Boris

[allodial]

To accept a draft is to promise to pay it. From observation, a bond or something is needed to back the acceptance such as hmm a bond or some assets or something.

[looking for truth]

hi all, its been a long time between drinks.

I don't want to step on any toes regarding whether the birth certificate has any value, but my feel of it is that when 'they' took away substance backed currency 'they' then gave us birth certificates, so i expect that a connection exists. obviously that is not satisfactory in regards to the concrete evidence that this site requires, and that is the charm of this website.

from my perspective, in regards to Boris' approach (although David makes the good point that no doubt his approach has been put forward earlier by others), Boris makes the point that he would "accept for honor" not "accept for value". the distinction being that when you accept for value you are creating new currency in the private; but via the view of Boris, everything is already owned by the corporate government, so why would you create new currency to accept that offer? he accepts for honor in the case that the corporate government defaults on settling the account in 'their' public. (the likelihood of which is nil without giving their their game away)

on an aggregate level, I like Boris' approach. essentially he is saying to assign all of the property to the de jure government in the corporate government public, so if the corporate government, or its licensed private pirates, should then make a claim against the property, they are then facing treason charges from their licensing authority by the attorney general, who is still of the dejure government, so they back right off.

essentially the nuance I am picking up is that there is still a de jure government, or at least that there are specific positions are still held by them. the REST is the corporate government and 'somehow' the corporate government seems to have thread the eye of the needle and created their trust bubble legitimately under the de jure constitution, and then created their own de facto constitution within that bubble that contravenes whatever they like about the de jure constitution...
and as long as they don't then attack the de jure government then they themselves have very little to worry about.

via the current approach, the corporate government supposedly securitises our offers, making ridiculous gains, via this process (from new zealand) : http://itnabit.com/assets/downloadab...NSTRUMENTS.pdf

those gains go toward increasing 'our' national debt. BUT, via the approach of Boris, we give back our offers and its interest to the de jure government, thereby reducing the national debt and stopping us from bequeathing 'our' debts to the next generation.

anyway, i know this site is a place of fact, not conjecture, so I am simply putting forth how it seems to me. apologies for polluting your site David.

[looking for truth]

hi ag maniac,

some points to ponder:
"COMMANDED Erickson to appear at a hearing before this Court on February 13, 2014", isn't commanded a term that would be used BY a trustee? (or is it a co-trustee)

"Dr. Taylor rendered his opinion as follows: "It is my opinion within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that THE RESPONDENT IS CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE AND CONSEQUENCES of the proceedings against him and is capable of assisting properly in his defense", is it not amazing how a doctor can surmise this without a question answered, thereby bringing into question the supposed claims of the previous State courts? (and of course that word UNDERSTANDING once again rears its ugly head)

"Specifically, the Government seeks Erickson's incarceration to COMPEL his compliance", isn't compel a term that would be used AGAINST a trustee (or a co-trustee)?

to me, it looks very much like the proposition that the corporate government is co-trustee and co-beneficiary of the estate (possibly the birth certificate estate?) and with the joinder of the living being to the person involved in that estate, allowing them to construe the "living being-person" as co-trustee and co-beneficiary, seems valid.

"They" are co-trustee when they are dealing out the punishment, of a discretionary trust whereby they do not have to treat each beneficiary similarly, and the person is also the co-trustee and deemed responsible for the upkeep/cost/fines/offers of the property, and when they do not pay, the person is THEN construed to be the co-beneficiary of the benefit/detriment, with the concordant benefit of securitisation going to themselves, who are then conveniently construed as the lucky c0-beneficiary...

the point of this in regard to this thread is, Boris is overtly (expressly perhaps?), in the defacto governments public, assigning the legal ownership (title) over to the de jure governement, making them the trustee. meaning that the private mercantile agents/pirates are now trying to steal from the master, which is not going to go down very well when the master is noticed... so they drop the matter like a hot potatoe.

anyway, once again its subjecture, not fact. i think i might grow tired of apologising David, alot of how i view this stuff is from sources from everywhere and is not supported in an A to B style format; please be frank with me if you want me to stop posting without supporting evidence.

[looking for truth]

that is very cute. and it shows how the system plays it out until the very end before providing remedy/relief.

being in australia makes it largely useless to me, however, it's heart warming to know such a provision exists.

