Resistance and Refusal by Banks

[salsero]

Paisan,

I do not mean to disagree with you but the right of use, possession and control is something different than ownership. The name is property, according to law. If you make a claim to that property, then you consent, by operation of law to act as surety as executor, administrator or trustee for that Name, or property, title estate, trust, ens legis, individual, person, whoever, infant, etc. When you say “I make no claim to title or ownership” how to you think property is claimed? It is through title. Through a piece of paper. The paper is fiction. It is in an image of the real; however, it is Caesar’s. You are correct only man can make a claim. I would prefer to let them challenge that I am their property, as TPTB would have to prove that claim that I am State property. The state can make claims and has rights because the people believe that and have CONSENTED to that. We agree that the government has an obligation to restore and protect property. Where we disagree is you think you own that property or claim that property – NAME as yours. It ain’t. It is yours to use but not own. When you claim that Name as your property, you are claiming a reversionary interest in property belonging to the State [legal title holder] where the US holds equitable title as protected purchaser under UCC 8-102D, through the purchase, paid to the state of said titles by the SSA.

I would like to comment further on the fact should you walk into any court or legal situation and you claim that Name and then decide to change your mind, it will be too late. You have already consented to act as surety for that property. You must not make any claim at all from the beginning. The only ones that do have the right to interfere with man’s right to self-determination is the man that consents to TPTB. Spiritually speaking, the devil has the right to deceive all men. The devil does not have the right to force you to consent to be deceived. Folks do this more than willingly. This is a subject to be further discussed in detail.

If you believe you are going to tell the court what to do, good luck to you. The court can only recognize its fictional property. Once personal jurisdiction has been consented to, you are playing in their sandbox. It is their rules that will govern you. The court can not hear a man’s claim. The man must use the fictional property name to being a claim into their “temple of Just-Us”. If the court has no juridiction over a man, then a man has no business being in court. Think about this. You can not be half-pregnant.

If whatever you are doing is working for you, great. I wish you the very best. I do not see how though.

If you want the public officials to do their oath-bound jobs of protecting the pubic as outlined in 63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, §241, then I would stop intermeddling with the infant’s estate, making false claims to fictional property that you do not own, but have every right to use, possess, and control but NOT OWN, and let those public officers acting in their official capacity as trustee, administrator or executor do their jobs and protect state property by discharging all claims against said property.

You had been sent a copy of a usufruct compliant certified certificate for your use. The owner of said property reaps all the benefits and therefore must accept all the liabilities. United States v. Pewee Coal Co., Inc. - 341 U.S. 114 (1951), in part, “Like any private person or corporation, the United States normally is entitled to the profits from, and must bear the losses of, business operations which it conducts. When a private business is possessed and operated for public use, no reason appears to justify imposition of losses sustained on the person from whom the property was seized”. Furthermore, “that the Government chose to intervene by taking possession and operating control. By doing so, it became the proprietor and, in the absence of contrary arrangements, was entitled to the benefits and subject to the liabilities which that status involves.”

If anyone is interested in more of this “thinking”, you can start with www.notacitizen.com

Tony

I have come to believe that the Name (First Middle Last) is my property (right of use; that which is proper to i; a man, and exclusive of all others). The 'State' may have TITLE and OWNERSHIP in the legal world, yet said claim of property is made by a man. Having TITLE or OWNERSHIP is what makes one liable and obliged. I make no claim of TITLE or OWNERSHIP; only to property. Only a man can make a claim; so, another man must challenge your claim in open court on the record. The 'State' has no rights and cannot make claims. Those who act in capacity as officer for the State have no rights either, while in that capacity; they have privileges, duties and obligations. One of the most important duties and obligations is to secure, protect and restore property. Who are they oath-bound to perform this for? For men and women who make claims and have inherent rights which come from the Creator, Most High God. The standing and capacity of 'man' is higher that that of 'State' or 'officer' or 'judge' or 'president' or 'pope'.

Only 'man' is unlimited in his capacity; he can and may choose to be anything he wishes at any given moment in time. Which means, if it is of benefit to me, i can choose to be 'First Middle Last' in a particular situation. As soon as i choose not to be 'First Middle Last' then, i am not. These two choices can occur within minutes of each other. Who has the right to interfere with a man's right to self-determine and self-govern? Do you know of anyone? Only a terrorist interferes with a man's right to self-govern (terrorism is interfering with the proper function of government). The chief public servant BARACK OBAMA himself admitted recently in a speech, that we all have the gift of self-government (albeit he is confused as to who ultimately 'gave' that capacity to us).

The key to all this is to properly move, hold and keep our court(s) when someone (not a fictional entity) robs our property or interferes with our right to property. The 'State' doesn't do a thing, ever. The 'IRS' never robs any man's property, ever. Ultimately, it is ALWAYS a man or woman who robs property from another 'man' and it is that man or woman who robbed said property that must be held liable for that wrong. It matters not what capacity he or she claimed to be in at the time or what 'legal' basis was claimed; no man or woman has a right to rob another man's property, ever. Any attempted justification of the wrong from the 'legal' world (codes, statutes) is a further wrong committed against the man.

