Redeem From Public To Private Venue

[Anthony Joseph]

Yes, excellent points. So the demand is made, leaving the holder of the money in the private venue, outside the reach of public government.

I guess I'm having difficulty understanding how this relates to the BC, other than it serving as an indemnity receipt issued by the regime. It proves the existence of a public person, ipso facto a private person.

The BC is a certified copy of an original registration of, and TITLE to, the PERSON used to make said demand. The point of my additional commentary as it relates to Boris' approach is that, in my opinion, "making demand per 12USC411" does nothing to negate the presumption of "Enemy of the State" status ['Trading with the Enemy']. The possibility that you can and/or will make claim to the "redeemed money" [U.S. Treasury interests] through the State's vessel ['FIRST MIDDLE LAST'] keeps one under that default presumption - ENEMY.

Boris' approach attempts to quash that presumption through a recognized assignment/surrender process which is a memorialization of one's choice to cease any possible adverse claims. This reestablishes peace with the occupying force and the 'peaceful inhabitants' are not to be interfered with, in any manner, during the duration of belligerent occupation so long as one remains peaceful.

[Keith Alan]

The BC is a certified copy of an original registration of, and TITLE to, the PERSON used to make said demand. The point of my additional commentary as it relates to Boris' approach is that, in my opinion, "making demand per 12USC411" does nothing to negate the presumption of "Enemy of the State" status ['Trading with the Enemy']. The possibility that you can and/or will make claim to the "redeemed money" [U.S. Treasury interests] through the State's vessel ['FIRST MIDDLE LAST'] keeps one under that default presumption - ENEMY.

Boris' approach attempts to quash that presumption through a recognized assignment/surrender process which is a memorialization of one's choice to cease any possible adverse claims. This reestablishes peace with the occupying force and the 'peaceful inhabitants' are not to be interfered with, in any manner, during the duration of belligerent occupation so long as one remains peaceful.

Aha! Okay, I see your point.

Isn't an usufructuary a person with the right to reap profit from the settlor's res? So in the instant matter, the regime as usufructuary (trustee), by virtue of its hostile occupation, is entitled to reap a profit on the titles it holds; but only the profits.

So then it devolves to: is a demand for lawful money depriving the usufructuary of profits?

I think the answer to that question is yes, presuming that everything the public person does is for profit or gain, which is true when it receives public liability notes or banking credit (since both are US obligations).

Is lawful money a US obligation?

[doug555]

The BC is a certified copy of an original registration of, and TITLE to, the PERSON used to make said demand. The point of my additional commentary as it relates to Boris' approach is that, in my opinion, "making demand per 12USC411" does nothing to negate the presumption of "Enemy of the State" status ['Trading with the Enemy']. The possibility that you can and/or will make claim to the "redeemed money" [U.S. Treasury interests] through the State's vessel ['FIRST MIDDLE LAST'] keeps one under that default presumption - ENEMY.

Boris' approach attempts to quash that presumption through a recognized assignment/surrender process which is a memorialization of one's choice to cease any possible adverse claims. This reestablishes peace with the occupying force and the 'peaceful inhabitants' are not to be interfered with, in any manner, during the duration of belligerent occupation so long as one remains peaceful.

As long as the default currency is FRN's, the "ENEMY" status remains for the NAME (the State's vessel ['FIRST MIDDLE LAST']), and requires the repeated execution of the lawful money demands to reverse (redeem) each and every transaction that occurs in the commerce (war) arena through that NAME.

The NAME must be used to accommodate this redemption as provided for in their arena by 12 USC 411 and 12 USC 95a(2) and the laws of usufruct.

Perhaps reporting violations within their arena should start with Stuart F. Delery as the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Director of the Office of Alien Property per 28 CFR 0.47 17 and 50 USC App?

[allodial]

It is highly unlikely for the person named on the birth certificate to be construed to be an enemy or a stranger as contrasted to the person that is the holder thereof (see driver license or state ID)--they are not the same person. Any entity that is chartered by a State is going to be seen as 'friendly'. If a guy can get off a boat and get a driver license: whats the difference between his driver license and anyone else's? Nothing! How can you tell friend vs foe based on driver license? You can't? Perhaps its up to the person holding the certificate to act like an enemy or not based on what he does with what he has?

This topic as pertains to war perhaps cannot be adequately comprehended without the notion of mixed war.

The first and most necessary divisions of war are into one kind called private, another public, and another mixed. Now public war is carried on by the person holding the sovereign power. Private war is that which is carried on by private persons without authority from the state. A mixed war is that which is carried on, on one side by public authority, and on the other by private persons. But private war, from its greater antiquity, is the first subject for inquiry. -Grotius

How much difficulty is there in seeing that John Henry Doe and John H. Doe aren't the same name?

[EZrhythm]

The BC is a certified copy of an original registration of, and TITLE to, the PERSON...

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...3879#post13879

[David Merrill]

It is fallacy.

