Redeem From Public To Private Venue

[salsero]

For clarification: Boris does not believe in A4V and this is the reason why. He separates man and the fiction.

Under CJS – Infants, §166 Intermeddling with estates of infants: “anyone who intermeddles with the property of the infant without authority is liable to account thereafter”. Under law, when one is making a claim in some form to that estate or trust, it is a warring decree and YOU, in plural form, the man and person, will be held to account therefor.

Under Boris' scenario, the man has NOTHING to do with them other then he uses a name. The acquittal and discharge under 12 USC 95a is for the entity or person and NOT the man. by chance, man is "incidentally or indirectly receives a benefit" but this negligible. The public trustees are to "take care of the property of the state". If, I am man interfere by paying bills, taxes, speeding tickets, etc, the trustees are more than happy to let me "go at it".

We are not to interfere AT ALL. Now the question is what happens when the trustee fails to do his oath bound duty? This is where Karl Lentz MAY provide some insight. I am not there yet.

I never heard Boris mention A4Vs in his YouTube seminar. I could have asked him. And he could have responded to this thread, too.

People have succeeded with A4V without filing a UCC-1. Maybe they got away with something?

The Bunny says he wasn't trying to be snarky with what he said.

Sometimes this place is waaayy too serious for its own good. In my opinion.

[allodial]

For clarification: Boris does not believe in A4V and this is the reason why. He separates man and the fiction.

Under CJS – Infants, §166 Intermeddling with estates of infants: “anyone who intermeddles with the property of the infant without authority is liable to account thereafter”. Under law, when one is making a claim in some form to that estate or trust, it is a warring decree and YOU, in plural form, the man and person, will be held to account therefor.

Under Boris' scenario, the man has NOTHING to do with them other then he uses a name. The acquittal and discharge under 12 USC 95a is for the entity or person and NOT the man. by chance, man is "incidentally or indirectly receives a benefit" but this negligible. The public trustees are to "take care of the property of the state". If, I am man interfere by paying bills, taxes, speeding tickets, etc, the trustees are more than happy to let me "go at it".

We are not to interfere AT ALL. Now the question is what happens when the trustee fails to do his oath bound duty? This is where Karl Lentz MAY provide some insight. I am not there yet.

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.

Under Boris' scenario, the man has NOTHING to do with them other then he uses a name.

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

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.”.

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

[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.

[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

[Moxie]

For clarification: Boris does not believe in A4V and this is the reason why. He separates man and the fiction.

A4V already separates man from the fiction on the instrument.

Now the question is what happens when the trustee fails to do his oath bound duty? This is where Karl Lentz MAY provide some insight. I am not there yet.

Karl would say: get the trustee's first name and write him/her a letter. First-name basis makes it man-to-man/woman in common law. No titles allowed in common law.

Freddy Mac cannot come after someone's house, because Freddy Mac is a fiction. Fictions cannot take the witness stand in a common law court.

Find out the man or woman's first name who works for Freddy Mac, then write a letter. Only men can make claims, not fictions or those with titles:

"Dear Bob, greetings.

You've got an agency called Freddy Mac. They're making a claim I owe a debt to the United States. Is this true?"

And end it there. Don't add to it. Ask one question at a time.

Bob will respond quickly with "I wish to acknowledge your letter" because only a man can wish. Notice Bob didn't say, "we received your correspondence." Bob will sign, "very truly yours" which means he knows his place with you.

The goal is to get them to strip themselves of their immunity.