We must learn to act as men and women, bring our competent court(s) and know how to keep it when wrongs, harm or injuries are committed against us and/or our claimed property. Forgiveness is essential, and yet, restoration must be provided by those who have willingly placed themselves in a lower office/capacity than 'man' with the voluntary burden of duties and obligations toward 'man'. It was their choice to enter into that capacity and, to stay in honor, they must perform accordingly.

[Anthony Joseph]

Compare,

I disagree. A claim of property by a man does NOT rely on any paper and does NOT imply TITLE or OWNERSHIP. Only those who have TITLE and OWNERSHIP bear the burden and obligation for the 'thing' TITLED or OWNED. Property is 'right of use' of a thing, not the thing itself; nor is it a TITLE or OWNERSHIP claim.

If anyone wishes to dispute my claim, that someone must utter their challenge to my claim in open court, under oath or affirmation, on the record. A piece of paper is powerless and useless unless a man will verify what is upon it in living voice on the record. Who will challenge my claim that the Name is my property in open court? Do you really believe someone will take the stand and swear that the property i claim (First Middle Last) really belongs to the 'United States'? Has that ever happened? Who will verify in open court that i; a man, am surety or liable for debts against a fictitious persona?

If someone makes a claim that i am a debtor, that someone better verify under oath and on the record that the supposed debt is true and post due. The 'United States' cannot take the stand and neither can the 'IRS'. A man has a right to face his accuser, and whoever is named 'Plaintiff' must appear and verify the claim else there is no case.

[salsero]

With no disrespect intended, the error I see in your logic is you believe making any claim by a man through, say the court, is not implying ownership. This is where we disagree. As I explained previously, the mere fact that you claim, I am John Doe, automatically presumes you are making a claim to the property, estate, person which belongs to the state. You can not go into any court as John and make a claim OR even be heard as a defendant. The court can not move against a man only a fiction. You must use John Doe. If John Doe is property of the state, I see no reason why the state would even bother to dispute or challenge your claim that you are or are not John Doe. You simply fall under their jurisdiction. You are just held as surety for making such claim and thus you must follow the rules set by public policy. This is done in every court case. They know you are not John Doe but never dispute or challenge that claim. LOL.

Logically and of course you can disagree, if a credit card debt is taken out in the name of John Doe and you, the man go into court and claim to be John Doe, you will be held as surety. If you go into court and say anything remotely claiming anything, they will get you. If you go into court and say I am a man and I am not John Doe. You will be held as surety. Stating I am not something is making a claim.

However, if you have had success in doing things your way, more power to you

[Chex]

If anyone wishes to dispute my claim, that someone must utter their challenge to my claim in open court, under oath or affirmation, on the record. A piece of paper is powerless and useless unless a man will verify what is upon it in living voice on the record. Who will challenge my claim that the Name is my property in open court? Do you really believe someone will take the stand and swear that the property i claim (First Middle Last) really belongs to the 'United States'? Has that ever happened? Who will verify in open court that i; a man, am surety or liable for debts against a fictitious persona?

(12) “Property” includes any present or future interest, whether legal or equitable, in real, personal (including choses in action), or mixed property, tangible or intangible, vested or contingent, wherever located and however held (including community property and property held in trust (including spendthrift and pension trusts)), but excludes—

(A) property held in trust by the United States for the benefit of an Indian tribe or individual Indian; and

(B) Indian lands subject to restrictions against alienation imposed by the United States.

If someone makes a claim that i am a debtor, that someone better verify under oath and on the record that the supposed debt is true and post due. The 'United States' cannot take the stand and neither can the 'IRS'. A man has a right to face his accuser, and whoever is named 'Plaintiff' must appear and verify the claim else there is no case.

(13) “Security agreement” means an agreement that creates or provides for a lien.

(3) “Debt” means—
(A) an amount that is owing to the United States on account of a direct loan, or loan insured or guaranteed, by the United States; or

(B) an amount that is owing to the United States on account of a fee, duty, lease, rent, service, sale of real or personal property, overpayment, fine, assessment, penalty, restitution, damages, interest, tax, bail bond forfeiture, reimbursement, recovery of a cost incurred by the United States, or other source of indebtedness to the United States, but that is not owing under the terms of a contract originally entered into by only persons other than the United States;
and includes any amount owing to the United States for the benefit of an Indian tribe or individual Indian, but excludes any amount to which the United States is entitled under section 3011 (a).

(10) “Person” includes a natural person (including an individual Indian), a corporation, a partnership, an unincorporated association, a trust, or an estate, or any other public or private entity, including a State or local government or an Indian tribe.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002