Redeem From Public To Private Venue

[David Merrill]

Salsero;


You remind me of my understanding that Jesus became authorized to teach redemption through his sense of separation:


Oh God! My Father!! Why has thou forsaken me?

[salsero]

I believe you misunderstood me. The BC is evidence of the "usufruct compliant certified certificate indemnity receipt" for redemption FOR the person under Liebor Code 38. Yes, I agree it is presumed one is the executor de son tort. When I did "my release", I did not do a UCC form. Attached to the release is the BC and on the backside it is marked "pay to the United States of America, without recourse".

It is a difficult to separate man and the person. I do not know how to say it any other way. Man is the SOURCE [I did not use the word creditor, even though that is what man is in "normal terms"] for THEIR fictional credit. From the BERTH EVENT, the state was able to "monetize" and benefit from man being real. The state kept the original title or COLB, where the state should have returned that to the parents or baby once he turned a certain age. However, the state SEIZED, TOOK, STOLE, whatever word you want to use and left man with "naked authority" - meaning everything man does in that name automatically vests in the state trust. Since man has little option but to do commerce using that name otherwise he can not eat, house himself, etc AND the state receives all the benefits, the state MUST too be subject to the liabilities.

There is nothing contradictory that man separates himself from the fiction - which ain't easy.

The matter of 'executor de son tort' has been gone over in detail. Having the birth certificate itself is evidence of authority. If you don't present it or otherwise adequately handle matters pertinent then you might be presumed to be executor de son tort. If you are adequately describing Boris's views then I sense he might be in error on the topic as in maybe he really doesn't know what he is talking about and is just "feeling his way" and improvising.



That seems rather contradictory. "Roy has nothing to do with the Company other than he uses the Company name all the time." Wut?



That pertains to what is "in the State" not to what is private or without the State.

And this is where we disagree. If that original title had been returned to the "RIGHTFUL OWNER", then we would agree. Since the state holds this in "trust" or whatever AND you can not obtain this, this more than suggests that something ain't right in Hooterville. This quote was stated during the bankruptcy. We have evidence today that this is supreme law of the land - the recent Colorado case proved this again. the fact that child protective services remove children from homes is yet another example.

ALL PROPERTY IS VESTED [OWNED] IN THE STATE.

Per Karl, if you want to define "my property" as MY exclusive use of a thing to the exclusion of others", mazel tov! If you want to state, it is my property because I worked for it. double mazel tov - however, MY question to you is: What evidence do you have to support that the "thing" is yours, as you are the owner? Did you pay for it? How? Prove that name you use is yours.

[salsero]

I do not understand what you are attempting to say: If you are attempting to say - I know nothing, I have no issue accepting your opinion. I teach nothing, all I did was offer my opinion. Actually I stopped bothering with this group for the reason of rudeness. The other day, someone from the PI group said Boris responded to this section, so I checked it out.

The PI process is NOT for everyone. I am in the middle of this myself. Will it work? I have no idea. And in a different sense, it almost does not MATTER. That is beyond the scope of this conversation. One does what one feels compelled to do, right or wrong.

It is also not necessary to "interpret" what I write. If you keep it simple, as to what I write and if not understood, just ask for clarification instead of defining what I write, this would be better for everyone.

Since you like the bible so much

James 2: 7-10

7 Do not they blaspheme the worthy Name after which ye be named?
8 But if ye fulfill the royal Law according to the Scripture, which saith, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well.
9 But if ye regard the persons, ye commit sin, and are rebuked of the Law, as transgressors.
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet faileth in one point, he is guilty of all.

Job 32: 21-22

21 Let me not, I pray you, accept any mans person: neither let me giue flattering titles vnto man.
22 For I know not to give flattering titles: in so doing my maker would soon take me away.


For those who believe they own private property:

Psalm 24:1: The earth is the LORD's, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein
Haggai 2:8: The silver is mine, and the gold in mine, saith the Lord of hosts.
Leviticus 25:23 The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me.

