many different governments on the land. In fact over 128 as early as 1960's. I maintain compliance and not rebellion. If you are a resident then obey the laws. If you are a citizen then obey the laws. Each must decide for himself. That is the beauty if choice.

My opinion is that most times men are too lax with their words. And the sheep that follow such men will end up in the ditch as well. Putting my king hat in I see a valley of dry bones. But the programmed masses respond with just give me the five minute answer. Now that's gonna be a problem when the wise know they have more than ten thousand hours of study and they are just beginning to catch a glimpse.

My opinion again is that no man should trust another man. Always and I mean always go and check out any man. Never blindly accept any presentation. We sail our own boats and therefore I determine my own future.

When David Merrill showed me the LOR I rewrote it to suit me. It took me two weeks to write the default judgment. This is my life and I refuse to yoke myself to any man who I have not tested. This Boris May be right or maybe he is wrong but I was there in the Coresourse days meeting in Raleigh about ten years back exploring Usufruct. As for my house we will not abide in another mans claim. I find the church and state in total apostasy and I would rather be John the Baptist than Caiphas.

In the end one must stand in front of the mirror and answer "what is it I want"? Until then Alice still chases that busybody bunny.

Shalom
Michael Joseph

[allodial]

In reading documents that are allegedly associated with Boris (they are not signed at all as if the author doesn't wish to be associated with them) "foundation crash course.doc", etc. in review, the author doesn't appear to be saying anything that hasn't been stated before. As for the strange symbol associating law and equity and the Eye of Horus not sure why the Eye of Horus must be brought into the discussion. That the Reconstruction Acts are still in effect has been repeated over and over and over. That the US has been operating with a form of martial law at least since 1861 is nothing new.

I attempted to listen to a Talkshoe interview but its not quite 'sitting right' with me so I turned it off, perhaps another time.

[David Merrill]

I find a lot of people talking about theory and very few who actually do what they talk about. Therefore I find many "with child and giving suck". A king knows he has full liability for his words therefore he is careful about his issue. If I have written anything it means I have incorporated that philosophy and begun to make its use.

I suppose I grow tired of those who speak boldly only to be shown incompetent without standing. There are no short cuts. The path is hard. Those are the facts. Those who do not declare themselves have no standing.

Looking around I see many different governments on the land. In fact over 128 as early as 1960's. I maintain compliance and not rebellion. If you are a resident then obey the laws. If you are a citizen then obey the laws. Each must decide for himself. That is the beauty if choice.

My opinion is that most times men are too lax with their words. And the sheep that follow such men will end up in the ditch as well. Putting my king hat in I see a valley of dry bones. But the programmed masses respond with just give me the five minute answer. Now that's gonna be a problem when the wise know they have more than ten thousand hours of study and they are just beginning to catch a glimpse.

My opinion again is that no man should trust another man. Always and I mean always go and check out any man. Never blindly accept any presentation. We sail our own boats and therefore I determine my own future.

When David Merrill showed me the LOR I rewrote it to suit me. It took me two weeks to write the default judgment. This is my life and I refuse to yoke myself to any man who I have not tested. This Boris May be right or maybe he is wrong but I was there in the Coresourse days meeting in Raleigh about ten years back exploring Usufruct. As for my house we will not abide in another mans claim. I find the church and state in total apostasy and I would rather be John the Baptist than Caiphas.

In the end one must stand in front of the mirror and answer "what is it I want"? Until then Alice still chases that busybody bunny.

Shalom
Michael Joseph

I can relate to that.

John the Baptist came in the spirit of Elijah. Elijah was transfigured. We find a mythology that Moses was transfigured in the Christian religion but there it is; Moses died like other men and "to this day" his body can be found on Mount Pisgah. Who was it transfigured?

Enoch.

But which Enoch? There are two. Maybe both? Both Sons (of God, of Cain) were transfigured and so are up for a persistent channeling? That gets pretty interesting very fast.

Yehoshuah H'Natzrith V'MOLECH H'Hadiim - H'Mashiach (Jesus CHRIST) was transfigured too, according to The Book of Acts. I find it peculiar the revulsion Christians have for channeling when their own favorite John the Baptist was coveted by Antipas TETRARCH (not KING)! [I get the feeling however that Archelaus KING, exiled in 6 AD for whom John was True Prophet in Israel - (with the Spirit of Elijah) was already executed; Antipas hoped to turn John into his personal pet Prophet. Too late though - John had already Crowned BRANCH (David's Coronation NAME attached) - the new King of Israel!]

