The Certificate of Live Birth is a Pledge Document

[motla68]

I believe it dangerous to consider the birth certificate as a monetary instrument. (Referring to the cute video.)

It is however the basis for identification which grants a credit rating. The birth certificate is therefore worth exactly what the banker, car dealer or credit union is willing to loan you, based in your identity (credit rating). Things like your career, and payment history play into that too. - Or at least they used to.

The SDRs are a measure though, of the social pseudonomania along those lines. People conditioned to protect their credit, and therefore the bankers, and even become as bankers involved in the national debt through endorsement of private credit from the Fed etc...

It helps to realize that until recently, gold had no value but being pretty and staying shiny while other metals lose lustre when they oxidize. Gold is heavy and too soft for weapons for example. The original monetization of sin is modeled in the Golden Calf Imagery as we find the gold cover there so distracting that Fire on the Mountain was ignored over it.

In the words of George Bush " nothing but a Damn piece of paper ".

[David Merrill]

Allodial;


Thank you for delivering. I went though it carefully and understand. You also said:

Could it be that passports, green cards, visas and State IDs are all types of "social securities"?

I believe they relate to SDR's but other than that, have no accounts. For example BRICS, now BRICI - Indonesia replacing South Africa [me thinking that there are some rare earth metals there used in hi-tech, and diamonds are just vanity]. My favorite is a circulating account. This is why POMCs, BPNs and A4V can be counted on to work but only with the right forms of government and system parameters. In other words get the Setoff at the initial contact for services or goods:

http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/4189/novation2010.jpg

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/5531/ctsmileyfacesmall.jpg

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/9118/novation2010clavical.jpg

Otherwise, the calculation would be like with RUSSELL - find every paycheck he has ever endorsed in his life. Multiply it times the reserve rate at that time and the total amount of loans (figuring per capita-income at that bank) and you start to figure that RUSSELL created more than $14.1K during his career. This is how much private credit RUSSELL has generated in his career and how much private credit he is entitled to redeem in lawful money.

But you have to be careful who you tender the instrument to. - And never, tender more than what is on the coupon/remittance or that will probably be considered theft by fraud, even if you say, Keep the change.

[David Merrill]

The reason you come off so arrogant and snarky Motla68, is that you never show anybody how or why it works for you. All you tell us is that since you are so high above us all in understanding, we cannot possibly aspire to your level where it might work for us.

[motla68]

The reason you come off so arrogant and snarky Motla68, is that you never show anybody how or why it works for you. All you tell us is that since you are so high above us all in understanding, we cannot possibly aspire to your level where it might work for us.

Have you ever analysed your own posts? Nobody in here can have a conversation without you coming in with your cookie and pizza cutters in the middle of it therefore not many can have their own right to self determination. If one does not think and act like you they are automatically advertised by you as some anarchist or with some organization trying to overthrow the group.

I keep telling you all this is not the intent, look we all have a right to self determination, correct? Are you a government employee? if not, then why are you always using someone else's law for your own determination? There is nothing binding you to government statutes, regulations and policies but you. Other then for Capital crimes because you injured someone else who also has a right to life, liberty and happiness. People think it is so complicated that you need a huge stack of paper work so you can have your own right to self determination, not true, a major part of it is how you live and approach situations.

There is many distractions all around us to throw our attention away from where we really came from. It starts out with a service offered and a legal determination made " the number 3 " when all it is just paper and ink for all three, you might kind of get lost in the middle a little bit, but the end it with a bang where most
of you should be able to see the distinction between our connection with the land and the other " milking services " offered.

http://youtu.be/QI0RiqK3XJc

Don't get caught in the traps that thrown you off your creators estate given to you as a gift. I have shown plenty, but then again even the bible says not all will survive the end times, just a few and it may not even be me for that is not my call.

[David Merrill]

There you go again. Not showing us anything.

I take samples of the important components and sanitize them, then I explain them plainly and carefully. I know this because it is true. I seldom write a post without showing by attachment or link something by way of explanatory material, usually from source documentation.

One thing for sure though, I have given up on you explaining anything to us but how ignorant we are compared to you so I will not be spending any time quarreling with you.

[motla68]

One thing for sure though, I have given up on you explaining anything to us but how ignorant we are compared to you so I will not be spending any time quarreling with you.

Promise you can do that, is it in you?

