Say Goodbye to Property Taxes?

[motla68]

I heard some of Angela's Talkshoe call last night (10/20/11) http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/39904
and the guest was a "Robb Ryder" who talked of taking ownership of your property with a CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE. Essentially, as grantee on your deed you just accept it and acknowledge it before a competent officer. Sounds too easy, but then .. I'm new at this. His website is: http://robcourtofrecord.wordpress.com

"This evening I’ll be using the following as an example of how I might do an acknowledgment of a warranty deed. Over the last couple of weeks I’ve had the opportunity to talk to many who have interest but concerns.. or have met resistance by a counter troll. In an effort to squash the latter …. and insure all of your interest are protected I might write it this way…… (and attached).. A few have questioned where the “authority” comes from… that’s easy Article 4 Section 1 of the constitution they took an oath to… Full faith and credit to all public records, acts, and judicial proceedings… As a sovereign man these are your records, acts, and judicial proceeding all done as a form of acknowledgment… and as long as lawful has full faith and credit.. IMO you do not need to get 3 witnesses.. as you already have them.. as a conscious man you are always witnessed.. (so do not charge your brother), and the notary under their seal is a witness, as is the competent court that holds the notary’s or similar competent officers oath.. Those are your 3 witnesses… and “they” have now said that your instrument is in due form of law.. and under their seal.. making it binding on all other courts, officers etc.. If it is an unlawful order, they are under no obligation to follow it…. however they have to put their reason under oath… (lawful affidavit) , what is unlawful about it… and as the king you are… simply ask for the remedy so the spirit of the order can be fulfilled.. But in the specific case of acknowledging your warranty deed (or similar) you are asking for a very much lawful recording to be done…. a deed is not completely executed until the grantee accepts it… and acknowledges it before a competent officer.. the paper it’s self is just a memorial to your wish… the wish happened before you wrote it down.. and a king merely wishes for things… comes with the office… office of king, the sovereign of your own nation state.. and you just made law.."

Word File: Acknowledgment Form

I Robert Allen the living man created in the image of god, with indefeasible title to my land and lawfull owner of the landed estate known as ROBERT ALLEN RYTLEWSKI and it’s real property and interest, under the seal Robert Allen Rytlewski, or it’s derivation am recorded as the grantee on the warranty (grant) deed for the real estate described on the attached certified copy of said deed.

It is my freewill act and deed, to execute this acknowledgement of my acceptance of the deed and lawfull ownership of the property under the terms of the deed.
I ask that the record on file in the office of register of deeds be updated to show my acceptance of the deed, as lawfull owner of the real estate.

All my other real property and interest issued for this real estate and its gain is to be immediately returned to me. What’s mine is mine, what’s yours is yours.

I accept the oaths of all public officers and bind them to it, as well as bestow my sovereign immunity on them while administering my lawfull orders. This public record under the seal of a competent court is guaranteed full faith and credit per Article 4 Section 1 of your Constitution. Any officer of the public who does not immediately carry out these lawfull orders acknowledges warring with the constitution, and committing treason. So let it be written, so let it be done.

Done under my hand and seal of my freewill act and deed.




State of Michigan, County of ________________________ ss.

On this _______day of September 2011, before me the subscriber, ______________________ , Robert Allen; Rytlewski, to me known to be the living man described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged before me that he executed the same as his freewill act and deed.

Hey Stonefree, this guy Robb Ryder is definitely on to something good here. I shared such information towards the beginning of this year with this group and also was on a private conference call back then with RR and shared this with him. He is very thorough when it comes to explanations and I am glad he is able to do a better job then me in explaining all the technical aspects.
Some of you on the group here may have remembered me posting this showing a setoff of vehicle taxes:
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...full=1#post510

I then later explained how when property is registered with government, they are just holders of the property, they do not own it:
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...ull=1#post1460
(Read the next post after that one you will see where DM finally acknowledges this)

On another funny note though back then I was called a fraud and some conspiracy nut job for bringing this up if you read the posts before that on that same thread.
It's all good now though, Robb was able to take it to another level with other property taxes and to show that it is just there being held waiting for someone to claim ownership on it.
His talkshoe call with Angela Stark on myprivateaudio was fantastic, I could not have done it much better myself.

