Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 614151617 LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 168

Thread: Resistance and Refusal by Banks

  1. #151
    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.

  2. #152
    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

  3. #153
    No disrespect taken. We disagree regarding the definition of claim; i believe a claim can be 'ownership' related yet not automatically so.

    I do agree that if i go in their court that i cannot be heard as a man. However, a man has right of access to his court and if brought, held and kept properly, a man is the ONLY one that can be heard in said court. The courthouse is not 'court'; it is merely a venue to hold court. The courthouse is a public building and the people have right of use of it for their court, if they can keep it.

    Again, you fall upon presumptions regarding the Name. My family Name is antecedent to the United States. My mom and dad gave me a Name and i can choose to use it as i wish. A presumption is just that; presumption unless and until someone living verifies the presumptive claim on the record. The accused has a right to face and question his accuser; that is ancient law still in effect for a man.

    The question that usually gets one in trouble is, "Are you 'John Doe'?" Regardless of the answer, if one responds to 'you', one is admitting dual/capacity; man as surety for a person.

    Who_Is_You.pdf

    Jurisdiction and 'court' can be flipped when a man is present; and, when said man knows how to remain in that one capacity of 'man'. If i am accused, there is no need for me to say "i am" or "i am not" something; the accuser must verify what he/she is claiming of me; a man. Paper cannot speak and the record is not formed as verifiable until one speaks the claim in living voice. Why do you think the 'judge' must always ask 'you' to say who you are? What's wrong with taking the info off of the Driver's License or Birth Certificate or other paper/documents? Because the 'judge' knows that paper is worthless until it is given life by the living in viva voce.

    I am fairly new to this concept and process so, as far as having success with this, i am still working towards moving my court and learning how to keep it. I have, however, had success in one instance regarding the return of property. My property (commonly known as a 'shotgun') was taken by a man acting as 'Deputy Sheriff'. It was being held in "PROPERTY" at the Sheriff's Office. I notified the proper party that my property is being held and that i wish restoration of said property. I was told i "must" sign an "affidavit" stating that i am NOT a "felon" or "wanted criminal" or other legal descriptions of things on their list. i simply said, "no thank you, i am a man and i wish restoration of my property". The man acting for the Sheriff's Office (attorney) repeated his demand. i repeated my requirement. He told me he would have to get back to me. When he did, he said, "we would like it if you signed the affidavit, however if you do not wish to, you are not required to do so."

    On the day i went to collect my property, i was handed the affidavit again and told i must sign it. i informed the woman that you have my property and i wish restoration of it. She insisted that everyone must sign one of these because she demands it be done. I told her to seek advice from the attorney as he knows i am not required to sign your affidavit. I pushed that paper aside and filled out the form which read that i did collect my property on this date; i corrected some verbiage on it. When she returned she asked for a driver's license to match the Name and i showed her one. She went back to retrieve my property and handed it over. The other 'officer' (a man) who came out when we began discussing the affidavit changed his stance from one of 'backup' to humble servant and wished me, "Have a good day sir."

    This instance is "gun" related in their eyes. Someone came in, declined their demands and claimed property. This happened at the Sheriff's Office and i left with my property without incident and without meeting their demands.

    Keys:

    i: a man; John Doe, claim my property and wish restoration at this time.
    Last edited by Anthony Joseph; 12-23-13 at 03:00 PM.

  4. #154
    May I ask, are you following Glenn Fearn's or Karl Lentz info?

    I do not disagree with you 100%; however, as I said I KNOW consistency is key. I have very little experience thus far myself. However, the study hours I have put in over these last two years amounts to a full time job. It was last year the "light bulb" went on with a silly debate back and forth about what I thought to be mine and legally CAN NOT BE MINE.

    We all are on a path. I am grateful for several men who helped me see the light though I admit I was a bit stubborn in the beginning.