But again, one can pick and choose what they like or do not like in the bible - so this may not be the best example

Salsero;


You remind me of my understanding that Jesus became authorized to teach redemption through his sense of separation:


Oh God! My Father!! Why has thou forsaken me?

[Keith Alan]

Or the BC is simply what it appears to be: a public recording of an event. Since it's public, and held by the State, then the State is the controlling legal authority of the instrument.

When people make use of the public record for private gain, isn't that a trespass?

[Keith Alan]

Salsero;


You remind me of my understanding that Jesus became authorized to teach redemption through his sense of separation:


Oh God! My Father!! Why has thou forsaken me?

This is an interesting thought. I've never before considered this view. It's worthy of further contemplation. Thanks for bringing it up.

[Michael Joseph]

Yes. The Book of Jude refers to The Book of Enoch all right. I had not looked carefully into the debate about Moses' bones until now. - The commonality being oath - the Mark or Stigma placed on both Cain and the Sons of God. The Lucifer Rebellion swearing out an OATH (Enoch 6) on Mount Hermon...

I am interested in Joseph being adopted? I always thought Joseph was Judah by bloodline.

My apologies I should have been clearer. I meant that Joseph was Jesus' father only by law [adoption]. Joseph did not lend his seed. I try not to get bogged down in the flesh but try to use the keys to get broader understanding. Christ is the Word. Jesus is the Word made flesh. So we see Christ in Jesus [Flesh nature] and we see the resurrection of Jesus to Christ. Paul understood this wisdom and if you look carefully you might begin to get a peek at the encryption. Christ Jesus vs. Jesus Christ. This is a wisdom in writing that has been hid but will be revealed by John [Elect] to Peter [Church].

So the Word was beaten and then even put to death - the preachers only teach the flesh aspect in History and Lineage. If that is all the Bible one sees - well at least they have that. The Word contains the fullness of the Godhead. And the Word was made flesh so the encryption is Christ Jesus. But the Word has power from El Elyon - thru a Promise! - isn't that amazing - everyone talks about Abraham in terms of the promise- yet few understand the promise to the Word made flesh, Christ Jesus - Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedok.

So I meant to express that Joseph adopted Jesus and further now that Mary was a surrogate.

Now I shall take a small tangent. Consider there are three items in the Ark. And I believe these are three testaments. We see Aarons Rod [NT], we see twin tablets [OT] and we see a golden bowl with manna. It is the golden bowl with the manna that interests me. I find that Jude, Paul and James quoted books that are not part of the established canon.

Just as Peter [the church] denied Christ Jesus three times so the Church has denied Christ three times now in regard to the established canon. Consider why do you require a canon at all if you understand the Wisdom of the language used to write the Scripture. Understanding that wisdom unlocks any book and therefore if those keys do not work, then the Book is not from God. Therefore what need of a canon. But I find the Church in dishonesty. For if you accept Jude, then you MUST accept Enoch. If you accept the OT, then what of Jasher, to name just one.

Book of Adam and Eve, Testament of Solomon, Testament of Moses, Wisdom, Maccabees, etc. Why does Peter [the Church] deny the Christ. Paul understood the mystery and was entrusted with the key. Paul would send Onisimus to Philemon, which is to say the Elect to the latter day Church. And while John and Peter ran to the tomb, John arrived first, but he stopped and let Peter enter in before him.

See that men rejected Wisdom so she left the sons of men and went back to Heaven and took her seat with the angels. Can't find that one in the canon, right? Well check out Enoch 42: 1-2. What will happen to pastor when he is shown everything he has taught is a lie. All of his TALENTS will be given to another man who knows how to work the field.

For while some Pearls are wonderful [understanding in the flesh] there is a GREATER PEARL [understanding in the Spirit].

================================================== =======================================

The word OF is a very important term. It denotes progeny. So I see a U.S. citizen and a Citizen of the United States as two separate classes. Just as a Resident is a totally separate class than Citizen. A Citizen takes an oath, pledging to a Constitution and that can only be done in a Common Law court. Now consider Joseph son of Jacob, when he was in the pit, he was found to be stateless. He was seized as a slave and sold into Egypt. Joseph kept his mouth shut and in his lack of Declaration of Status, he was delivered into Egype as property.