Who makes the law? Man makes the law, one man has just as much right to make law as the other, even a conditional acceptance is making the law:
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...ull=1#post2576
Law is contract, contract is law.

motla68

[shikamaru]

Law is contract, contract is law.

That is contract makes the law.

Contract is voluntary.
Law is compulsory.

[motla68]

That is contract makes the law.

Contract is voluntary.
Law is compulsory.

Did i say contract was mandatory? Can one choose not to contract? Yes, some kind of law was here before man came into the picture to create contracts. I guess whatever makes you feel good.

[Anthony Joseph]

Hey Stonefree, this guy Robb Ryder is definitely on to something good here. I shared such information towards the beginning of this year with this group and also was on a private conference call back then with RR and shared this with him. He is very thorough when it comes to explanations and I am glad he is able to do a better job then me in explaining all the technical aspects.
Some of you on the group here may have remembered me posting this showing a setoff of vehicle taxes:
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...full=1#post510

I then later explained how when property is registered with government, they are just holders of the property, they do not own it:
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...ull=1#post1460
(Read the next post after that one you will see where DM finally acknowledges this)

On another funny note though back then I was called a fraud and some conspiracy nut job for bringing this up if you read the posts before that on that same thread.
It's all good now though, Robb was able to take it to another level with other property taxes and to show that it is just there being held waiting for someone to claim ownership on it.
His talkshoe call with Angela Stark on myprivateaudio was fantastic, I could not have done it much better myself.

Who makes the law? Man makes the law, one man has just as much right to make law as the other, even a conditional acceptance is making the law:
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...ull=1#post2576
Law is contract, contract is law.

motla68

I am in the process of listening and studying Robb's offerings regarding the acknowledgement and acceptance of the deed and I also find his explanations and supporting law/definitions quite interesting and thorough.

I am still sketchy on the aspect of executing this same method on the birth certificate. He offers that the "Legal M. Name" (First Middle Last) is a "landed estate" granted by your natural father and is also awaiting acknowledgement and acceptance to obtain good and highest title to that "Legal M. Name" estate. Robb opines that once this is done, no one or nothing can charge that name under law unless a claim via sworn affidavit by a living man is presented stating the harm or injury which occured. He says that it will never happen since that requirement will never be met by any moving party under those conditions.

I am still trying to wrap my mind around this one since the discussions of the Legal M. Name being property of the creator of it; the STATE. However, if the birth certificate is considered a grant deed as well with the same defect as the warranty deed, which is in want of acknowledgement and acceptance, then completing that process and correcting that record could have the same effect; any and all claims, liens encumbrances against that name subsequent to the original birth certificate/deed is a nullity and void in law. It becomes our lawful property as a landed estate which we have highest and good title to. If it is possible to acknowledge and accept the birth certificate as a deed then that means the STATE that created it never did; perhaps they never can. It is abandoned property in limbo which allows the STATE, and any other rogue party, to charge against it and claim interest in it via notice.

[motla68]

I am in the process of listening and studying Robb's offerings regarding the acknowledgement and acceptance of the deed and I also find his explanations and supporting law/definitions quite interesting and thorough.

I am still sketchy on the aspect of executing this same method on the birth certificate. He offers that the "Legal M. Name" (First Middle Last) is a "landed estate" granted by your natural father and is also awaiting acknowledgement and acceptance to obtain good and highest title to that "Legal M. Name" estate. Robb opines that once this is done, no one or nothing can charge that name under law unless a claim via sworn affidavit by a living man is presented stating the harm or injury which occured. He says that it will never happen since that requirement will never be met by any moving party under those conditions.

I am still trying to wrap my mind around this one since the discussions of the Legal M. Name being property of the creator of it; the STATE. However, if the birth certificate is considered a grant deed as well with the same defect as the warranty deed, which is in want of acknowledgement and acceptance, then completing that process and correcting that record could have the same effect; any and all claims, liens encumbrances against that name subsequent to the original birth certificate/deed is a nullity and void in law. It becomes our lawful property as a landed estate which we have highest and good title to. If it is possible to acknowledge and accept the birth certificate as a deed then that means the STATE that created it never did; perhaps they never can. It is abandoned property in limbo which allows the STATE, and any other rogue party, to charge against it and claim interest in it via notice.