[allodial]

But you have to be careful who you tender the instrument to

One would have to consider the circumstances and be wise enough to know "what time it is" at any given moment. A key point to keep in mind is that: (i) not every public official has authority to receive things from the private side; (ii) not every public official has authority to take something from the public and hand it over to the private. It might help the reader to greatly comprehend that some transactions require both of those functions to occur simultaneously. Therefore if one is perceived as coaxing a public official to convert something from public to private without authority/license then one might be perceived to be involved in unlawful conversion! Some people want to get in a hizzy when it just comes down to simple principles.

A reader might do well to consider the notion of taking a publicly-owned traffic light and putting it in their back yard in contrast, say, to the notion of the City Dept. of Traffic & Lights taking a reader's disco lights out of their basement and using them to light up a dark, public intersection. As in: converting from public to private vs converting from private to public.



A Govt. Treasurer or Govt. Receiver likely would be of the few public officials that would have authority to convert something public to private or to convert something from private to public.

And never, tender more than what is on the coupon/remittance or that will probably be considered theft by fraud, even if you say, Keep the change.

When one is dealing with a public charge/tax situation, say for a bill that is worth $20 perhaps one could say that $20 is backed by the issuer of the bill and is backed by the person from which $20 is demanded should they accept. Would anything over $20 would have insufficient bonding if its only bonded from one side of the deal? Afterall, the bill suggests that the only thing the demander has authority to obtain is $20 and is only putting themselves at risk of $20. Also, if I were to cancel the $20 bill, how could I cancel it for more than its worth? As for introducing new money into a system, that is another matter--though likely related.

***
For further edification, consider something as infamous as "eminent domain". It might be helpful to note the relationship between eminent domain and a "Treasurer" of some sort. Gee..why would it involve a Treasurer rather than just cops with lot of guns?

Eminent domain is the power of the government to purchase private property for a "public use" so long as the property owner is paid "just compensation." Whenever possible, Inglewood Redevelopment Agency tries to avoid the use of the eminent domain power, exercising it only when it is necessary for a public project. The decision to acquire private property for a public project is made by the Inglewood Redevelopment Agency only after a thorough review of the project, which often includes public hearings. (Source: City of Inglewood)

[David Merrill]

Promise you can do that, is it in you?

Absolutely not!

The post at the top of this page and the bottom of the last both start with quotes from me. So until you start showing examples and explaining on a lever that I and others can easily interpret and apply, you are a target. Squabbling with you will be like shooting fish in a barrel.

[David Merrill]

One would have to consider the circumstances and be wise enough to know "what time it is" at any given moment. A key point to keep in mind is that: (i) not every public official has authority to receive things from the private side; (ii) not every public official has authority to take something from the public and hand it over to the private. It might help the reader to greatly comprehend that some transactions require both of those functions to occur simultaneously. Therefore if one is perceived as coaxing a public official to convert something from public to private without authority/license then one might be perceived to be involved in unlawful conversion! Some people want to get in a hizzy when it just comes down to simple principles.

A reader might do well to consider the notion of taking a publicly-owned traffic light and putting it in their back yard in contrast, say, to the notion of the City Dept. of Traffic & Lights taking a reader's disco lights out of their basement and using them to light up a dark, public intersection. As in: converting from public to private vs converting from private to public.



A Govt. Treasurer or Govt. Receiver likely would be of the few public officials that would have authority to convert something public to private or to convert something from private to public.



When one is dealing with a public charge/tax situation, say for a bill that is worth $20 perhaps one could say that $20 is backed by the issuer of the bill and is backed by the person from which $20 is demanded should they accept. Would anything over $20 would have insufficient bonding if its only bonded from one side of the deal? Afterall, the bill suggests that the only thing the demander has authority to obtain is $20 and is only putting themselves at risk of $20. Also, if I were to cancel the $20 bill, how could I cancel it for more than its worth? As for introducing new money into a system, that is another matter--though likely related.

***
For further edification, consider something as infamous as "eminent domain". It might be helpful to note the relationship between eminent domain and a "Treasurer" of some sort. Gee..why would it involve a Treasurer rather than just cops with lot of guns?

Thanks for revising that one!

At first the figures were throwing me for a loop.

But you have to be careful who you tender the instrument to. - And never, tender more than what is on the coupon/remittance or that will probably be considered theft by fraud, even if you say, Keep the change.

I think that may fit.

[David Merrill]

However you should all know something.

