Redeem From Public To Private Venue

[allodial]

One of my Forebears who lived to be over 100 years old taught me a few things before she passed away. She told me that many would not listen or hear what she said: that one of the most important things to remember is who you are (true name) that the danger in the U.S. is forgetting who you are and losing touch with reality; that many had forgotten who they are even those around me at the time. "They will try to make you believe you are something or someone other than who you are."

Re: Pop Culture; Media; Mis-Education
I'm not sure why folks have this idea that the most sparkly presentation would necessarily be the most truthful one. "Oh look they put it upon this fancy screen it must be true." Seriously? Just because someone fancily gives a false impression of something being true doesn't mean 300 million people have to buy into it. Ah but yes...the poppies...


The Pied Piper is out to get people to throw the baby out with the bath water.

There are State actors that want to help but they might be restrained from telling you what they want to tell you. However, for education systems to be aligned with utter deception strikes me as a heinous and great fraud.

[David Merrill]

Or the BC is simply what it appears to be: a public recording of an event. Since it's public, and held by the State, then the State is the controlling legal authority of the instrument.

When people make use of the public record for private gain, isn't that a trespass?

This is refreshing because I have never seen any indication it is anything more.

I suppose that it secures legal identity because you need it to get Government Issued ID or a driver license.

[allodial]

Yes. One can hire the State to perform various estate management services (probate, escheats, succession to titles, inheritance, etc.).

Re: event recording
Perhaps the presumption is that the event recorded is public rather than private?

[Keith Alan]

Yes. One can hire the State to perform various estate management services (probate, escheats, succession to titles, inheritance, etc.).

Re: event recording
Perhaps the presumption is that the event recorded is public rather than private?

Since the instrument is in interstate commerce, doesn't that make it public? Can a thing be in interstate commerce and remain private?

[Moxie]

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.

Karl also had a chat with the Sheriff's department and FBI about his status. They are aware of his common law court of record techniques and leave him alone.

He makes a point not to meddle in codes, ordinances, and statues and does not entertain callers who want to. He only talks common law and how to resolve defacto problems using common law language only.

[allodial]

Since the instrument is in interstate commerce, doesn't that make it public? Can a thing be in interstate commerce and remain private?

What makes it in interstate commerce? If it is not a negotiable instrument then why would it be commercial? Interstate commerce refers to commerce among U.S. States--which to knowledge are 'public'. If there is a forum common to all the U.S. States, I would imagine that that forum would be inherently "interstate". However something between a state and a private organization wouldn't necessarily be interstate commerce. "Commerce among the States" seems to refer to commerce between U.S. States. It is possible for a state to issue a private charter (see the Dartmouth cases).

Karl also had a chat with the Sheriff's department and FBI about his status. They are aware of his common law court of record techniques and leave him alone.

He makes a point not to meddle in codes, ordinances, and statues and does not entertain callers who want to. He only talks common law and how to resolve defacto problems using common law language only.

I believe it. Sheriffs and FBI agents have limitations on their authority and they are likely aware of it. Getting into the mud of codes is not always necessary. Staying out of those courts is best IMHO.

[Keith Alan]

What makes it in interstate commerce? If it is not a negotiable instrument then why would it be commercial? Interstate commerce refers to commerce among U.S. States--which to knowledge are 'public'. If there is a forum common to all the U.S. States, I would imagine that that forum would be inherently "interstate". However something between a state and a private organization wouldn't necessarily be interstate commerce. "Commerce among the States" seems to refer to commerce between U.S. States. It is possible for a state to issue a private charter (see the Dartmouth cases).

Aren't they transferred from the state of the event to the US? Aren't they "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?

[Moxie]

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

A4V already separates man from the fiction on the instrument.

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.

Karl would say: get the trustee's first name and write him/her a letter. First-name basis makes it man-to-man/woman in common law. No titles allowed in common law.

Freddy Mac cannot come after someone's house, because Freddy Mac is a fiction. Fictions cannot take the witness stand in a common law court.

Find out the man or woman's first name who works for Freddy Mac, then write a letter. Only men can make claims, not fictions or those with titles:

"Dear Bob, greetings.

You've got an agency called Freddy Mac. They're making a claim I owe a debt to the United States. Is this true?"