You may want to take into consideration that the law of equity or equitable interests still has a foothold in this country over any other law, first in line, first in time.
Check out some old law dictionaries on the term " FREEHOLD " and see how it may apply to what he is saying.
There is a philosphy here in line with the biblical jurisprudence that man was here before the paper, man was given earth to have dominion over and because
I know DM likes to hear it, am going to say it again Gen 1:26.
I cannot prove they will acknowledge this, but he does make mention of Canon law which I had also posted on here about in the past, all i can say is that when you bring this kind of stuff up to certain governmental entities the facial expressions can be a kodak moment, especially when there boss says we were correct, because of the above sentences you will have to find your own philosophy to it unfortunately.

[Frederick Burrell]

The whole thing is in dishonor it would seem. Just another ponzi scheme to defraud the people. Most are lead to believe they own their property, but through the use of legaleeze speak have been dooped. this would seem to make the system null and void. Convincing them of this, might present a problem.fB

[shikamaru]

The whole thing is in dishonor it would seem. Just another ponzi scheme to defraud the people. Most are lead to believe they own their property, but through the use of legaleeze speak have been dooped. this would seem to make the system null and void. Convincing them of this, might present a problem.fB

I think the problem stems from peoples' lack of knowledge of the origins of our property laws.

Our property laws originate in England, particularly after the invasion of William the Conqueror.
Our property laws originate in Roman, Norman-French feudalism.

[David Merrill]

The whole thing is in dishonor it would seem. Just another ponzi scheme to defraud the people. Most are lead to believe they own their property, but through the use of legaleeze speak have been dooped. this would seem to make the system null and void. Convincing them of this, might present a problem.fB

When the remedy is written plainly in the law (since 1913) it is difficult to rightly accuse Congress of dishonor. But if you are adept at record-forming, then you might get an indictment...

I think the problem stems from peoples' lack of knowledge of the origins of our property laws.

Our property laws originate in England, particularly after the invasion of William the Conqueror.
Our property laws originate in Roman, Norman-French feudalism.

Thank you for that reminder. It is useful.

[Frederick Burrell]

When the remedy is written plainly in the law (since 1913) it is difficult to rightly accuse Congress of dishonor. But if you are adept at record-forming, then you might get an indictment...



Thank you for that reminder. It is useful.

I would agree with you both, but I feel that people have purposely mislead. Shame on us for sure for not paying attention, educating ourselves, trusting in government and thinking the news reporters were our watch dogs. But that was the line most bought into.fB

[David Merrill]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Merrill
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 6:57 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Property Tax Strategy



You may have to ask David about “owning the mill”; I may have misunderstood the reference and his use of that phrase.



I presented two stages and made the comment about baby steps. Just announcing ownership according to the bible is not really wise. I think we should refine the Agreement like Suitor Initials is proposing, pragmatically so that the profane understands. The foundation is spiritual though. But even officials who understand their spirituality are not going to risk their chosen career over somebody else's rendition.

There is something I want you to observe when I convinced the doctor in the ER to give me a free CAT Scan ($2K). It is about what AJ is saying too I believe. The doctor was holding on to his position for quite some time as you can tell. Then I caught him defending dishonor and he gave me the CAT Scan!





Look what I wrote in at Item 3.

The ER doctor thought that the hospital protected doctor-patient confidentiality. I can tell you that from the original by the volume of his voice and if you listen carefully you will hear the background hum increase because I have double the volume where his confidence trails off. He makes an assertion that the hospital is honorable about doctor patient confidentiality and then he reads the Agreement for the first time and finds out that I struck through the paragraph to preserve just that. This may be what Initials is speaking of about honor and dishonor.

Another thing to notice is the bottom; Any modifications to this form will not be honored!

Well, how about that? That showed up after I was treated for stepping on a nail a few years back. But the agreement is the agreement and 'owning the mill' means to me that the health care is owed by the Levitical Priesthood to the Order of Melchizedek for being elect. However I may be misinterpreting mill. I thought it had something to do with per capita and it may be related to grinding grains? Oh well, you learn something new every day!



Regards,

David Merrill.



