Usufruct Surrender Remedy

[Keith Alan]

@ Anthony Joseph

"Can anyone here verify, with first hand knowledge and testimony, that mere use of 'FRNs' creates an*automatic and true*liability for 'return of income' taxation?"

What a great question!

[Anthony Joseph]

I don't know. The 'what' that is being redeemed could be FRN, or it could be those who use FRN, or both.

As to the reason they are being redeemed, again I don't know. It can be presumed the reason is for providing for moving between jurisdictions, or moving out of a jurisdiction altogether.

The means is apparently the act of making demand. It does not say whether the demand be in writing or if it may be made orally.

Can 'FRNs' be redeemed without use of a 'person' [cf. transmitting utility]?

[Keith Alan]

Can 'FRNs' be redeemed without use of a 'person' [cf. transmitting utility]?

Hmm... another great question. Well, since according to the code a demand must be made, and since a demand can only be heard by the Treasury or Fed through a "transmitting utility" like a person, then the answer must be, no.

I guess that conclusion also tells me the demand must be made in writing.

[Keith Alan]

I just realized that 12USC411 doesn't say a demand must be made. It only prescribes one method for redemption.

[Anthony Joseph]

Hmm... another great question. Well, since according to the code a demand must be made, and since a demand can only be heard by the Treasury or Fed through a "transmitting utility" like a person, then the answer must be, no.

I guess that conclusion also tells me the demand must be made in writing.

Right.

A demand must be made in writing since it only can be made 'in person"; man has no need for such 'redemption'.

Who holds TITLE to the 'person' utilized when making such a demand; who is the actual usufructuary?

[Keith Alan]

Right.

A demand must be made in writing since it only can be made 'in person"; man has no need for such 'redemption'.

Who holds TITLE to the 'person' utilized when making such a demand; who is the actual usufructuary?

I'm reasonably sure the United States holds the title to that person.

Can I ask where this line of questioning is going?

[Anthony Joseph]

I'm reasonably sure the United States holds the title to that person.

Can I ask where this line of questioning is going?

If the State (ie. United States) "holds title to that person", then why is it not fulfilling the duties regarding said person...

1. To make an inventory of the things subject to the usufruct, in the presence of those having an interest in them.(The certificate of live birth / birth certificate)
2. To give security for their restitution; when the usufruct shall be at an end. (Promise to pay: contract under seal = state as usufrucut)
3. To take good care of the things subject to the usufruct.
4. To pay all taxes, and claims which arise while the thing is in his possession, as a ground-rent.
5. To keep the thing in repair at his own expense.


???

[Keith Alan]

If the State (ie. United States) "holds title to that person", then why is it not fulfilling the duties regarding said person...

1. To make an inventory of the things subject to the usufruct, in the presence of those having an interest in them.(The certificate of live birth / birth certificate)
2. To give security for their restitution; when the usufruct shall be at an end. (Promise to pay: contract under seal = state as usufrucut)
3. To take good care of the things subject to the usufruct.
4. To pay all taxes, and claims which arise while the thing is in his possession, as a ground-rent.
5. To keep the thing in repair at his own expense.


???

Oh that's easy; people are assuming they have title to the person, and are acting as sureties for the person.

If I had more time at the moment, I have a thoughts I'd like to share. But I have a few things to take care of, so if I remember them later, I'll share.

[Anthony Joseph]

Oh that's easy; people are assuming they have title to the person, and are acting as sureties for the person.

If I had more time at the moment, I have a thoughts I'd like to share. But I have a few things to take care of, so if I remember them later, I'll share.

When you return...

"People are assuming they have title to the person" is one part; the other part is that it is the automatic and default presumption of the 'actors' for the State that ALL people are "assuming they have title to the person", and, TITLE to everything in said person.

Now, go back to the original premise of this thread and decide for yourself if there is a solution to overcoming these assumptions and presumptions.

[EZrhythm]

Oh absolutely! Just one example is with a Notice of Mistake;
http://www.notacitizen.com/index.php...mple-documents

[allodial]

"owner" ~= "surety". Having full title is another thing. I was told even the Russians or German officers asking "papers please" knew this.

