Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 32

Thread: Who gave us the authority to administrate the strawman account, can you prove it?

  1. #1
    Senior Member motla68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Within the confines of my own skin.
    Posts
    752

    Who gave us the authority to administrate the strawman account, can you prove it?

    To avoid hearsay in a court of law not only will they want to see a signed
    certified and sealed document they will also need to speak with the person/
    man whom gave that authority to administrate an account they created.

    I keep asking lower and upper echelons who is the qualified/authorized
    trustee as some of you have. The lower says go to upper, but you talk
    to upper and they are remaining silent on the issue.
    The only evidence found is within federal court case documents of
    every court case it says the U.S. District attorney's office is the trustee
    for the United States, but this is a huge office, a friend told me he got
    a reply back once that said each office worker in that office is assigned
    to only answer specific questions, not it is just a matter of finding the
    correct person to as the right questions to.

    A little further thought on this, are you a natural resource, are you part of the
    land i.e. connected directly to it?
    The Trustees have a responsibility to protect natural resources.. light bulb!
    Source: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/33/40/I/2706

    With a military occupation in place do you feel as if they are attempting to
    control you? Could it be they have a trust in us, but we do not have trust
    with them? Where does their authority come from? Lets investigate -->>

    natural law
    n.
    A law or body of laws that derives from nature and is believed to be binding
    upon human actions apart from or in conjunction with laws established by
    human authority.
    1. (Philosophy) an ethical belief or system of beliefs supposed to be inherent in
    human nature and discoverable by reason rather than revelation
    3. (Philosophy) the philosophical doctrine that the authority of the legal
    system or of certain laws derives from their justifiability by reason, and indeed
    that a legal system which cannot be so justified has no authority
    Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/natural+law

    Does one man have authority over another if there is not meeting of the minds,
    is one man's belief another man's contract? NO, not without consent!
    a couple more definitions here to discover what seals the deal.
    quasi natural
    2 a : existing as part of or determined by nature natural condition of the land> b :
    being in accordance with or arising from nature esp. as distinguished from operation
    of law —see also NATURAL PERSON —compare ARTIFICIAL c : arising from the
    usual course of events natural result of the accident>
    4 : ILLEGITIMATE natural child> —nat·u·ral·ly adverb

    Silence is acquiescence, you have to speak up about not consenting to be that
    piece of paper, President Bush even said it is "nothing but a Damn piece of paper".
    ....

    Moving on to the contract part of this where a babies foot print was forced on to
    a piece of paper, a survey event upon the land, just as deaths and divorces are.

    Quasi-contractus
    A term used in the civil law. A quasi-contract is the act of a person, permitted by law,
    by which he obligates himself towards another, or by which another binds himself to
    him, without any agreement between them.
    2. By article 2272 of the Civil Code of Louisiana, which is translated from article 1371
    of the Code Civil, quasi-contracts are defined to be "the lawful and purely voluntary acts of a man, from which there results any obligation whatever to a third person, and sometime a reciprocal obligation between the parties." In contracts, it is the consent of the contracting parties which produces the obligation; in quasi-contracts no consent is required, and the obligation arises from the law or natural equity, on the facts of the case. These acts are called quasi-contracts, because, without being contracts, they bind the parties as contracts do.

    5.-2. Tutorship or guardianship, is the second kind of quasi- contracts, there being no
    agreement between the tutor and minor.

    11. There is no term in the common law which answers to that of quasi- contract; many
    quasi-contracts may doubtless be classed among implied contracts; there is, however,
    a difference between them, which an example will make manifest. In case money should
    be paid by mistake to a minor, it may be recovered from him by the civil law, because his
    consent is not necessary to a quasi-contract but by the common law, if it can be recovered, it must be upon an agreement to which the law presumes he has consented, and it is doubtful, upon principle, whether such recovery could be had.

    Is a policy from IRS for Voluntary Compliance enough to establish a common law contract or is it the actions of a human acting in quasi/persona that does this?

    Who gave us the authority to administrator act as trustee for the strawman/persona account, can you prove it beyond a reasonable doubt?

  2. #2
    There is no "strawman account".

    A strawman is a third party intervener working on behalf of a principal to provide themselves as a front typically in a commercial matter.

    There is some sort of account or record. That I do agree with.
    Last edited by shikamaru; 07-25-11 at 07:50 PM.

  3. #3
    Senior Member motla68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Within the confines of my own skin.
    Posts
    752
    Quote Originally Posted by shikamaru View Post
    There is some sort of account or record. That I do agree with.
    ok, then same questions for account or record. ... who and prove it?

  4. #4
    The account is like this fellow issuing a bonded promissory note. The Fed issues promissory notes called Federal Reserve notes and Drew Allen RAYNER (72) is a Fed bank. He too, has been creating Fed notes all his working life by endorsing the back of his paychecks. He has been bonding the extra promissory notes by approving the fractional lending. Do you get that? Because he has been bonding notes, he is bonded to administrate for those notes. There is no account associated with his SSN or birth certificate because his bonded promissory notes have been out in circulation with the Fed's and all the other Fed banks' BPNs.

    Drew Allen is in trouble for (presumably) demanding change - which could be considered theft - resulting in fraud charges. The fraud is not on the $171.50, it is on the $4.50 he demanded the City create for him in change by making the bonded promissory note out for $175!

    Here is evidence what I am saying is true. Look at this docket entry from some time ago. That entry, and the scrubbed Doc 20 (which I would really like to read) shows payment in full of the exact amount ordered by the federal judge by this bonded promissory note. I looked again yesterday:


    The fellow issuing the bonding, I am certain, believes in accounts associated with SSNs and birth certificates, rather than endorsement on notes in circulation. Therefore he got nervous about his BPN - that some day he might have to prove it out, where the money covering it came from. Without knowing about Title 12 U.S.C. §411 I can understand how he might get nervous.

    Point being though, that if the BPN was bogus, you might think the federal judge would order him to pay up "properly" out-of-pocket or refer the BPN to the AG for prosecution, which as of yesterday never happened.



    Regards,

    David Merrill.

  5. #5
    Senior Member motla68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Within the confines of my own skin.
    Posts
    752
    This will be very huge story that will definitely go viral if he is successful.
    A true test of the question.

    Thanks

  6. #6

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by motla68 View Post
    ok, then same questions for account or record. ... who and prove it?
    I would say the account or record works on assumption.

    The account or record is a benefit or use.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by shikamaru View Post
    I would say the account or record works on assumption.

    The account or record is a benefit or use.
    ...or use - what if the ACCOUNT NAME is the TRUST [in that instant situation] and the Roles [pick one of three available] are up for grabs so to speak

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by John Booth View Post
    ...or use - what if the ACCOUNT NAME is the TRUST [in that instant situation] and the Roles [pick one of three available] are up for grabs so to speak
    Hence ... the keyword assumption .

  10. #10
    Senior Member motla68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Within the confines of my own skin.
    Posts
    752
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Is it just me, or does everybody have to register now?


    http://www.sunherald.com/2011/07/21/...d-charges.html
    Your buying, selling, signing for swapping of securities owned by a government corporation, I would think all who are even acting in persona of banking and brokerage entities would need to be registered to do this, yes. Unless your the King or Queen of that corporation? But then again we are suppose to be in the world, not of it, so why play in it?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •