Redeem From Public To Private Venue

[salsero]

EXACTLY - You explained it very well. If one can have a out-of-the-box sense of humor with a questioning mind, asking a profound but dumbfounded question: WTF is all this about - this being life AND then take action to really seek, you will find Something that will help your journey. There has to have some purpose - AND it must be GOOD. I have been fortunate to experience first hand - non-traditional miracles or happenings that on the surface or by appearance simply can not be. It is the questioning mind, open to ALL possibilities, coming from a sense of awe and humbleness where one becomes RECEPTIVE to a better understanding - this does not mean a know it all guy but rather attempting to putting the pieces of the puzzle together as best one can, consistent with the "life leaves clues" GIVEN foundation. And it is one's job, to find his way back Home.

Along the way, one plants seeds and will reap what he has sown. God is Law. Law is immutable, past, present, future as there is no time. Therefore, the soul either aligns himself to that Law [as the created can never entirely leave the Creator] and gets closer to his Kingship or moves away bolstering the EGO [or edging God out] acknowledging the appearance as real AND serving that as the false god.

The surrender concept is not about making the illusion real or giving up but rather saying OK, it appears what is - but I KNOW or sense something greater than I is working. This WORKING FORCE WORKS FOR MY GOOD ALWAYS, as I was created in the Image of that Good. However, one day, living in Bliss and Paradise AND having so much Power, I had a thought of what it would be like NOT to be in Bliss and Paradise - and whammy here I am witnessing Barry, Harry and Nancy [WTF was I thinking? lol]. In order to know Good, one must come to know the opposite. And then we see George, Dick, Bill and Hillary. They are our teachers. OMG. Man was created in the Image of the Creator. He can never be lost forever. He can only journey off the path. He must return to SOURCE, as that Source has ALL of His Creation accounted for. This is what Hillary wants to do when she is selected [through computer voting of the People] President. She wants to chip the chattel called persons, citizens and residents of the United States under Executive Order to show she is just like God. This way she can account for everything every person does. And if she don't like what that person is doing. The chip gets turned off. YAY!

One other further comment --- Not every soul can be or is receptive to this thinking. And there is good reason why it does not resonate with them. The soul is not ready. This is not a judgment of right or wrong but rather smiling and saying - all in good time - reassured! If you have not had the opportunity to listen to the Boris or Marcus series - take the time - if this topic resonates with you and see how these men attempt to bring you down the path slowly to a different realization.

You are on to something.
Dualism gives foothold to deception, I believe. Of course im learning here, like everyone else and im glad about that. Perhaps this dualism is simply a misconception giving birth to further misconceptions like the fiction of a state and rulers with divine rights also Public or private. The truth is we are all the same and on the same creation /existence. Which is what interests me about this surrender concept or perhaps just stepping aside ? like just putting to record and demonstrating by actions that there is no trust without the use (trust) of state methodology. Since its our belief and use in such fictions that give jurisdiction what is the point of carrying on those beliefs ? I hope I am not being disparaging to anyone with a different concept and keeping them from exploring it, we are all learning, I think its best to share to draw us closer to a solution.


Shobogenzo - Page 5

[tommyf350]

I have started the unraveled programs of Marcus a while back and I began watching Boris. I will complete them ,just not today.

[David Merrill]

EXACTLY - You explained it very well. If one can have a out-of-the-box sense of humor with a questioning mind, asking a profound but dumbfounded question: WTF is all this about - this being life AND then take action to really seek, you will find Something that will help your journey. There has to have some purpose - AND it must be GOOD. I have been fortunate to experience first hand - non-traditional miracles or happenings that on the surface or by appearance simply can not be. It is the questioning mind, open to ALL possibilities, coming from a sense of awe and humbleness where one becomes RECEPTIVE to a better understanding - this does not mean a know it all guy but rather attempting to putting the pieces of the puzzle together as best one can, consistent with the "life leaves clues" GIVEN foundation. And it is one's job, to find his way back Home.

Along the way, one plants seeds and will reap what he has sown. God is Law. Law is immutable, past, present, future as there is no time. Therefore, the soul either aligns himself to that Law [as the created can never entirely leave the Creator] and gets closer to his Kingship or moves away bolstering the EGO [or edging God out] acknowledging the appearance as real AND serving that as the false god.