[doug555]

If the State (ie. United States) "holds title to that person", then why is it not fulfilling the duties regarding said person...

1. To make an inventory of the things subject to the usufruct, in the presence of those having an interest in them.(The certificate of live birth / birth certificate)
2. To give security for their restitution; when the usufruct shall be at an end. (Promise to pay: contract under seal = state as usufrucut)
3. To take good care of the things subject to the usufruct.
4. To pay all taxes, and claims which arise while the thing is in his possession, as a ground-rent.
5. To keep the thing in repair at his own expense.


???

Isn't their duty voided if one is warring against the State?

Doesn't one being in contract with the FED (by using FRN's) automatically make one an "Enemy of the State"?

[Keith Alan]

Isn't their duty voided if one is warring against the State?

Doesn't one being in contract with the FED (by using FRN's) automatically make one an "Enemy of the State"?

What if it's a species of military scrip?

[Anthony Joseph]

The "duty" isn't voided; it's transferred to the one who acts as if the duty belongs to him/her. When we make adverse claims of already seized interests, we are labeled as "enemies of the State" and we obligate ourselves to fulfill the "duty" which would otherwise be the obligation of the actual usufructuary - the State.

If you wish, go to peace and surrender the 'usufruct'; surrender adverse claims to that which has been already seized and that which amounts to nothing more but mere "earthly/worldly treasures" and illusionary "profits" derived therefrom. If one makes clear declaration that one is without TITLE and/or OWNERSHIP claim(s) over already seized and vested interests of the 'United States', how can one be held lawfully liable for obligations and duties pertaining to said interests?

Any 'use' of persons in commerce benefits the State; we receive NOTHING of intrinsic value in return for our labor. Debt currency and credit provides only discharge and people get "paid" by way of said debt obligations - debt is not fair and just compensation for one's labor.

Stop acting like an OWNER and let the actors for the State administrate its own liabilities from within its own created realm.

Or, be an OWNER and take the burden on for yourself; this is what most people are doing anyway.

[doug555]

The "duty" isn't voided; it's transferred to the one who acts as if the duty belongs to him/her. When we make adverse claims of already seized interests, we are labeled as "enemies of the State" and we obligate ourselves to fulfill the "duty" which would otherwise be the obligation of the actual usufructuary - the State.

If you wish, go to peace and surrender the 'usufruct'; surrender adverse claims to that which has been already seized and that which amounts to nothing more but mere "earthly/worldly treasures" and illusionary "profits" derived therefrom. If one makes clear declaration that one is without TITLE and/or OWNERSHIP claim(s) over already seized and vested interests of the 'United States', how can one be held lawfully liable for obligations and duties pertaining to said interests?

Any 'use' of persons in commerce benefits the State; we receive NOTHING of intrinsic value in return for our labor. Debt currency and credit provides only discharge and people get "paid" by way of said debt obligations - debt is not fair and just compensation for one's labor.

Stop acting like an OWNER and let the actors for the State administrate its own liabilities from within its own created realm.

Or, be an OWNER and take the burden on for yourself; this is what most people are doing anyway.

The use of the word "surrender" implies that you must be Owner of something in some respect in order to "surrender" it.

Why else would they even be sending you a "bill"?

Boris uses "naked owner" to describe why they are approaching you for the "NAME".

In Trust, and in military seizure, ownership has been split into legal and equitable title.

The State seized (by pledge or military conquest) LEGAL title only.

The COLB is evidence of equitable title (indemnification), which title you are holding now when you appear to be alive on the record (via UCC-1 or other county record).

This equitable title is the 'reversionary interest" that re-vests to you upon your "appearance to be alive", and this equitable title is what you indeed "surrender" to State, which then now holds BOTH Legal and Equitable Titles, causing the usufruct to end (page 407, point II "Merger") and distinguishing the associated debt by operation of law (12 USC 95a(2).

IMO, this is how I see Boris's technology working...