Multiple paths are set before men. The state setup in 1789 is under the Crown with its own separate government and for its own People. And I myself believe that it is impossible to become a Citizen of the United States UNLESS I am allowed. Which means I would have to take an oath and pledge myself to the Constitution of the United States. And that Oath would have to be in a Common Law court of competence. In my opinion residents lack the status and therefore the standing of a citizen. I wonder even today if it is possible to even be a State citizen. I might look into that to see if I can find a court that might administrate that oath.

No Oath or Pledge means no standing. That is the position of a Stateless man or woman. Thus a Stranger.

Now recall your Scripture. If a stranger desires to bind himself to the House of Israel [nation-state] then said stranger was to be made subject to the Torah; HOWEVER where did said stranger get standing in Israel? Shall we rise up out of the flesh to see with new eyes?

Shalom,
Michael Joseph

[allodial]

I believe you misunderstood me. The BC is evidence of the "usufruct compliant certified certificate indemnity receipt" for redemption FOR the person under Liebor Code 38. Yes, I agree it is presumed one is the executor de son tort. When I did "my release", I did not do a UCC form. Attached to the release is the BC and on the backside it is marked "pay to the United States of America, without recourse".

....

There is nothing contradictory that man separates himself from the fiction - which ain't easy.

And this is where we disagree. If that original title had been returned to the "RIGHTFUL OWNER", then we would agree. Since the state holds this in "trust" or whatever AND you can not obtain this, this more than suggests that something ain't right in Hooterville. This quote was stated during the bankruptcy. We have evidence today that this is supreme law of the land - the recent Colorado case proved this again. the fact that child protective services remove children from homes is yet another example.

ALL PROPERTY IS VESTED [OWNED] IN THE STATE.

Per Karl, if you want to define "my property" as MY exclusive use of a thing to the exclusion of others", mazel tov! If you want to state, it is my property because I worked for it. double mazel tov - however, MY question to you is: What evidence do you have to support that the "thing" is yours, as you are the owner? Did you pay for it? How? Prove that name you use is yours.

#1. I am unaware of having a "last name" or holding any "birth certificate".

#2. When they are using words such as "property" its in their context. "Owner" effectively in their sense means surety. "Possession" and "ownership" aren't the same. Ownership does not necessarily imply exclusivity--it can be shared, joint or pertinent to divided title. [ Speaking of divided title: Long ago, I was told the primary thing the Russians or Germans were demanding "Papers please" was for determining whether one had full title or not.] Karl might be coming into deeper comprehension of the meanings of words outside of popular idiomatic speech, however in the Greek language the variations for ownership are very apparent. There were posts on the old SJ site about the word ownership and how the word does not necessarily connote absolute exclusivity. It might be that some have problems because of their way of thinking rather because of the State.

#3 Prior points were about Boris' doctrines not about your particular views (re: not taking it personally).

#4. Endorsing vs acceptance on the birth certificate is quite very similar if not the same. Acceptance of a draft, for example, can be on the backside too. He isn't talking anything new. He might be good at elaborating on certain aspects of trust law but its not new.

#5. That one can void or surrender a birth certificate or record has been gone over many times too even back in the 90s. There was an affidavit available via the Internet net that could get a birth certificate removed from the record.

#6. Regarding children taken from families, one thing that might not be readily apparent is that application for the birth certificate may have been taken as a willing, knowing act. There have been reports of children taken from households except the ones that weren't associated with birth certificates.

#7. The key point was if he is using the name on the birth certificate then he has a lot to do with them rather than little. The presumption that the State or "the Crown" isn't willing to handle liability is incorrect.

#8. 'Property' is the right or title to a thing not necessarily the thing itself. California Code however also defines "property" as "the thing of which there may be ownership."

There are many ways to "do commerce" without a birth certificate.

You raise many issues that vary wildly depending upon who, what, where.