    As far as this success above, I would consider this a victory; however, a "shotgun" was returned by the police. Victory yes, but I was more referring to court, IRS, etc. I will state this in a different way for the benefit of the group - in a simple quick way. Since the 1933, the US has seized all property, including the COLB or titles to "man". The State receives all the benefits of "man's future labor". Man has no where to go because he can not own or hold that original title. Technically the title was not even stolen, it simply was confiscated due to the US bankruptcy. Thus common law, based upon the 1938 Erie RR case, is MOSTLY dead. We now have public policy in its place. When a man claims ownership or to be that title called a Name where the state holds legal title in trust, man is "legally speaking" acting as a belligerent warring against the state, where all property IS vested in the state. If that title is property and is owned by the state, man CAN NOT make such claims to it. The state can only recognize and have jurisdiction over its property. Man is not property NOR can ever be considered property. Man can consent to be a person or property, thereby giving the court/government jurisdiction over it - the person, property, infant, estate, etc. thus CONSENTING TO BE SURETY, according to their rules or law.

    The US Constitution/declaration of independence has nothing to do with man. It was a bunch of men that decided to form a "trust". Did you sign those documents? No! Ok then how are you a party to those documents? It was stated in the Paddleford case that No private person has a right to complain by suit in court on the ground of a breach of the United States constitution; for, though the constitution is a compact, he is not a party to it. It is an impossibility without your consent for any government "whatever" to move forward with jurisdiction without consent. Since the US bankruptcy, there is a declared state of emergency where all property has been seized. In my opinion, the best remedy NOW offered to man in order for him to have "remedy" is to allow the public trustee to administrate their property Name FOR EVERYTHING. Should man decide to "intermeddle" with the infant's estate or make claims to the Name, he subjects himself to public policy statutes.

    If you want to restore what you believe to be your property, I am sorry to disagree, but you will find out that original title held in trust will NEVER be turned back over to you. I tried as have others. I was told quite frankly but vital statistics - YOU CAN"T HAVE THAT IT IS NOT YOURS. Do you believe that? I was shocked. If I were to obtain that original title, I would agree with you and common law would be available to me for remedy. I can't get that document, therefore, the best I can do is use that Name or property and not make any claim to ownership.

    Finally, and this is the head twist, WE ALL MUST REMEMBER the Creator gave man everything FREELY. It was man or group of man that made up "graven images" similar to the real but is just fiction. The title to the car is a fiction and does not represent the actual car. The government owns that title not man. However man has the RIGHT to use, possess and control the real car. If I claim that is MY CAR, then I am liable. If I am pulled over and cop KNOWS that car he has jurisdiction over. He can seize that car with due process of law. If you OWNED that car, he COULD NOT SEIZE THAT CAR BECAUSE IT IS YOUR PROPERTY. Same thing with bank account and houses. When you use FRN, there is a lien on such property, then they get you by "owning original title to the Name".

    I suggest everyone take a look into this matter a bit more. It sucks I know. I was not happy about this at first but now I feel liberated. Wow am I long winded lol

  5. #155
    Member froze25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    The Land that some call New York
    Posts
    71

    Karl Lentz Documents

    You can find Karl Lentz's Documents from his court case here
    http://broadmind.org/Documents.html

    And some of his audio
    http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/127469

  6. #156
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
    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
    Last edited by Chex; 12-23-13 at 09:42 PM.

  7. #157
    I have heard many good things about Karl Lentz; however, in all my studies, I found that "using common law" currently under this state of emergency ain't going to fly. I do not mean to suggest EVER, but mean suggest rarely. With this said, I asked the people in the group of Not a Citizen what opinion they had of Karl. [really because I did not want to take the time to listen to the talkshoes] - this is some of the feedback I got:

    He [Karl] also appears to believe the bankruptcy is no big deal and said, so what. That is the US government that went bankrupt, not us. While that is true, he seems to not get the real ramification of it. The States also went bankrupt.

    One guy was trying to point out how the States are required to use only gold and silver as money, but he seems to think that doesn't matter either stating something to the effect, well this how the State rolls now.

    I don't think he knows how the Government not only went into bankruptcy and continue to operate under it today, but how they also seized all titles to all property along with having taken all the gold and silver from the States and the private sector removing everyone's ability to pay anything. Everything since the bankruptcy is supposed to be discharged, not paid for by the people as a debt. The US Government took on the liability to pay all debts when they entered into their bankruptcy. That is in their own statutes at large stating the Comptroller of Currency is to pay all the bills.

    FURTHERMORE

    I listened to Karl Lentz talk and while I can see some of the stuff he says making some sense, he seems to be confused on his beliefs in other areas.