The surrender concept is not about making the illusion real or giving up but rather saying OK, it appears what is - but I KNOW or sense something greater than I is working. This WORKING FORCE WORKS FOR MY GOOD ALWAYS, as I was created in the Image of that Good. However, one day, living in Bliss and Paradise AND having so much Power, I had a thought of what it would be like NOT to be in Bliss and Paradise - and whammy here I am witnessing Barry, Harry and Nancy [WTF was I thinking? lol]. In order to know Good, one must come to know the opposite. And then we see George, Dick, Bill and Hillary. They are our teachers. OMG. Man was created in the Image of the Creator. He can never be lost forever. He can only journey off the path. He must return to SOURCE, as that Source has ALL of His Creation accounted for. This is what Hillary wants to do when she is selected [through computer voting of the People] President. She wants to chip the chattel called persons, citizens and residents of the United States under Executive Order to show she is just like God. This way she can account for everything every person does. And if she don't like what that person is doing. The chip gets turned off. YAY!

One other further comment --- Not every soul can be or is receptive to this thinking. And there is good reason why it does not resonate with them. The soul is not ready. This is not a judgment of right or wrong but rather smiling and saying - all in good time - reassured! If you have not had the opportunity to listen to the Boris or Marcus series - take the time - if this topic resonates with you and see how these men attempt to bring you down the path slowly to a different realization.

Great post Moxie;


Sometimes the motivation is to make a claim upon somebody else's estate. Tapping stock, so to speak. This is almost always interpreted as a trespass and treated with criminal prosecution.

[salsero]

First it was not Moxie that made the comment.

For your consideration - and this is way outside of the box: These "estates" are nothing more than fictional pieces of dead paper. God made the tree from where the paper came from. The paper is an image of something appearing real - but in fact IS NOT. We "buy into the piece of paper re-presents - meaning the paper re- presents the real, ie, house, car, etc. The paper itself has NO VALUE. We just think it does. God created everything real for OUR USE, possession, control and dominion over. Man created a false image of the real.

Letter to James Madison

Thomas Jefferson
September 6, 1789
Paris

THE EARTH BELONGS TO THE LIVING

DEAR SIR,

-- I sit down to write to you without knowing by what occasion I shall send my letter. I do it because a subject comes into my head which I would wish to develope a little more than is practicable in the hurry of the moment of making up general despatches.

The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be transmitted I think very capable of proof. I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;" that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by an individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society. If the society has formed no rules for the appropriation of its lands in severalty, it will be taken by the first occupants. These will generally be the wife and children of the decedent. If they have formed rules of appropriation, those rules may give it to the wife and children, or to some one of them, or to the legatee of the deceased. So they may give it to his creditor. But the child, the legatee or creditor takes it, not by any natural right, but by a law of the society of which they are members, and to which they are subject. Then no man can by natural right oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the paiment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which would be reverse of our principle. What is true of every member of the society individually, is true of them all collectively, since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of individuals. To keep our ideas clear when applying them to a multitude, let us suppose a whole generation of men to be born on the same day, to attain mature age on the same day, and to die on the same day, leaving a succeeding generation in the moment of attaining their mature age all together. Let the ripe age be supposed of 21. years, and their period of life 34. years more, that being the average term given by the bills of mortality to persons who have already attained 21. years of age. Each successive generation would, in this way, come on and go off the stage at a fixed moment, as individuals do now. Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations during it’s course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the 1st., the 3d. of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation. Then no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of it’s own existence. At 21. years of age they may bind themselves and their lands for 34. years to come: at 22. for 33: at 23 for 32. and at 54 for one year only; because these are the terms of life which remain to them at those respective epochs. But a material difference must be noted between the succession of an individual and that of a whole generation. Individuals are parts only of a society, subject to the laws of a whole. These laws may appropriate the portion of land occupied by a decedent to his creditor rather than to any other, or to his child, on condition he satisfies his creditor. But when a whole generation, that is, the whole society dies, as in the case we have supposed, and another generation or society succeeds, this forms a whole, and there is no superior who can give their territory to a third society, who may have lent money to their predecessors beyond their faculty of paying.

Great post Moxie;


Sometimes the motivation is to make a claim upon somebody else's estate. Tapping stock, so to speak. This is almost always interpreted as a trespass and treated with criminal prosecution.

[Moxie]

Great post Moxie;


Sometimes the motivation is to make a claim upon somebody else's estate. Tapping stock, so to speak. This is almost always interpreted as a trespass and treated with criminal prosecution.

??
You are mixing up me and Salsaro.

[David Merrill]

More likely I mixed the bottom of the post up with the top "Reply With Quote". Then I just did not notice the text. Editing now would be incongruity so I apologize for the confusion.

Salsero;

That is an enjoyable read and begs to be cited - who wrote that? It looks like a modern writer spoofing Declaration era prose. - Very nice.

I want to get back to the Tread Topic here. I don't mean staying on point; I mean the definitions of public and private. I feel like we may be using different definitions. To me, Public means Government. Private means Non-Government. But I have to admit it gets fuzzy when we start talking about living men and women - there seems to be a different rendition of Private being exposed in your elegant post.