In any case, unless one is fully devoid of use of any paper generated by the United States, utilizing a coupon is no different than utilizing FRNs. These are both obligations of the US and these are both considered “money” according to their own law. We just refuse to doubly enrich them and we refuse to “be the bond”. We also instruct them to utilize their instrument to settle their account according to their laws and obligations.



We cannot destroy the system; we can only avoid participation in it and the obligations of it, in our own right, by whatever means we deem necessary and with full righteousness of intent. Then, eventually the system may be destroyed on its own through its inherent dishonor and unrighteousness and the awareness of people, who recognize, receive and act upon the truth.



Thanks,

True Name





We demand that the instrument sent be used as lawful money in order to alleviate the burden of elastic private credit upon the people – false balances.



That is an amazing restatement of this; Paragraph 8:

The process works like this. Suppose $1000 in Federal Reserve notes are presented for redemption in public money. To raise $1000 in public money the Fed must surrender U.S. Bonds in that amount to the Treasury in exchange for the public money demanded (assuming that the Fed had no public money on hand). In so doing $1000 of the National Debt would be paid off by the Fed and thus canceled.

-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 7:31 AM
To:
Cc:

Subject: Re: Property Tax Strategy





Isn't "owning the mill", by any means, still 'voting' with the municipal-govt taxpayers, thus perpetuating their welfare-state of being?



What I suggested by directing one's energy as a "donation in lieu of tax" as one's fair share of a community's mutual-support services is that, we who do not trust in the welfare-state (or police-state, same thing), are only with covenant obligation to support a moral means to a moral end. How can that be claimed as belligerent intent or conduct?



True Name

On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 8:59 AM, True Name wrote:

I do not promote the concept of a “fund account” either. What I meant to offer here is the idea that there is “sameness” associated with sending in redeemed lawful money cash to pay the “tax bill” (and “own the mill”) and sending in the coupon which we also non-endorse by way of demanding it be redeemed in lawful money. We have that authority since it is a public entity we are dealing with just like a municipal utility service. We demand that the instrument sent be used as lawful money in order to alleviate the burden of elastic private credit upon the people – false balances. All the while the supposed “tax bill” is paid (via coupon – legal tender obligation of the US), we didn’t re-venue ourselves, we didn’t offer ourselves as the bond behind the elastic funds and we still can expect the fire truck to show up when there is a fire.



Thanks,

True Name




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 12:11 AM
To:


Subject: RE: Property Tax Strategy



That comment from True Name I presume is based on the Australian redemption and that it is made on one of the two components of the remittance. I should have explained that but what happened is I found it and slapped it on and Forwarded it to you all.



The component that I recognize as having effect in law is the:



Deposited for Credit on Account or Exchanged for Non-Redeemable Australian Bank Notes.


Many of you recognize that from our earlier non-endorsement stamps. The other verbiage is similar to the loan discharge Page 1, Page 2, Page 3. The rumor with that documentation is that the Lender started re-billing like reserved in paragraph 2. We had an east coast suitor experiment with a Government Student Loan for $5K too. The clerk messed with the evidence repository so badly it indicated there is something to it - but I suspect it is an operation of credit rather than any funds in any account. In other words the seized gold in 1933 paid for saving the Fed from extinction as the 20-year bank charters expired. Americans put their trust in FDR's "held in trust" (endorsed their salary checks) and that means America saved the Fed. America paid that gold to save the Fed. It is not there on account like many HJR-192 enthusiasts believe. But like I said, the US clerk of court rendered the science inconclusive.



Therefore I believe that we have an effect of redeeming lawful money on that success story. Not directing the account to any Treasury Direct-style funds for setoff.

-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 9:00 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Property Tax Strategy
Importance: High

If the coupon attached to the “tax bill” is returned in good faith in order to provide a way for them to settle their books and account with the verbiage “Funds are redeemed in lawful money per 12usc411” written on the coupon; isn’t that the same premise of “owning the mill” since, just like a stack of FRNs, a coupon is an obligation of the United States which we can either endorse (be the bond) or make the demand for lawful money?



Thanks,

True Name



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Merrill
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 9:28 PM
To:
Subject: FW: Property Tax Strategy



I remembered where I saved that Australian redemption process.



Continued...