The consumer is in no way obligated to pay a Sales Tax because it is a Sales Tax - it is imposed on the Seller. It is not a Purchase Tax on the Purchaser.

Aside from my letter evidencing the contrary, there is no evidence in support of this elaborate chain of trust associations and compacts - at least to place any confidence building measures behind the birth certificate being a directly valued financial instrument.

My theory is that this is classical projection and reflection. Boris can construct elaborate fantasies that evolve from the naked contract of endorsement. That is indeed the nature of naked contract. The backside of replacement birth certificate cards in Canada supplies a wonderful confirmation! It actually has a Warehouse Receipt stamp and number. So the casual observer might feel that means that the Person warehoused under the Crown has a monetary value...

I have had some skeptics say the Canadian Letter is a lie though. I am not defending it, just presenting it to explain my point of view.

[allodial]

The consumer is in no way obligated to pay a Sales Tax because it is a Sales Tax - it is imposed on the Seller. It is not a Purchase Tax on the Purchaser.

Pretty much. The vendor when obtaining his license got a tax ID and became obligated to pay revenue because the vendor is gaining. From what I have gathered, its the vendor that is obligated to pay the sales tax not the purchaser nor the consumer. But somehow, perhaps through conditioning, the vendor has passed it on to the consumer. However, I recall seeing regulations (pertinent to some venue) which prohibit seller's from building the tax into the price. The same might apply to income tax only during the 60s or so they figured out a way to make the employee pay the tax. I am unaware of any U.S. State that doesn't have a form for applying for a sales/use tax exemption certificate!

Perhaps what they decided to do was presume "everyone" to be a stranger.

I have had some skeptics say the Canadian Letter is a lie though. I am not defending it, just presenting it to explain my point of view.

I tend to see the letter to be honest even if the wording might be carefully construed. At the same time, technically, a blank check doesn't have monetary value either. Not to suggest a birth certificate to be a 'blank check', but for perspectives illustrating the point as to how something like a blank check, rightfully signed and even associated with a billion dollar bank account can be said to have no monetary value and it be very true.

***

On that note, couldn't someone simply send the birth certificate and social security card back with a resignation letter rather than go through all of that UCC filing stuff?

[Anthony Joseph]

Aha! Okay, I see your point.

Isn't an usufructuary a person with the right to reap profit from the settlor's res? So in the instant matter, the regime as usufructuary (trustee), by virtue of its hostile occupation, is entitled to reap a profit on the titles it holds; but only the profits.

So then it devolves to: is a demand for lawful money depriving the usufructuary of profits?

I think the answer to that question is yes, presuming that everything the public person does is for profit or gain, which is true when it receives public liability notes or banking credit (since both are US obligations).

Is lawful money a US obligation?

The 'demand of lawful money' deprives the private foreign banking interests (Federal Reserve) of their "PROFITS". I believe the answer to your question is NO. United States Notes are obligations of the United States; Federal Reserve Notes are obligations of BOTH the United States and the Federal Reserve.

As long as the default currency is FRN's, the "ENEMY" status remains for the NAME (the State's vessel ['FIRST MIDDLE LAST']), and requires the repeated execution of the lawful money demands to reverse (redeem) each and every transaction that occurs in the commerce (war) arena through that NAME.

The NAME must be used to accommodate this redemption as provided for in their arena by 12 USC 411 and 12 USC 95a(2) and the laws of usufruct.

Perhaps reporting violations within their arena should start with Stuart F. Delery as the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Director of the Office of Alien Property per 28 CFR 0.47 17 and 50 USC App?

The 'NAME' is only a lifeless vessel. It is the living man that uses it who is either deemed "Enemy" or 'peaceful inhabitant'

It is highly unlikely for the person named on the birth certificate to be construed to be an enemy or a stranger as contrasted to the person that is the holder thereof (see driver license or state ID)--they are not the same person. Any entity that is chartered by a State is going to be seen as 'friendly'. If a guy can get off a boat and get a driver license: whats the difference between his driver license and anyone else's? Nothing! How can you tell friend vs foe based on driver license? You can't? Perhaps its up to the person holding the certificate to act like an enemy or not based on what he does with what he has?

This topic as pertains to war perhaps cannot be adequately comprehended without the notion of mixed war.



How much difficulty is there in seeing that John Henry Doe and John H. Doe aren't the same name?

The "person named" is not construed an enemy; it is the man who steps into the office of 'person' (public capacity, 'you' is plural; duality of the man in the office of person) that is either an "Enemy of the State" or a peaceful inhabitant. It all depends upon how you use 'IT' and conduct yourself amidst the theater of commercial warfare.

There is no difficulty for me regarding the difference between John Henry Doe and John H. Doe; usufructuary interests to BOTH are assigned to the United States.

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1161-Birth-Certificate-What-it-is&p=13879#post13879

You are expressing and espousing David Merrill's "bunny hole" theory; you may hash that out with him since what we are attempting to discuss has NOTHING to do with the Canadian letter or the process which prompted its presentment; notwithstanding David's continuing presumptive labeling it as the same.