I have a good memory and have read a lot of books and absorbed a lot of direct and vicarious experience. I think of myself smart enough that if I cannot understand Motla68 I feel safe to assume that those of you who have not read about trust law do not understand him too. Therefore I request that he use his scanner and get a bit graphic - which he can do - and plainly refuses to. He will not tell us the specific verbiage on some premise that we may hurt ourselves with esoteric knowledge - being that we are not proper initiates...

If it cannot be easily understood then in my opinion I will sound like Motla68 when I try to explain it to somebody. I don't want to sound like Motla68.

[motla68]

One would have to consider the circumstances and be wise enough to know "what time it is" at any given moment. A key point to keep in mind is that: (i) not every public official has authority to receive things from the private side; (ii) not every public official has authority to take something from the public and hand it over to the private. It might help the reader to greatly comprehend that some transactions require both of those functions to occur simultaneously. Therefore if one is perceived as coaxing a public official to convert something from public to private without authority/license then one might be perceived to be involved in unlawful conversion! Some people want to get in a hizzy when it just comes down to simple principles.

A reader might do well to consider the notion of taking a publicly-owned traffic light and putting it in their back yard in contrast, say, to the notion of the City Dept. of Traffic & Lights taking a reader's disco lights out of their basement and using them to light up a dark, public intersection. As in: converting from public to private vs converting from private to public.

A Govt. Treasurer or Govt. Receiver likely would be of the few public officials that would have authority to convert something public to private or to convert something from private to public.



When one is dealing with a public charge/tax situation, say for a bill that is worth $20 perhaps one could say that $20 is backed by the issuer of the bill and is backed by the person from which $20 is demanded should they accept. Would anything over $20 would have insufficient bonding if its only bonded from one side of the deal? Afterall, the bill suggests that the only thing the demander has authority to obtain is $20 and is only putting themselves at risk of $20. Also, if I were to cancel the $20 bill, how could I cancel it for more than its worth? As for introducing new money into a system, that is another matter--though likely related.

***
For further edification, consider something as infamous as "eminent domain". It might be helpful to note the relationship between eminent domain and a "Treasurer" of some sort. Gee..why would it involve a Treasurer rather than just cops with lot of guns?

Yes, the lines between natural law and public policy are very blury sometimes, but there is some key words you mentioned there, " public good ". The old origination of public is publicus;

Adjective

pūblicus m (feminine pūblica, neuter pūblicum); first/second declension

of or belonging to the people, State, or community
public, general
(substantive) a public officer, magistrate

This shows you that it is suppose to be an upside down triangle so to speak, but depending on how people perceive it is how it is going to manifest in ones mind.
Trying to claim a natural law right within an entity governed by public statutes can seem pretty self defeating. There is suppose to be public council meeting for such things in which there is , but today these public areas are no longer being held by a people, they are being held by the state in a usufructuary manner, the military conquered public domain, it says this in the United Nations law;

Pertaining to rules of usufruct:

Classification of property according to ownership
1. public dominion, owned by the Government.

When the old indian tribes inhabited this country they did not have paper, sometimes animal skins they wrote on but their official tribal documents were the totem poles, now if you look at each document birth, title, public decree, who's seal is at the tope of the document? Usually the state

"And they painted on the grave posts
Of the graves, yet unforgotten,
Each his own ancestral totem
Each the symbol of his household;
Figures of the bear and reindeer,
Of the turtle, crane, and beaver. --Longfellow.
[1913 Webster]"

Whether given as a gift or taken by force they are the beneficial owner to which has some pretty serious liabilities.
I do not claim ownership of anything upon this earth for it is just a temporary place to inhabit which we should preserve for the next generation, when you claim the material things that is where they got you for lack of understanding that we are still under Military Occupation here. I try my best to stay away from taking commercial stock in things, we came from the land, we are part of the land, just like the gold and silver, not in commercial form but for it's natural resource for the benefit of the body such as using silver to assist in disinfecting water to make it drinkable and other uses untapped yet and not mentioned.
The old indian philosophical cultures called all other living things their relatives, I believe the closer we get back to those traditions it will have a re-active effect and turn the tables of how we live today, already see some of that happening, courts getting less crowded, post offices closing, federal government eating each other up over fictitious deficits, it is a beautiful thing.

[allodial]

Unsure as to where the term 'public good' was utilized along the thread. Regarding 'military conquest' or 'martial law' or 'military rule' its rather widely known that 'military imperium' has a source.

Regarding United Nations, such is a military and economic alliance similar to NATO.

What does any of this have to do with 'natural law' when neither NATO nor the United Nations actually exist in nature?

P.S. No offense but your post seems to make no sense in the context of the thread.