When you get the Key - this all works together so very well for good.

In summary, those transfigured are open and accessible throughout time - ever living. Get it? Jesus of Nazareth is Jesus BRANCH! Jesus, Son of David - KING of Israel. Natzar is BRANCH.

[David Merrill]

In reading documents that are allegedly associated with Boris (they are not signed at all as if the author doesn't wish to be associated with them) "foundation crash course.doc", etc. in review, the author doesn't appear to be saying anything that hasn't been stated before. As for the strange symbol associating law and equity and the Eye of Horus not sure why the Eye of Horus must be brought into the discussion. That the Reconstruction Acts are still in effect has been repeated over and over and over. That the US has been operating with a form of martial law at least since 1861 is nothing new.

I attempted to listen to a Talkshoe interview but its not quite 'sitting right' with me so I turned it off, perhaps another time.

Thank you for your Review. Usually a holograph will set coherently if it is a correct fractal of the truth.

Here we find Moses setting below the Eye of Horus, like Sargon rescued from the river too. (An archetype).

[Michael Joseph]

I can relate to that.

John the Baptist came in the spirit of Elijah. Elijah was transfigured. We find a mythology that Moses was transfigured in the Christian religion but there it is; Moses died like other men and "to this day" his body can be found on Mount Pisgah. Who was it transfigured?

Enoch.

But which Enoch? There are two. Maybe both? Both Sons (of God, of Cain) were transfigured and so are up for a persistent channeling? That gets pretty interesting very fast.

Yehoshuah H'Natzrith V'MOLECH H'Hadiim - H'Mashiach (Jesus CHRIST) was transfigured too, according to The Book of Acts. I find it peculiar the revulsion Christians have for channeling when their own favorite John the Baptist was coveted by Antipas TETRARCH (not KING)! [I get the feeling however that Archelaus KING, exiled in 6 AD for whom John was True Prophet in Israel - (with the Spirit of Elijah) was already executed; Antipas hoped to turn John into his personal pet Prophet. Too late though - John had already Crowned BRANCH (David's Coronation NAME attached) - the new King of Israel!]

When you get the Key - this all works together so very well for good.

In summary, those transfigured are open and accessible throughout time - ever living. Get it? Jesus of Nazareth is Jesus BRANCH! Jesus, Son of David - KING of Israel. Natzar is BRANCH.

One Enoch from Seth. One Enoch from Cain. I content that Moses' bones were being contested. Ref Jude. In my opinion Moses and Elijah could come coward in time to see Jesus because they transfigured.

What is interesting to me about Jesus' geneology is that he was of Levi and Judah. Remember that Mary sprang forth from Levi and Judah. Joseph also from Judah but only by law adoption.

In my opinion Jesus walked his boundary Survey. He was and is King. If you translate Israel you get "the prince that prevailed with God". Therefore we see an Israel of God. That is royalty. God too has a government and it is founded on a King.

I find Only one name that is above all names. The reason I hate the model being proposed by others is that it denies Jesus Christ. Salvation thru any other name is no salvation at all but is subject therefore to the claims established by imperfect men. I equate that to leaning on a shaky reed.

Remember the false one comes In prosperity. Said one does bring financial peace but he denies Christ.

Shalom
MJ

[salsero]

Good catch - unfortunately, if you are dealing with a mortgage foreclosure, it is the "thing" or home they take and not the memorialization. The presumption of many people is that the memorialization or dead paper "represents" the thing. Then the sheriff comes, knocks on the door to the man and says, you do not own this property, it has a deed in the name of the bank. Now get out. The man consents and gets out.

Under Florida Statute 697.02?Nature of a mortgage.—A mortgage shall be held to be a specific lien on the property therein described, and not a conveyance of the legal title or of the right of possession. I can not figure out how a mortgage can convey title when the statute says it can not? But this is done all the time.

I can not comment on the tree v the fruits and the man v his deeds. But obviously you got the point. You can not just talk the walk, you must act and be the walk as well. Otherwise, they will know you are full of it and bitch slap you.