ALL PROPERTY IS VESTED [OWNED] IN THE STATE.

Property relates to the word proprietorship. The word "property" is limited to the state's cognizance. "All {public} property is vested {could that mean that it came from without} in the State". Often words in statutes are silently prefixed with the word "public".

[Michael Joseph]

#1. I am unaware of having a "last name" or holding any "birth certificate".

#2. When they are using words such as "property" its in their context. "Owner" effectively in their sense means surety. "Possession" and "ownership" aren't the same. Ownership does not necessarily imply exclusivity--it can be shared, joint or pertinent to divided title. [ Speaking of divided title: Long ago, I was told the primary thing the Russians or Germans were demanding "Papers please" was for determining whether one had full title or not.]

#3 Prior points were about Boris' doctrines not about your particular views (re: not taking it personally).

#4. Endorsing vs acceptance on the birth certificate is quite very similar if not the same. Acceptance of a draft, for example, can be on the backside too. He isn't talking anything new. He might be good at elaborating on certain aspects of trust law but its not new.

#5. That one can void or surrender a birth certificate or record has been gone over many times too even back in the 90s. There was an affidavit available via the Internet net that could get a birth certificate removed from the record.

The key point was if he is using the name on the birth certificate then he has a lot to do with them.

I truly believe the whole concern is remedied in Standing. Look at the Scriptures. Where did a subject to Israel have any Standing to trade or cause to be traded property in Israel? Only a citizen of Israel had standing. And notice again, could Jacob bless himself or was he anointed by a higher power?

Most are as Joseph ben Jacob in the pit - stateless. How then will any understanding of a foreign government help him. He must be elevated to a status within that foreign government. It was Pharaoh that anointed Joseph. Just as El Elyon annointed Yehoshuah with the oil of gladness above his fellows. Look at Daniel. Joseph and Daniel were strangers to Egypt and Babylon. I find God working in the heart [mind] of Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar. Joseph might have declared himself to be of Melchizedok in Israel [coat of many colours] Daniel was taken captive in war. Either way both were strangers.

Notice that a Warranty Deed today bears the words - Grantor agrees that he is "lawfully seized of said property in fee simple".

A resident may use but only according to the rules governing the use. Therefore the resident is not Owner but is merely a Registered User. Nevertheless, the resident does have titles to the little right he/she may possess.

Shalom,
Michael Joseph

[allodial]

Well if the State actors could be punished for dealing with an enemy you might get why they want to see some kind off evidence that you aren't the enemy. The trustees might be more limited and restrained than you.

[Michael Joseph]

Well if the State actors could be punished for dealing with an enemy you might get why they want to see some kind off evidence that you aren't the enemy. The trustees might be more limited and restrained than you.

But lets frame this properly. The trustees are beholding to the Beneficiaries - of the United States. That being "Ourselves and our Posterity" The people of the States have their own governments and constitutions. So yes in deed those trustees are going to make darn sure they serve their beneficiaries as all trustees should. But CONSIDER have we been TAUGHT that this is the only game in town? Ah ha. At once the mind springs to life!

I believe the enemy are those who seek to take against the will. Meaning the Settlors placed a Will within the Trust. I believe the confusion arises in thinking that I am a member of the class of "We the People of the United States". With that understanding in place "I have no trust in the United States". For how could I unless I was a citizen of the United States. Which I believe is an impossibility for me unless I am invited into that status.

14th Amendment Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I was not born in the United States, I am not subject to its jurisdiction - so what is naturalized in the United States - I must look up the Naturalization Act. Upon viewing that I find an Oath and a Pledge is required in a common law court. See if you can get a judge to allow you to take that oath and pledge. I may be wrong, but I don't see it happening. For that is a privileged status!

CLICK HERE.

Has anyone here made application to a common law court for citizenry of the United States?

Outlaw

Shalom,
Michael Joseph


P.S. The Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion appear to be correct - men are in deed being taught to abandon property interests into the hands of a few men - and they are willingly doing it. The order of Melchizedok escapes so many.