The consumer is in no way obligated to pay a Sales Tax because it is a Sales Tax - it is imposed on the Seller. It is not a Purchase Tax on the Purchaser.

And yet, when you buy a burrito at Taco Bell, you pony up the % of tax on .79 cents, don't you. Do you have a special 'Tax Exemption Certificate" to hand to the Taco Bell 'teller' so your lunch only takes .79 cents out of your pocket?

[Anthony Joseph]

THE WAY TO OUTDO ENGLAND WITHOUT FIGHTING HER

Go to the .pdf page number 183 - THE CURRENCY QUESTION - The Letter Twelfth.

A very interesting read which relates to what this discussion is about.

[David Merrill]

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?1161-Birth-Certificate-What-it-is&p=13879#post13879

You are expressing and espousing David Merrill's "bunny hole" theory; you may hash that out with him since what we are attempting to discuss has NOTHING to do with the Canadian letter or the process which prompted its presentment; notwithstanding David's continuing presumptive labeling it as the same.

The consumer is in no way obligated to pay a Sales Tax because it is a Sales Tax - it is imposed on the Seller. It is not a Purchase Tax on the Purchaser.

And yet, when you buy a burrito at Taco Bell, you pony up the % of tax on .79 cents, don't you. Do you have a special 'Tax Exemption Certificate" to hand to the Taco Bell 'teller' so your lunch only takes .79 cents out of your pocket?

Instead of escalating this I will just show you Boris' UCC Filing.

[allodial]

Without aiming to show any disrespect, the first word that came to mind was "bait" especially considering the acknowledgement. Why would "BORIS R ERICKSON" be associated with the hospital? While he might know a thing or two about something or another, from looking at the UCC filing, I don't get the impression that he wholly knows what he is doing if his intent is noble.

Re: Secretary of State
It seems more likely the State Attorney General and the State Registrar would have something to do with the birth certificate or registration than the Secretary of State.


P.S. There are two separate filings: # 201308755849 and # 201400717971.

[Anthony Joseph]

Instead of escalating this I will just show you Boris' UCC Filing.

And that is why you are still ignorant regarding Boris' approach; that filing you keep attaching is only "Part 1" of the process.

[ag maniac]

Without aiming to show any disrespect, the first word that came to mind was "bait" especially considering the acknowledgement. Why would "BORIS R ERICKSON" be associated with the hospital? While he might know a thing or two about something or another, from looking at the UCC filing, I don't get the impression that he wholly knows what he is doing if his intent is noble.

Re: Secretary of State
It seems more likely the State Attorney General and the State Registrar would have something to do with the birth certificate or registration than the Secretary of State.


P.S. There are two separate filings: # 201308755849 and # 201400717971.

Apparently, this was filed as a "Protected Purchaser" and at the bottom, a box checked --> non UCC filing


Regards the state registrar, maybe involved because all the UCC 1 & 3 filings involving Boris have "record as real estate" box checked?

[David Merrill]

It is classical STRAWMAN REDEMPTION. That is why I included sworn transcript from Walker TODD.

I was oriented about the STRAWMAN REDEMPTION when the first guys who tried it got out of prison for it and began composing their UCC nonsense around it. I rejected it immediately because it never gets results when you try enforcing the lien; except that it is basically the motivation behind the 2007 Court Security Act adopted uniformly by the States. Since then the results are many prison sentences.


If that is what you call ignorant AJ, that is what I would rather be. Variations on this mythology, that the birth certificate is more than a health record or population census causes great sorrow.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. I had some direct experiences with the "UCC Guru" who would hold meetings on Wednesday lunchtimes at the Science of Mind church. Three local suitors insisted I check it out. He did not make a lot of sense and I asked a couple questions and he got upset with me.

The suitors stuck with him to watch and went to the courthouse when it was time to protect his UCC Lien. I hear the judge heard them both out carefully and said, I don't see any law there.

The UCC Guru was ordered to pay off all the attorney costs of his victim on his way out of the courthouse or go to jail.


P.P.S. I will often rely on such an experience for a final evaluation so if Boris gets results then I will examine them with fresh eyes.

[allodial]

It is classical STRAWMAN REDEMPTION. That is why I included sworn transcript from Walker TODD.

I was oriented about the STRAWMAN REDEMPTION when the first guys who tried it got out of prison for it and began composing their UCC nonsense around it. I rejected it immediately because it never gets results when you try enforcing the lien; except that it is basically the motivation behind the 2007 Court Security Act adopted uniformly by the States.

The UCC is perhaps a kind of evidence repository that can be used systematically with a court proceeding of some kind (i.e. a judgment might need to be entered in order to enforce the lien). Its one thing to file a UCC lien. Its another to serve the facts of the lien on the party giving them notice & grace and opportunity to state their case or be in agreement. The "UCC guru" might have been getting folks to skip the notice & grace part.

Related: Enforcing Security Interests Under Article 9 of the UCC.