We are fortunate to have Boris and his words of wisdom. Unfortunately, there are some out there who just want "the remedy and cure now". This is not JUST what Boris is about. FIRSTLY, it is about the spiritual process here on planet earth. Boris provides enough scriptures [though I am not a student of the bible; however, I study spiritual law and am a student] to see the parallels between THIER law and Supreme Law

As far as your inheritance is concerned, I do have a comment. I recently did the full release of claim and interest of the usufruct and reversionary interest. I am still waiting for the trustees to respond, including the pope. Before I did this, I came to the place what am I willing to do about this very core sense I have for this process. Am I willing to honor the contract that would require me to turn everything I think I own to the US, including property, accounts, IRA, inheritance, etc. Though a bit scary, I answered YES. Now of course, I can not be completely stupid, there is a give and take. If they can not reciprocate, then this is where there is a rub and THEY ARE IN REPUDIATION OF THE CONTRACT THAT THEY ARE OBGLIGATED TO HONOR.

My point is in this comment: What are YOU willing to do to accomplish the betterment of your Higher Self or even more drastic - what are you willing to do to help facilitate a Higher Purpose for the Entire Planet?

Interesting. I've always thought of a deed as a memorialization of a past act/ion, not of a thing.

The quote "A tree is known by its fruit; a man by his deeds" refers to his past acts/actions, not images of a thing.

But, as we know, the whole world is a stage.

Anywho, thought I'd chime in. One month after filing the ucc's Boris style, I get a call from an attorney/Landsman company telling me I'm an heir to oil, natural gas, interests, mineral rights, yadda yadda. The thing is, this land was purchased by my great great grandfather 100 years ago, in 1914. All this time I never knew about my families interests. Trust me, there's been so many trespassors, escheats, false claims, etc., upon this 640 acres it would blow your mind. My father didn't know, my grandmother, great aunt didn't know. But all I know is that I did Boris ucc filings and all of a sudden I get informed of this.

People can naysay all they like. At their own peril. Do or don't, I really don't think Boris cares one way or the other because at least he let people know about it, so he's done his part. Boris is definitely not the type who wants to trespass on free will. As far as I'm concerned, I appreciate Boris tremendously.

If anyone wants more details, just ask.

Thank you for reading.

[salsero]

Hi David -

I can not directly assume that AJ lost his home under Boris guidance at all. First of all, there have been a few others who have had success [up until now] that have NOT lost the home THEY USE. They do not own the home they use, they just use it. There is a fine line between it is MY house and I have control, dominion, possession and use of a home. If AJ says I am AJ SMITH and that is MY house, AJ is liable.

It is not about stating, I AM NOT JOHN SMITH. This is a claim. It is about asking the question: Under what authority and/or legislation are you using a name to identify a man? Thanks to the 1933 bankruptcy of the US, ALL TITLES [property] WERE SEIZED, inclusive of the Name [COLB].

As stated in Senate Doc #43, page 9, second paragraph, April 1933: “The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of Government, ie, law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.”

In the beginning I had some issues with Karl Lentz and his common law. Karl went on to define what HIS PROPERTY means. His property means He has exclusive use of say, his home TO THE EXCLUSION OF OTHERS. In other words, use, control, passion and dominion over.

The problem is the "earthly illusion sees so real" that we "buy it". This is where we honor the false god as opposed to the Supreme True One. And then comes the problems. We must come to a logically conclusion that EVERYTHING HAS BEEN PROVIDED FREELY AND ABUNDANTLY BY THE CREATOR. The Creator does not and can not NOT provide EVERYTHING TO EVERYONE TO MEET HIS NEEDS, and with extra to spare. However, man make a free will CHOICE to make false claims upon the usufruct and intermeddle, ultimately to be held accountable under the Supreme Law.

Thank you Lost in Florida (backwards);


Welcome to StSC!

That is a relief that I do not offend Boris. I am pleased that in your unique and forgotten heritage that this process somehow turned up a lost estate. Would you please elaborate and maybe isolate what facets of Boris' process caught this attorney's attention?

From your post I presume that the attorney was after a cut of salvaging your estate from all that escheat and assumpsit.



P.S. On that known by his fruit doctrine: About 8 months back I received a call from AJ's wife as they lost their home, in a panic because in the process of the county removing all their possessions to the curb, they cuffed and jailed AJ. This explains to this amateur psychologist why he would feel so invested in Boris' doctrine, AJ now feeling he sees what went wrong. It also explains why he must resort to slurs and his own derogatory diagnosis of my mental health. His example of the 2008 Mortgage Release does little to convince me that portion of the process shown was the reasoning for releasing the mortgage when AJ himself lost his home - I assume under Boris' guidance.