[looking for truth]

hi EZrhythm,

i wonder if it has truly "worked" if it has only been discharged, and not set-off? in theory if it was set-off, then it will be as if it never existed.

from my humble current perspective, it would appear that we are all still operating in commerce, and signing with either an unrestricted signature, or a (commercially) restricted one, like "without prejudice", "all rights reserved", "agent" etc... ALL of which allow 'them' to construe us as in commerce, and as debtor. From that they can construe themselves to have our power of attorney. When we then try to revoke/rescind our signature, with our intent balanced against their construed power of attorney, they trump us with their claim of legal title over the implied trusts. (foreign situs trust = birth certificate, cestui que trusts = social security or tax or bank accounts or drivers license or passport etc....). That means they do not have to do what we ask them, as they believe as our power of attorney that it is not in our best interests.... a sick joke to be sure.

this is the work of Christian Walters, and it makes sense. we desperately need to be signing all corporate government and bank and court documents as "by (our signature) GRANTOR/SETTLOR". This undeniably expresses the document to be a trust, with us in the controlling position of settlor, for later clarification as to the express terms of the deed. It also blocks them from construing as as operating in commerce, or being a debtor, or them having our power of attorney.

with this approach we 'should' then be able to achieve set-off. there is more to it naturally, but that is the fundamental beginning of it.

anyway, again i provide no verifiable proof for my beliefs, but it feels right.

[looking for truth]

upu, passports, and social security

this is more from the Boris camp, but it is mainly from a guy named Eddie, and it is a step by step process of reclaiming the recognition of being a man.

i think this forum would like it, it references specific acts etc...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7AG9FqunN0

best of luck to all!

hi EZrhythm,

i wonder if it has truly "worked" if it has only been discharged, and not set-off? in theory if it was set-off, then it will be as if it never existed.

from my humble current perspective, it would appear that we are all still operating in commerce, and signing with either an unrestricted signature, or a (commercially) restricted one, like "without prejudice", "all rights reserved", "agent" etc... ALL of which allow 'them' to construe us as in commerce, and as debtor. From that they can construe themselves to have our power of attorney. When we then try to revoke/rescind our signature, with our intent balanced against their construed power of attorney, they trump us with their claim of legal title over the implied trusts. (foreign situs trust = birth certificate, cestui que trusts = social security or tax or bank accounts or drivers license or passport etc....). That means they do not have to do what we ask them, as they believe as our power of attorney that it is not in our best interests.... a sick joke to be sure.

this is the work of Christian Walters, and it makes sense. we desperately need to be signing all corporate government and bank and court documents as "by (our signature) GRANTOR/SETTLOR". This undeniably expresses the document to be a trust, with us in the controlling position of settlor, for later clarification as to the express terms of the deed. It also blocks them from construing as as operating in commerce, or being a debtor, or them having our power of attorney.

with this approach we 'should' then be able to achieve set-off. there is more to it naturally, but that is the fundamental beginning of it.

anyway, again i provide no verifiable proof for my beliefs, but it feels right.

[walter]

this is more from the Boris camp, but it is mainly from a guy named Eddie, and it is a step by step process of reclaiming the recognition of being a man.

i think this forum would like it, it references specific acts etc...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7AG9FqunN0

best of luck to all!

Interesting video.
But I see errors.
There is no way in hell that by claiming your natural status makes you a nation in your own.
That is only done by self determination.
The state still holds the original "Statement of Live Birth" and until you make your own compact and deposit the SOLB in it you will always have an obligation. If not as a public citizen to the federal government but as as a man to the territorial state.

[Michael Joseph]

Interesting video.
But I see errors.
There is no way in hell that by claiming your natural status makes you a nation in your own.
That is only done by self determination.
The state still holds the original "Statement of Live Birth" and until you make your own compact and deposit the SOLB in it you will always have an obligation. If not as a public citizen to the federal government but as as a man to the territorial state.

I got news for someone who wants to reclaim being a man. If you want me to acknowledge your manhood then you are already bowing your knee to me. For at once I will not recognize your standing BEFORE ME and what are you left with? The command to the Israelites was to go in and begin to possess the land. But they were afraid for they thought themselves to be mere grasshoppers in the "eyes of their [mental] giants".

Rather, I see your feeble petition as suppliant before my court. Since you ask you must trust in me. Therefore you are my subject.

A living man is a mighty God.

It is simple - Declare Thyself. Stake a Claim. Undertake to steward said Claim serving others. Sit in your court as Sovereign under Christ in I AM.

If this is your will and not the Will of I AM in Christ, then most likely you will fail. If this use is placed in you by God, then nothing can stop you. For I do not count it robbery to be equal with God.

