Hi David -

I can not directly assume that AJ lost his home under Boris guidance at all. First of all, there have been a few others who have had success [up until now] that have NOT lost the home THEY USE. They do not own the home they use, they just use it. There is a fine line between it is MY house and I have control, dominion, possession and use of a home. If AJ says I am AJ SMITH and that is MY house, AJ is liable.

It is not about stating, I AM NOT JOHN SMITH. This is a claim. It is about asking the question: Under what authority and/or legislation are you using a name to identify a man? Thanks to the 1933 bankruptcy of the US, ALL TITLES [property] WERE SEIZED, inclusive of the Name [COLB].

As stated in Senate Doc #43, page 9, second paragraph, April 1933: “The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of Government, ie, law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.”

In the beginning I had some issues with Karl Lentz and his common law. Karl went on to define what HIS PROPERTY means. His property means He has exclusive use of say, his home TO THE EXCLUSION OF OTHERS. In other words, use, control, passion and dominion over.

The problem is the "earthly illusion sees so real" that we "buy it". This is where we honor the false god as opposed to the Supreme True One. And then comes the problems. We must come to a logically conclusion that EVERYTHING HAS BEEN PROVIDED FREELY AND ABUNDANTLY BY THE CREATOR. The Creator does not and can not NOT provide EVERYTHING TO EVERYONE TO MEET HIS NEEDS, and with extra to spare. However, man make a free will CHOICE to make false claims upon the usufruct and intermeddle, ultimately to be held accountable under the Supreme Law.


Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
Thank you Lost in Florida (backwards);


Welcome to StSC!

That is a relief that I do not offend Boris. I am pleased that in your unique and forgotten heritage that this process somehow turned up a lost estate. Would you please elaborate and maybe isolate what facets of Boris' process caught this attorney's attention?

From your post I presume that the attorney was after a cut of salvaging your estate from all that escheat and assumpsit.



P.S. On that known by his fruit doctrine: About 8 months back I received a call from AJ's wife as they lost their home, in a panic because in the process of the county removing all their possessions to the curb, they cuffed and jailed AJ. This explains to this amateur psychologist why he would feel so invested in Boris' doctrine, AJ now feeling he sees what went wrong. It also explains why he must resort to slurs and his own derogatory diagnosis of my mental health. His example of the 2008 Mortgage Release does little to convince me that portion of the process shown was the reasoning for releasing the mortgage when AJ himself lost his home - I assume under Boris' guidance.