[salsero]

For clarification: Boris does not believe in A4V and this is the reason why. He separates man and the fiction.

Under CJS – Infants, §166 Intermeddling with estates of infants: “anyone who intermeddles with the property of the infant without authority is liable to account thereafter”. Under law, when one is making a claim in some form to that estate or trust, it is a warring decree and YOU, in plural form, the man and person, will be held to account therefor.

Under Boris' scenario, the man has NOTHING to do with them other then he uses a name. The acquittal and discharge under 12 USC 95a is for the entity or person and NOT the man. by chance, man is "incidentally or indirectly receives a benefit" but this negligible. The public trustees are to "take care of the property of the state". If, I am man interfere by paying bills, taxes, speeding tickets, etc, the trustees are more than happy to let me "go at it".

We are not to interfere AT ALL. Now the question is what happens when the trustee fails to do his oath bound duty? This is where Karl Lentz MAY provide some insight. I am not there yet.

I never heard Boris mention A4Vs in his YouTube seminar. I could have asked him. And he could have responded to this thread, too.

People have succeeded with A4V without filing a UCC-1. Maybe they got away with something?

The Bunny says he wasn't trying to be snarky with what he said.

Sometimes this place is waaayy too serious for its own good. In my opinion.

[allodial]

For clarification: Boris does not believe in A4V and this is the reason why. He separates man and the fiction.

Under CJS – Infants, §166 Intermeddling with estates of infants: “anyone who intermeddles with the property of the infant without authority is liable to account thereafter”. Under law, when one is making a claim in some form to that estate or trust, it is a warring decree and YOU, in plural form, the man and person, will be held to account therefor.

Under Boris' scenario, the man has NOTHING to do with them other then he uses a name. The acquittal and discharge under 12 USC 95a is for the entity or person and NOT the man. by chance, man is "incidentally or indirectly receives a benefit" but this negligible. The public trustees are to "take care of the property of the state". If, I am man interfere by paying bills, taxes, speeding tickets, etc, the trustees are more than happy to let me "go at it".

We are not to interfere AT ALL. Now the question is what happens when the trustee fails to do his oath bound duty? This is where Karl Lentz MAY provide some insight. I am not there yet.

The matter of 'executor de son tort' has been gone over in detail. Having the birth certificate itself is evidence of authority. If you don't present it or otherwise adequately handle matters pertinent then you might be presumed to be executor de son tort. If you are adequately describing Boris's views then I sense he might be in error on the topic as in maybe he really doesn't know what he is talking about and is just "feeling his way" and improvising.

Under Boris' scenario, the man has NOTHING to do with them other then he uses a name.

That seems rather contradictory. "Roy has nothing to do with the Company other than he uses the Company name all the time." Wut?

As stated in Senate Doc #43, page 9, second paragraph, April 1933: “The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of Government, ie, law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.”.

That pertains to what is "in the State" not to what is private or without the State.

[David Merrill]

One Enoch from Seth. One Enoch from Cain. I conten[d] that Moses' bones were being contested. Ref Jude. In my opinion Moses and Elijah could come [forward] in time to see Jesus because they transfigured.

What is interesting to me about Jesus' geneology is that he was of Levi and Judah. Remember that Mary sprang forth from Levi and Judah. Joseph also from Judah but only by law adoption.

In my opinion Jesus walked his boundary Survey. He was and is King. If you translate Israel you get "the prince that prevailed with God". Therefore we see an Israel of God. That is royalty. God too has a government and it is founded on a King.

I find Only one name that is above all names. The reason I hate the model being proposed by others is that it denies Jesus Christ. Salvation thru any other name is no salvation at all but is subject therefore to the claims established by imperfect men. I equate that to leaning on a shaky reed.

Remember the false one comes In prosperity. Said one does bring financial peace but he denies Christ.

Shalom
MJ

Yes. The Book of Jude refers to The Book of Enoch all right. I had not looked carefully into the debate about Moses' bones until now. - The commonality being oath - the Mark or Stigma placed on both Cain and the Sons of God. The Lucifer Rebellion swearing out an OATH (Enoch 6) on Mount Hermon...

I am interested in Joseph being adopted? I always thought Joseph was Judah by bloodline.