    For example, he says if you owe a debt pay it. While that may be correct in a normal sense, it is not correct in today's world based on the current system. He also contradicts himself here because one part he says we are the creditor. Well how does a creditor owe a debt when all credit comes from the man?

    How does a man pay a debt with no money to be able to pay a debt?

    When all there is is just an "internal" currency created for "internal" use within the Government between its federal reserve system, federal reserve banks, and all national banks, and FOR NO OTHER PURPOSES ARE AUTHORIZED, and that "internal" currency is just DEBT itself, HOW can a man ever possibly pay a debt?

    When a government removes all money to pay a debt with from the private sector, and replaces it all within an "internal" currency, and a government seized ALL TITLES TO ALL PROPERTY, including title to the commercial legal Names, HOW can a man possibly pay any debt?

    HOW can a man even possibly have a debt?

    ALL existing DEBT is all debt owed by the Government, not private men. ALL CREDIT created comes from the energy of men using the commercial name held by the State!

    and FINALLY

    I heard some claim success using his process, which of course I have my own beliefs as to why they could work because by claiming to be a man and not a artificial person, that in itself places the court into corner where they cannot address that issue without exposing the truth of what is really going on. So to protect the truth from getting out it pretty much forces the court to just dispose of the case just to conceal the truth, which by dismissing it that gives those the belief this process is valid and the way to go.

    I believe it is the same manner where some use the executor of the estate stuff where if done right that places the court into a catch 22 position where if they continue they expose the truth thereby forcing them to just dismiss and dispose of the case.

    Think about it. What is the court going to do? Publicly state you cannot be recognized as a man therefore you cannot invoke common law? Or publicly expose you cannot be of any office of executor for that estate because you are not a party to that estate and can't be any such thing because the State s not appointed as such a thing over its estate?

    AGAIN I AM NOT LOOKING TO DEBATE KARL OR HIS WORK. I wanted to know what some others thought. Some think he is great and others think he is not so great. In the beginning I used to think Tim Turner had all the answers, then we move on to learn differently.

  8. #158
    Quote Originally Posted by salsero View Post
    The States also went bankrupt.
    In Germany, there are said to be two classes of states.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  9. #159
    Quote Originally Posted by salsero View Post
    I have heard many good things about Karl Lentz; however, in all my studies, I found that "using common law" currently under this state of emergency ain't going to fly. I do not mean to suggest EVER, but mean suggest rarely. With this said, I asked the people in the group of Not a Citizen what opinion they had of Karl. [really because I did not want to take the time to listen to the talkshoes] - this is some of the feedback I got:

    He [Karl] also appears to believe the bankruptcy is no big deal and said, so what. That is the US government that went bankrupt, not us. While that is true, he seems to not get the real ramification of it. The States also went bankrupt.

    One guy was trying to point out how the States are required to use only gold and silver as money, but he seems to think that doesn't matter either stating something to the effect, well this how the State rolls now.

    I don't think he knows how the Government not only went into bankruptcy and continue to operate under it today, but how they also seized all titles to all property along with having taken all the gold and silver from the States and the private sector removing everyone's ability to pay anything. Everything since the bankruptcy is supposed to be discharged, not paid for by the people as a debt. The US Government took on the liability to pay all debts when they entered into their bankruptcy. That is in their own statutes at large stating the Comptroller of Currency is to pay all the bills.

    FURTHERMORE

    I listened to Karl Lentz talk and while I can see some of the stuff he says making some sense, he seems to be confused on his beliefs in other areas.

    For example, he says if you owe a debt pay it. While that may be correct in a normal sense, it is not correct in today's world based on the current system. He also contradicts himself here because one part he says we are the creditor. Well how does a creditor owe a debt when all credit comes from the man?

    How does a man pay a debt with no money to be able to pay a debt?

    When all there is is just an "internal" currency created for "internal" use within the Government between its federal reserve system, federal reserve banks, and all national banks, and FOR NO OTHER PURPOSES ARE AUTHORIZED, and that "internal" currency is just DEBT itself, HOW can a man ever possibly pay a debt?

    When a government removes all money to pay a debt with from the private sector, and replaces it all within an "internal" currency, and a government seized ALL TITLES TO ALL PROPERTY, including title to the commercial legal Names, HOW can a man possibly pay any debt?