I would think that we settle on Private by definition whenever we step out of the house and interact. We can still be men and women, in fact we are never not. But we have to put up facades, dawn faces called Persons named PERSONS by legal name whenever we contract in the traditional Private venue. All Recordation in any Public venue requires such. This is why whenever I use David Merrill, my true name I will put my red thumbprint by my signature so as to designate a living man. This is evidence of my bond and functions satisfactorily. With responsibility comes authority and vice versa.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Using government-issued ID (for Identification Purposes) conveys the transactions from Private to Public in nature, as I see it. This is why it is effective to tell the Public police officer that you are not using the Driver License card for Identification Purposes. He usually gives it back because there is no viable interface for the Public venue to prosecute a Private man.

[Keith Alan]

I would also like to say that in addition to the public/private distinction in personhood currently being discussed, there also must be a distinction in personalty with the money. In fact, I think this second distinction is more crucial to understand in relation to redeeming for lawful money, than is the personhood question, or at least as important, because after all, it is through the money that society most often imposes public obligations.

For instance, we know that FRN and banking credit are obligations of the US, and that when used in the public venue, the money carries with it certain reciprocal obligations (like reporting income and expenses) to the holders thereof. I believe that is the purpose for offering the remedy of redemption. Otherwise any person that uses the money is kept in the public, and subject to those obligations, which is tantamount to a taking of private rights of enjoyment. Justice and honor demand the opportunity for redemption.

[salsero]

And here we have to define terms. The use of a government ID for the purpose of doing commerce is required. Use, possession, control and dominion over is not the same thing as THAT government ID is mine. Consent by making claims is what is required by government to snag the unknowing man into the State's web of surety-ship. How can that DL re-present me, a man? It can not UNLESS I say that is MY signature near the image that appears to be me where on the top of the DL it says STATE OF XXX. To me it appears that is state property that I use.

I use the government property to help the government ID its property so it can do all those debit and credits it requires in its fictional monetary system. If the cop is an agent of the state, he is then authorized, as trustee or executor or administrator to discharge or have discharged all debt obligations of the state. He is the one who wants to make a claim upon state property and the one who does that is in violation of his contract to the US. This appears to me to be seditious, rebellious and treasonous. How does one bite the hand that feeds him and then expects to get away with it? lol

This is my simply logic on any state matters. And you know this all to well David. The Fed pumps FRNs out and the IRS pulls them back in. Well technically, any state agency has to help pull those FRNs back to the Fed. It does not matter if you call it a toilet paper tax or Al Gore global warming tax - whatever you call it - it must be palatable to the people or sureties of the state, at least so they do not catch on to the fact they, the people are servants to the state or really a few rich banking families.

We have to remember that the Creator created the earth and all that dwell on it. He has given FREELY AND ABUNDANTLY to ALL his creation so that each may have an abundant life. It is man making claims upon HIS creation or usufruct in violation of the Royal Law that creates poverty or wealth - WITH THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. MAN HAS NO RIGHT WHATSEOVER TO CLAIM GOD'S PROPERTY AS HIS OWN TO THE EXCLUSION OF OTHERS. Man can use a house. If he thinks he owns 100 houses and then rents them out to others, he is asking God's creatures to "pay" God for something that has already been given freely and abundantly by God. Where does this authorization come from? How does one man charge his own brother? Did God not command to love one another? Was man charged rent to live upon the earth?

Now this may or may not resonate with some. And that is fine either way. This is how I see it.

P.S. Using government-issued ID (for Identification Purposes) conveys the transactions from Private to Public in nature, as I see it. This is why it is effective to tell the Public police officer that you are not using the Driver License card for Identification Purposes. He usually gives it back because there is no viable interface for the Public venue to prosecute a Private man.

[doug555]

I would also like to say that in addition to the public/private distinction in personhood currently being discussed, there also must be a distinction in personalty with the money. In fact, I think this second distinction is more crucial to understand in relation to redeeming for lawful money, than is the personhood question, or at least as important, because after all, it is through the money that society most often imposes public obligations.

For instance, we know that FRN and banking credit are obligations of the US, and that when used in the public venue, the money carries with it certain reciprocal obligations (like reporting income and expenses) to the holders thereof. I believe that is the purpose for offering the remedy of redemption. Otherwise any person that uses the money is kept in the public, and subject to those obligations, which is tantamount to a taking of private rights of enjoyment. Justice and honor demand the opportunity for redemption.

Watch this new video that cites "private money" issue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UEUvKlaEEc

In that regard, I believe the title of this thread is backwards!

Are we not redeeming money from the PRIVATE to the PUBLIC venue, in order to not incur the legitimate private FRB "usage fee" known as "income tax"?

[David Merrill]

I agree, stipulating it is like a system in thermodynamics. What is being redeemed where is dependent on system parameters.