Nevertheless, it is not about me in what i can get to set my weary mind at ease. It is about what I can give by and thru the hands of God.

[walter]

Declare Thyself. Stake a Claim.

and yet who does?
oh wait...they did

[allodial]

...from my humble current perspective, it would appear that we are all still operating in commerce, and signing with either an unrestricted signature, or a (commercially) restricted one, like "without prejudice", "all rights reserved", "agent" etc... ALL of which allow 'them' to construe us as in commerce, and as debtor. From that they can construe themselves to have our power of attorney. When we then try to revoke/rescind our signature, with our intent balanced against their construed power of attorney, they trump us with their claim of legal title over the implied trusts. (foreign situs trust = birth certificate, cestui que trusts = social security or tax or bank accounts or drivers license or passport etc....). That means they do not have to do what we ask them, as they believe as our power of attorney that it is not in our best interests.... a sick joke to be sure.

this is the work of Christian Walters, and it makes sense. we desperately need to be signing all corporate government and bank and court documents as "by (our signature) GRANTOR/SETTLOR". This undeniably expresses the document to be a trust, with us in the controlling position of settlor, for later clarification as to the express terms of the deed. It also blocks them from construing as as operating in commerce, or being a debtor, or them having our power of attorney.

with this approach we 'should' then be able to achieve set-off. there is more to it naturally, but that is the fundamental beginning of it.

anyway, again i provide no verifiable proof for my beliefs, but it feels right.

Manufacturing (i.e. making things) or provision of labor is not commercial. As in, artificers are not merchants. Merchants do not necessarily manufacture anything and only buy, sell or speculate in things made by others.

[Michael Joseph]

and yet who does?
oh wait...they did

That's right. It's called Unam Sanctum. And the benefits of that claim are doled out to different kingdoms. If you think about the earth as a Cartesian coordinate system, then you will see that surveys can be made upon the same earth but at different Z coordinates. That way the planes do not intersect in trespass. When it becomes necessary to interact with another dominion an agreement must be made.

Dominion is birthed out of Claim.

[Chex]

Source

[walter]

That's right. It's called Unam Sanctum. And the benefits of that claim are doled out to different kingdoms. If you think about the earth as a Cartesian coordinate system, then you will see that surveys can be made upon the same earth but at different Z coordinates. That way the planes do not intersect in trespass. When it becomes necessary to interact with another dominion an agreement must be made.

Dominion is birthed out of Claim.

Unam Sanctum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unam_sanctam

[allodial]

One thing is that the "earth" and the Earth aren't the same. The earth (synonymous with 'the land' --land can be synonymous with 'estate') is a generic term for a land or expanse of land or territory. The "earth" is not by default a reference to a planet--clearly a planet is also inclusive of seas, river and sky rather than soil or dry land alone. The Earth is a name for a planet a/k/a or f/k/a "Terra". This is important as there are those who deceptively expand the term "earth" to mean far more than it does--i.e. it is taken out of context for deceptive purposes by some especially as pertains to the Holy Bible. If your uncle gave you "the entire earth" in his will with the term "earth" referring to his entire expanse of land, wouldn't it be quite a deception to get others to believe that he meant the entire planet? Imagine if you and your brothers or sisters could convince others to fall for it.

Unam Sanctum
[url]

Regarding the term "the Church", what is being referred to might be the "Church of Rome" rather than an all-encompassing term referring to Christ's lawful assembly wherever they are. The word 'bull' is much the same as the word "bill" (used by legislative assemblies) or billet (French term but also used for military orders) (see also "will"). To knowledge, the Holy See/Vatican and/or Roman Catholic system has two Popes--one is referred to as the "Black Pope", the other is referred to as the "White Pope". Furthermore, 1929, it is said that two entities rose out of the Lateran Treaty (which some suggest to be defective for want of consideration), the Holy See and the Vatican.

To knowledge Rome neither created the faith or doctrines of the Hebrews nor the that of Melchizedek. Rome didn't arrive on the scene until around 500 to 600 BC.

The Bible says that Christ is the head of his church. On Pentecost day, instead of power being given to one single man, power was given to those believers present on Pentecost day (i.e. they were endued with power from on high). Anointing and were known of and practiced before Rome ever existed.

