Redeem From Public To Private Venue

[Anthony Joseph]

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.

[allodial]

Typically "infancy" ends at the age of 21 years.

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

It might help to consider that some States view the filing as made under pentalties of perjury and to look at the matter from in the purview of evidence that cures.

[Anthony Joseph]

Thanks Anthony for supplying documents and your insights.

I also agree about COLB value. It makes sense that the birth "certificate" (COLB) has no value, BECAUSE the value is attached to the original signed birth "application"... which we never see. Wonder if a FOIA/PA Request could get a certified copy of the application, which is the true "pledge" or transfer of property "abandoned" at "birth"?

Here is LINK to History of UCC filings by Boris, including UCC-3.

I also stored them HERE.

Here are my questions and concerns:

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?

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.

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"?

4. Can one legitimately make a full assignment conditional?

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"?

Thanks for the link to that UCC Report.

I find no correlation of this process to any of the three "fraudulent filing types" mentioned in the report: Harassment, Strawman or Authentication. [cf. I see no evidence that 'making demand for lawful money' is "frivolous"]

The UCC filings are a memorialization of what has already been done [a man's free will act and deed] in a format recognized and understood by the relevant party. One may have to verify, if and when the time comes, by voicing what is on paper for first hand evidence that it is true. In the realm of commerce, UCC filings are used as evidence and are accepted forms of executing liens in court - an "event" which has occurred. In this case, there is NO "lien", or any other belligerent act being committed; the assignment is done and the filing is the evidence required for the record in the commercial realm.

The "condition" is what would and should be done anyway under proper administration; the public trust is the entity that benefits from this process and the oath-sworn trustees MUST execute that "condition" regardless of our mentioning it.

[allodial]

I have found it quite more effective to execute operations of law toward remedy in the light. So I say you may be right, but without a birth certificate or need to find credit I remove myself as far from those black markets as best that I can.

If one finds oneself in a position to issue money, why would one endorse private credit?

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 was told by a police officer that a State-issued birth certificate belongs to the State and likewise, the names thereon also do.

Cop: Well, whats the name on your birth certificate?

I was puzzled as to why he would ask me if I had/held/owned a State-issued birth certificate. My logic: why is this stranger carrying a dangerous weapon asking me if I own something that he knows belongs to the State? Since 'birth certificates' (cop's definition) belong to the State and since I'm not the State then how can any 'birth certificate' (his definition since he asked the question) be mine {re: 'your birth certificate'}?"

Again: What if "they" still want to fight after you "surrender" by a "recognized record"? (Ex: they send you the "bill/charge" again?)

Settling and closing accounting before exiting might be extremely important.

Related:

• The Gaming Tokens of 1965;
• Casino Chips vs American Currency;
• Banks vs. Casinos;
• New World Banking Order?

Who is the authority to enforce the "rules of usufruct"?

Might depend on the lex loci celebrationis, lex loci contractus, situs (choice of law) of the relevant trust, will, deed, appointment, agreement or contract.

Re: battlefields...

AFIAK soldiers aren't sovereigns. Even a commander in chief is a commissioned officer.



Related: Rules of Land Warfare (US Army 1914).

The "legitimate" marketplace for birth certificates as securities is the SDR Marketplace - Special Drawing Rights - or as I define it, The measure of a social conditioning to blindly endorse the private credit from the local central bank. Here we find a basket of five fictional currencies averaged together to determine an international value of money and SDR's became the replacement for gold changing that "fixed" exchange rate into the "floating" exchange rate around 1976.

Isn't that back around the time when they flipped the scri--I mean err ... umm .. the flag?

(Deseret News Archives) Caption for the picture is: "President John F. Kennedy emerges from Air Force One as he visits Utah, Sept. 26, 1963. Note: SAM 26000 wasn't manufactured until 1962 and had a service term from October 9, 1962 - March 24, 1998.

When a community currency exchange transaction crosses borders, it seems it is to clear through the established channels which would likely require an accounting if one of the SDR currencies is involved. So in a sense, perhaps the check casher, the bank teller and the SDR system are all participating in the same market even if only in the sense they are unified by protocols.

[allodial]

The the Illinois Code definition of ambulatory currency exchange has been added to the appropriate post along with clarifying text from a case (THILLENS, INC. v. DEPT., FINANCIAL INST. NO. 36486. 24 Ill.2d 110 (1962) 180 N.E.2d 494).

Plaintiff is in the business of operating an ambulatory currency exchange which normally consists of transporting currency belonging to plaintiff to the premises of business establishments, usually pursuant to contract, and the cashing of payroll checks of employees on the premises of the employer. In some instances, we gather from the record, plaintiff cashes one large check for the employer and the latter pays his employees in cash. This business, as well as that of operating nonambulatory currency exchanges, is regulated and controlled by the Community Currency Exchanges Act, hereinafter referred to as the act, wherein the legislature has "found and declares" that "the number of community currency exchanges should be limited in accordance with the needs of the communities they are to serve," and that "it is in the public interest to promote and foster the community currency exchange business and to assure the financial stability thereof." Ill. Rev. Stat. 1961, chap. 16 1/2, par. 30. (Source)

[iamsomedude]

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?


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

[Chex]

The Johnson Family Cemetery is privately owned by the Johnson family. Please respect their requests and do not enter the cemetery. http://www.nps.gov/lyjo/planyourvisi...oncemetery.htm

The Johnson Family must of purchased the cemetery in lawful money.

[David Merrill]

Welcome to the forums SomeDude;

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.

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.



P.S.

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.

Did you mean converts?

[Anthony Joseph]

If one finds oneself in a position to issue money, why would one endorse private credit?



I was told by a police officer that a State-issued birth certificate belongs to the State and likewise, the names thereon also do.


I was puzzled as to why he would ask me if I had/held/owned a State-issued birth certificate. My logic: why is this stranger carrying a dangerous weapon asking me if I own something that he knows belongs to the State? Since 'birth certificates' (cop's definition) belong to the State and since I'm not the State then how can any 'birth certificate' (his definition since he asked the question) be mine {re: 'your birth certificate'}?"






Settling and closing accounting before exiting might be extremely important.

Related:

• The Gaming Tokens of 1965;
• Casino Chips vs American Currency;
• Banks vs. Casinos;
• New World Banking Order?

Might depend on the lex loci celebrationis, lex loci contractus, situs (choice of law) of the relevant trust, will, deed, appointment, agreement or contract.



AFIAK soldiers aren't sovereigns. Even a commander in chief is a commissioned officer.



Related: Rules of Land Warfare (US Army 1914).



Isn't that back around the time when they flipped the scri--I mean err ... umm .. the flag?





When a community currency exchange transaction crosses borders, it seems it is to clear through the established channels which would likely require an accounting if one of the SDR currencies is involved. So in a sense, perhaps the check casher, the bank teller and the SDR system are all participating in the same market even if only in the sense they are unified by protocols.

What does the flag look like on the RIGHT side of KENNEDY's plane? What does the flag look like on the LEFT side of the color picture of 'Air Force One'?

The best example is the reverse flag patch on the FRONT of the uniform or helmet; that doesn't make sense.

[Anthony Joseph]

Welcome to the forums SomeDude;




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.

What happened to the "bunny hole"? What happened to "he is fighting his way off the battlefield"?