    HOW can a man even possibly have a debt?

    ALL existing DEBT is all debt owed by the Government, not private men. ALL CREDIT created comes from the energy of men using the commercial name held by the State!

    and FINALLY

    I heard some claim success using his process, which of course I have my own beliefs as to why they could work because by claiming to be a man and not a artificial person, that in itself places the court into corner where they cannot address that issue without exposing the truth of what is really going on. So to protect the truth from getting out it pretty much forces the court to just dispose of the case just to conceal the truth, which by dismissing it that gives those the belief this process is valid and the way to go.

    I believe it is the same manner where some use the executor of the estate stuff where if done right that places the court into a catch 22 position where if they continue they expose the truth thereby forcing them to just dismiss and dispose of the case.

    Think about it. What is the court going to do? Publicly state you cannot be recognized as a man therefore you cannot invoke common law? Or publicly expose you cannot be of any office of executor for that estate because you are not a party to that estate and can't be any such thing because the State s not appointed as such a thing over its estate?

    AGAIN I AM NOT LOOKING TO DEBATE KARL OR HIS WORK. I wanted to know what some others thought. Some think he is great and others think he is not so great. In the beginning I used to think Tim Turner had all the answers, then we move on to learn differently.
    I believe what was "seized", if anything (I cannot verify), was the "2nd dimension world" of legalities and paper TITLES. If one wishes, and/or finds it necessary, to operate in that world, there are remedies to invoke as well. If one is not concerned with the 2nd dimension, than the law is the common law (unwritten) and there is only testimony and claims from living men. NOTHING in the 2nd dimension or "legal world" supersedes man and his living voice on earth.

    The 'judges' know this, however, there are so few who can remain as a man when bringing court, or answering a claim from another, that 'successes' are also few. There are certain words to use, and not use, in order for the man to keep his court as superior to the realm of codes and statutes. These 'Shibboleth' are what the 'judges' are listening for in order to determine whether or not a 'man' is before them. One wrong word, or wrong response to a question, will make or break you. They are essentially 'gatekeepers' and will not permit the ignorant or incompetent to pass. However, when it is without doubt that a 'man' is present and remains in his superior capacity, the 'judge' is relegated to 'public servant' and 'man' is the public. Again, this does not happen very often since we were all mis-taught, subject to societal conditioning and, most importantly, derelict in own self-awareness, self-determination and self-governance. It is up to each of us to learn to stand as men and remain in that superior standing at all times. That does not mean violence, aggression, belligerence or combativeness; it means knowing and living what is true and honorable; and, being aware that we live above the 2nd dimension of paper.

    I also disagree with some of Karl's opinions regarding money and debt, however, it is hard to get a good grip on his stance since he shifts from one side to another depending on who he is talking to. I have heard him say the same similar things that you offer (Tony) regarding money and debt. Perhaps he also is listening for 'Shibboleth' and gives some people one answer and others another answer depending upon how far he feels one is in their journey. His stuff is very powerful, but it will fail miserably if one does not know it and live it as a 'way of life'. He gives no 'silver bullets' or 'templates'; only knowledge and vocabulary that a 'man' should know.

  10. #160
    May I finally say - I wish you the best with what ever remedy you are most comfortable with. As for me, I have been there and done that. The 12 USC 411 is about the most "statutes" the Person, I USE, is going to incorporate into a remedy, as in my point of view, the increase in public debt is a public harm and therefore my intent is NOT to create or add to a public harm, as all are my brothers and sisters. Even though the US debit HAS NOTHING to do with me, I still feel as a "foreigner" on this land, I do not wish to create presumptions or controversies. Using FRN does just that.

    For those that are a little more Bible oriented [I do not really subscribe 100% as the infallible word of God] and are interested in a very long video presentation in 14 parts, I can recommend Servant King with Marcus. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GSR...Y1ZxJB&index=1 The jist of this is - You are either with God or against. There is no half way.

    I would also recommend www.notacitizen.com

    I am also recommending Boris and the discharging of any reversionary interest [12 USC 95a] http://creoharmony.blogspot.com.au/2...ersionary.html

    Tony

Posting Permissions

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