I am some dude latest recording Boris and usufruct

[allodial]

If it is "your NAME" then that can connote ownership and suretyship.

[David Merrill]

I enjoy the caliber of developmental modeling around here! Allodial mentions Power of Attorney THEY might already have in THE NAME. This is fundamentally what fell through with the entire STRAWMAN REDEMPTION. If you created it (debt), then how do you properly abandon its operations when it is already activated in the debt marketplaces?

Look carefully:




Three posts develop a clear portrait:

You know, walter:

For some reason, your comment brought to my mind a memory about a conversation I had with a lawyer years back. I asked him if he practiced administrative law, and if he knew the administrative code. He looked at me and said that he didn't know anything about it, and it was not necessary to know about it in his view.

I looked up Article 8, of the U.C.C. and it dawned on me that I can issue a security for any amount and if I find a buyer for it, that's what the market would have priced it at. LOL, Here is a billion cookie certificate issue by me, promised to make good on it tomorrow, and tomorrow never comes.

This smacks of POMC (Public Office Money Certificates), Comptroller Warrants (Montana Freemen) and simply returning the Treasury declaring it (alleged debt) is and was always their property (the SSN).

If you issue it you are liable for it.
Maybe there is a security with your NAME on it already out there?

Maybe the word "tomorrow" is the same as "infant"?
Tomorrow never comes and so an infant never grows.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 3: Right to life
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.


and in that order.

Re: Helen's poem about WAITING. The dangers of Futurism?

This really brings to my mind the perfect model "Jesus Lives" - in the scenario where he awoke, never having died, in a tomb with a candle, food and water; slathering on frankincense and myrrh for two and a half days to tolerate the stink...

Nobody dies. Michael Joseph explained here recently his journey to this same place. Religion has to instill fear; that is all.

If it is "your NAME" then that can connote ownership and suretyship.

When you turn power of attorney over in irrevocable trust, you can expect the attorney to continue to sell it to China. To the untrained eye, it would make no sense to sell a $20M lien to China for $50M! Now compound that with continued endorsement. You just keep on writing (endorsing) bearer bonds on the surety of your value - EDOM - ESAU - REDMAN

Selling/Trafficking in the souls of men.






P.S. View the FRN as an insurance policy that nobody knows how to make claim upon. That is what is going on with Title 12 USC 411. One is redeeming by making demand (claim). Calling in the note for value (lawful money). This is what brings patriots to start arguing in admiralty jurisdiction and why that fails. Why argue decorum around the courtroom if you have failed to make a claim?


DeLovio v Boit - all insurance (bottomry) is argued in admiralty.

[walter]

Allodial mentions Power of Attorney THEY might already have in THE NAME. This is fundamentally what fell through with the entire STRAWMAN REDEMPTION.

Only to a few and in certain situations can they legally us your NAME. So they have limited POA.


http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...2.html#docCont

Privacy Act:
personal information means information about an identifiable individual that is recorded in any form including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing,
but, for the purposes of sections 7, 8 and 26 and section 19 of the Access to Information Act, does not include
(l) information relating to any discretionary benefit of a financial nature, including the granting of a licence or permit, conferred on an individual, including the name of the individual and the exact nature of the benefit, and



Protection of Personal Information

7 Personal information under the control of a government institution shall not, without the consent of the individual to whom it relates, be used by the institution except

(a) for the purpose for which the information was obtained or compiled by the institution or for a use consistent with that purpose; or

Disclosure of personal information

8 (1) Personal information under the control of a government institution shall not, without the consent of the individual to whom it relates, be disclosed by the institution except in accordance with this section.


Where personal information may be disclosed

(2) Subject to any other Act of Parliament, personal information under the control of a government institution may be disclosed
(d) to the Attorney General of Canada for use in legal proceedings involving the Crown in right of Canada or the Government of Canada;



The last section harmonizes with the Criminal Code of Canada. section 2.
It states that the code can only be used by the Attorney General and his deputy assistant.
And that section is taken from UN international law.

The AG gives the order to the Registrar General to create the birth certificate.
So its no wonder why he gets to use it. The AG is liable on the order.

[David Merrill]

Only to a few and in certain situations can they legally us your NAME.

I like the typo - legally US your name.

Legally Ulysses S. GRANT (born Hiram Ulysses GRANT), your NAME. So what purpose would the "S" serve but for land patents? US GRANT.

Legally incorporate your corpus into the United States by monumental land patent...



My point being that endorsement is a naked contract. The model here is how in Jesus' day the Kingdom of Heaven politically meant that Joshuah (Yehoshuah) ben Joseph was paving the way for Messiah ben David - a return to Israel before Nebuchadnezzar had captured the religious mind of Israel:

Clue is Embedded - click the photo... Top of Page 11 of 14 balance Male/Female.

[Gavilan]

I have been trying to get this case from the Kansas reporter:

Attachment 3392
Tillson v. State, 29 Kan. 452

I wonder how it was written that similar names for the same entity holds.

[allodial]

I have been trying to get this case from the Kansas reporter:

Attachment 3392
Tillson v. State, 29 Kan. 452

I wonder how it was written that similar names for the same entity holds.

However, the People of California aren't the same as the People of the State of California.

One thing that is commonly overlooked in these discussions is that many struggle to comprehend representation, that is to say they have a hard time to think abstractly.

As a child, I remember having a hard time with the concept that my uncle could represent my dad, just because what was written in a piece of paper. The school director had been emphatically stern that only father's were to be present with the students at their induction ceremony into the Institute.

The writing was merely a memorialization of your dad's will. What's the difference between a contract and an agreement? One is a memorialization of an agreement.

Now, it's not difficult to deduce why they don't want children to learn law or civics, if the majority of the people knew how stand up for themselves in the legal realm, there wouldn't be so much opportunity to profit from their ignorance, even worse TPTB fear that decent people would stand up for their less fortunate brethren.

Ever watch nature documentaries? When have you ever seen wolves or hyenas go after the strongest elephant, elk, etc? They go for easy eats (old and weak, young and weak or anywise foolish).

Now, it's not difficult to deduce why they don't want children to learn law or civics, if the majority of the people knew how stand up for themselves in the legal realm, there wouldn't be so much opportunity to profit from their ignorance, even worse TPTB fear that decent people would stand up for their less fortunate brethren.

Imagine the struggle of someone having been indoctrinated into thinking that a name that is identical to their's is not their name?

What do you think happens between ages 5 and 18? Years to convince you and socialize you with peer pressure that you're John Smith. You trusted your parents. Gavilan is familiar, Smith is familiar: so Gavilan Smith is doubly familar. But at least when you were 5 years old you could tell the difference.

I like the typo - legally US your name.

Permission to them to "us and we you" (to joinder you in with their debt). I have related the significance of the distinction between the State sector (extends also to 'local government') and the realm of the Crown. The IRS and might typically be in the 'state sector' (think executive departments). While the Federal Reserve banks might be 'sui generis'. A Commissioner of Revenue could possibly be a parliamentary minister or parliamentary agents. State sector entities are limited in the extent they can cross the bar. Key thing: a public officer can be a state officer or they can be a minister of the crown. An Attorney General might tend to be a minister of the crown rather than a 'regular state officer'. That is, the head of a the executive department of a state can be a minister of the crown rather than on a state officer.

To reiterate: IMHO one of the biggest deceptions foisted in the United States or in America is the idea of there not being any Crown in America. The Crown and the State are not the same.