Furthermore the term "Christian" is known to be used to refer to two distinct groups: (1) the followers of Jesus Christ were called "Christians" at Antioch (see book of Acts)--the term Christ to knowledge is relate to the term 'anointing' (metallic crowns might be an attempt to simulate the brilliant and glorious radiance of a strong God-given anointing)---to knowledge they referred to themselves as "chosen of God" or "the people of the way" or "saints" (i.e. holy ones/hagios in Greek); (2) Simonians (i.e. the followers of Simon Magus (from Samaria)) called themselves Christians. Those who hate #1 like to meritlessly and deceptively blend them in with #2 while knowing the truth of the distinction.

There are authors such as Warder Cresson who make an attempt to link Jesus with the Simonians-called-Christians and who attempt to make the link between England and Rome when in fact non-Roman monarchies and governments existed before Rome got to the British Isles archipelago and the Picts weren't Romans and were converted. Also the Romans eventually lost hold of Britain and never totally gained a foothold on Ireland. Thusly the believers on the organic doctrines could not possibly owe their doctrines to Rome. The Britons and Anglo and Saxon people were on those islands before Rome found those Isles and yet still Rome didn't take it all at first, then lost much of for a while.

1 - St. Patrick was neither a Roman Catholic nor a Roman Catholic missionary;
2 - the Roman Empire persecuted the followers of Christ so who can claim Rome or the Roman Empire and true believers had anything to do with one another
3 - there is much evidence that Joseph of Arimathea and Jesus were at Cornwall or other areas long before Augistine and others arrived
4 - The Picts were converted by non-Roman-Catholics who had ties to the original believers back at Jerusalem who came to the area called that is now called England long before before 70AD;
5 - Constantine and the Roman Empire didn't even begin to "embrace" the Christ Jesus until hundreds of years after the resurrection of Jesus Christ--but the some suggest that to have been a ruse to ensare the saints;
6 - There is much evidence of name Iesua/Jesus/Joshua having significant etymological links and meanings even in the OT --even that the name means 'salvation' or 'savior' or the like in Hebrew (further hints: Joshua the high priest in the Book of Zechariah; Joshua that took the promised land from the Canaanites in the Book of Joshua)
7 - Ptolemy II was (around 285BC) involved with translating the scriptures long long before Constantine or Augustine arrived--thusly we have very good and reliable manuscripts for the OT books and we have good linguistic proofs for Hebrew/Chaldean to Greek translations;
8 - the Samarians or Samaritans notoriously called themselves "Jews" though they were not (the term "Jew" could be a reference a Judean or one who was of the tribe of Judah--the Edomites or Assyrians that went to Judea when Israel or Judah were in captivity [Shalmaneser V and Sargon II around 720BC] also called themselves Judeans or Jews);
9 - the terms "Jew" and "Christian" have been highly subject to borrowings, manipulations and counterfeiting in the past two thousand+ years;
10 - 1260 years passed from Justinian's decree 538 to the Pope being taken captive by Napoleon's/France's General Berthier in 1798--from 1798 to 1929 the Papacy and the Vatican were regarded to no longer exist or to have lost its political status (until 1929).

With all the counterfeiting, deception by syntax and obscurement you really have to dig in to get at the truth.

Related:

• Validity of Lateran Treaty Brought Into Question Then and Now
• Simon Peter versus Simon the Sorceror

P.S. The link-up between Rome and the Babylon and the Chaldean mystery schools as some call it didn't occur until Attalus III (in Pergamum) died heirless and bequeathed his kingdom to the Romans. Julius Caesar may have been the first Roman Emperor who carried the combined Roman and Babylonian monarchies/systems.

Bible-based saints, people of the way or chosen/elect of God who are called "Christians" are not of the same cloth as the Simonians who call themselves Christians.

[looking for truth]

Interesting video.
But I see errors.
There is no way in hell that by claiming your natural status makes you a nation in your own.
That is only done by self determination.
The state still holds the original "Statement of Live Birth" and until you make your own compact and deposit the SOLB in it you will always have an obligation. If not as a public citizen to the federal government but as as a man to the territorial state.

Part of the approach that they discussed in passing is the work of jonah bey and the authentication of the birth certificate/certificate of live birth. I am loathe to put a link to another site which discusses these things, especially given the factual nature of this website and the speculative nature of the other website, so here is a link to a google search relating to it : https://www.google.com.au/?gfe_rd=cr...th+certificate

the only reason i mention it is because of one of the sections that it relies on is :

so the concept is, when we authenticate the certificate of live birth, we are now holder in due course of the instrument, placing us back to the point before our parents signed us up, or essentially we are recognised by their system as being a man, with diversity from our person.