And end it there. Don't add to it. Ask one question at a time.

Bob will respond quickly with "I wish to acknowledge your letter" because only a man can wish. Notice Bob didn't say, "we received your correspondence." Bob will sign, "very truly yours" which means he knows his place with you.

The goal is to get them to strip themselves of their immunity.

[adirolfnitsol]

And that was an excellent catch by you, salsero!

The key words here are Nature and Character. Florida Statute 697.02 tells us the nature (not the character).

For example, Keanu Reeves is the man ie. Nature/substance. A part he plays would be the character/form.

Want to really fry your brain? Pull up HUTCHENS v. MAXICENTERS, U.S.A 541 So. 2d 618

"Generally speaking, however, law courts have only the jurisdiction to render money judgments and common law writs of ejectment and replevin. All actions for more specific relief, such as, cases involving dissolutions of marriage, custody, guardianships, dissolutions of partnership, accounting, mortgage foreclosure, partition, subrogation, specific performance of contracts, the adjudication of equitable rights of beneficiaries under express trusts, the establishment of equitable liens, resulting trusts and constructive trusts, actions to reform, cancel or rescind instruments and agreements, actions for declaratory decrees, and actions for injunctions and to quiet title, are all causes of action which are peculiarly cognizable only in equity or chancery and are not within the jurisdiction of a court exercising only common law jurisdiction."

So, if the 'law courts' have only the jurisdiction to render money judgments and common law writs of ejectment and replevin, (I don't see foreclosure listed in there except under equity/chancery and how can fictions claim they gave equity when they didn't give equity) how can IT do a writ of ejectment when IT doesn't have the authority to hear a foreclosure, at law? Are these undocumented, unregistered judges, attorneys, employees actually using statutory equity? If so, how so? In other words, how does it go from point A to point C, where IT doesn't have the authority or power to even hear B, except under equity/chancery? These same numbered Circuit/District State courts deny there is any equity/chancery within these courts!

It was the above and the following that made my ears stand up in full attention to what Boris was saying:

Commissioner v. Estate of Field - 324 U.S. 113 (1945)
2. Since the corpus of the trust did not shed the possibility of reversion until the decedent's death, the value of the entire corpus on the date of death was taxable under § 302(c). P. 324 U. S. 116.

So what happens when the corpus of the trust sheds the possibility of reversion PRIOR TO the decedent's death? No taxation? No licensing? No federal withholding?

Yes, this was the point when I got very, very interested in what Boris was saying!

[salsero]

I am not bright enough to "catch anything" - I only can try and put the pieces together as best I can. And this includes being open to what others say. It was Boris who first brought this matter up of 697.02.

What is clear TO ME is this. Man must separate himself from the word YOU, in the plural form and stick only to the singular form of you. Under the bankruptcy, man has been left naked or spoliated.

A piece to the puzzle tells me - THEY DO NOT CARE about anything, law, fairness, right, good - they only care about saving their own asses and the trust. Under 18 USC 1001

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

THEY ACTUALLY TELL YOU IN STATUTE THEY CAN BE DISHONEST. Barry has a duty to deceive, lie, cheat, or whatever under executive privilege under the rules of war. He must do this to protect the public trust or bankruptcy - call it what you want.

In my simple logical thinking [right or wrong], it would be insane to use their private bankrupt statutes to apply to me, a man. The statutes only apply to those that take an oath to uphold them. If the State holds that original title Name or person in trust - AND I CAN NOT GET THAT ORIGINAL TITLE, it would be insanity to continue to state that name is mine. It is not mine, it can not be my property. However, under THEIR rules of war, an indemnity receipt has been issued for the purpose of settling matters for that Name or person. THEY must HONOR their rules of war. Since the state can only deal with "dead paper"

I have a choice to come to peace with "what is for now" or war against it. This PI process is not for everyone. And the best I can offer is after the paperwork on status is complete, it all may just be ignored by them. However, there is a higher reason FOR ME to do this.

When Hillary becomes the selected president by the PTB, then all this back and forth will be for naught, as all persons must be chipped and accounted for - for the purpose safety and security to protect the homeland from foreign terrorists, you the enemy of the state. Game over.