Incorporation of the USA?

[motla68]

That is just childish. If I was born underground, I would suffocate. You will not find these unrealistic gyrations of yours going on in real life.



Thanks for developing this for me/us to read.

Keep in mind that in reality, these close must be breached before the tort manifests. In other words, the idealism of Motla is upsetting to people who have real life experience. Motla68 has no success in court, he would know that if he were indeed a court of competent jurisdiction. If he were then he would understand that there is no use trying to convince one without respecting rules of evidence. He says he gives the DA a robin egg-blue wrapped papering package and the case goes away but that has never actually happened. That is why he stops there. He has no evidence. If you can't show it to us Motla, it does not exist! Well, maybe to people who like to believe without evidence... incompetent courts.

The effective application of remedy is to supersede the words of art with reality. I was born within the survey called Colorado.


P.S.




You don't listen to yourself. If you had any answers, then you might have the respect to swallow your arrogance. You just think you have the answers and are so far above us all that you don't needs to show us how you got to be so smart.

hmmm, what is more childish, making a joke or counterfeiting posts? Is there anything in your character other then always being a critic and judgmental yourself?

AS for the other stuff, I have provided links to information as to how I know what I have come to know, where I get information from, if your too lazy to click on them then stop making comments about your presumptions and assumptions, Just admit to it that your so conceited you think your better then me by not giving me the same consideration that I have given you when it comes to clicking on links and downloading files from your google account public repository.

[motla68]

I am aware (now) that the BC is documentation from within the STATE OF XXXX that a vessel (person) has been "birthed" and that the STATE awaits the assumed voluntary acceptance of the living soul, around whom the BC was formed, to take on the burden of fiduciary/surety of that vessel. This is an automatic action whenever a child is born into the world on this land AT A HOSPITAL. If a child is born at home or elsewhere absent STATE cognizance or interference, the STATE, once aware of a "new energy-source prospect", does everything in its power to bring that child unto itself and within the U.S. trust-system. After all, the scheme does not work well if you allow any "fish" to "get away".

I contend that the main purpose behind this activity and mechanism is DISHONORABLE AT ITS CORE since the STATE acts as nothing more than a "soul harvester" without any regard for whats best for that living soul it is after. The main concern and purpose is to harness the energy and sweat equity of any and ALL living souls on this land BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY in order to continue maintaining the "beast" which serves the few who are in control of it at the expense and detriment of unsuspecting, unwitting and intentionally conditioned/misinformed people.

I ask any and all here...

WHAT RIGHTFUL AND LAWFUL CLAIM CAN BE VALID FROM THAT DISHONORABLE POSITION AND STANDING?

I opine that from that dishonor, all claims of sovereignty, authority, power and jurisdiction over the creations from that dishonorable entity and mechanism are NULL AND VOID when attempted against a righteous and peaceful inhabitant on the land who declares and exhibits competence and superior honorable standing within the supreme Divine Trust in the Almighty Creator.

What that translates to, in my opinion, is FREE REIGN USUFRUCT over any creation of man, in our own right, for the righteous purposes of living life on this land in peace but NOT for material or personal gain. We use whatever tool or creation we deem as necessary in this day and age in order to "live a life" and provide and protect ourselves and our families.

If the STATE and its U.S. TRUST principal wish to claim rightful sovereignty over what it creates, then start acting in honor with FULL DISCLOSURE and an OVERT GOOD FAITH EFFORT to not continue the intentional deception, conditioning, concealment, omission and overall DISHONOR it displays and acts upon whenever it decides to target and entrap a living soul on this land. Until then, the claims from that dishonrable position and standing have ZERO significance or force of law upon a righteous man or woman who is aware and "calls them on it".

No "government" is deserving of respect or obedience if its main objective is to chattelize the flesh and bone of God's children under less than honest means to say the least. This is repugnant and an abomination before our Creator and that renders the creations of men responsible for this evil FREE GAME for those of us who have gained this knowledge.

After all, I believe that this government/trust is here to charitably protect and defend our interests and claims. We are the heirs to God's Kingdom on earth and these "oath-takers" are to be doing God's Work; giving freely their service to that end.

Can you find any evidence beyond a reasonable doubt it is not the states who have Full Faith and Credit and NOT the State usufructuary itself?

See attachment:

[Anthony Joseph]

Can you find any evidence beyond a reasonable doubt it is not the states who have Full Faith and Credit and NOT the State usufructuary itself?

See attachment:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]217[/ATTACH]

You'll have to rephrase your question; double negative.

[David Merrill]

hmmm, what is more childish, making a joke or counterfeiting posts? Is there anything in your character other then always being a critic and judgmental yourself?

AS for the other stuff, I have provided links to information as to how I know what I have come to know, where I get information from, if your too lazy to click on them then stop making comments about your presumptions and assumptions, Just admit to it that your so conceited you think your better then me by not giving me the same consideration that I have given you when it comes to clicking on links and downloading files from your google account public repository.

I consider that an attack on my character, based in a false accusation that I have been counterfeiting posts; whatever that means.

Hopefully you will support that soon. You admit that the missing links to understanding your technology are secret and yet you will call me lazy because you will not just attach the source materials within this forum. I think if you are here on this forum, you best start using it to make it easier to understand what you preach around here, and fast.



Seriously,

David Merrill.

[motla68]

You'll have to rephrase your question; double negative.

oops, talking to my wife at same time, sorry.

Can you find any evidence beyond a reasonable doubt it is not the state usufructuary who have Full Faith and Credit versus the inhabitant people themselves as so many believe it relates to?
Yes, there is people in the state, people who signed the Constitution BUT the word " people " is pretty general statement unless it specifies what people, would you agree?

The Paderford vs. City of Savannah Case seems to make this distinction I believe.

[David Merrill]

oops, talking to my wife at same time, sorry.

Can you find any evidence beyond a reasonable doubt it is not the state usufructuary who have Full Faith and Credit versus the inhabitant people themselves as so many believe it relates to?
Yes, there is people in the state, people who signed the Constitution BUT the word " people " is pretty general statement unless it specifies what people, would you agree?

The Paderford vs. City of Savannah Case seems to make this distinction I believe.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]218[/ATTACH]

Ms. PEET signing her oath of office makes her a party to the Constitution.

Her oath of office is a fungible fidelity bond assuring her performance will be as such - pursuant to the constitutions. Your misinterpretation of the Padelford opinion is common.

[motla68]

I consider that an attack on my character, based in a false accusation that I have been counterfeiting posts; whatever that means.

Hopefully you will support that soon. You admit that the missing links to understanding your technology are secret and yet you will call me lazy because you will not just attach the source materials within this forum. I think if you are here on this forum, you best start using it to make it easier to understand what you preach around here, and fast.

2nd sentence relating to the image above it using the link below from this forum, is this not you?

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?109-Coresource-Solution-attempts-to-disclose-from-man-on-the-land-since-1968&p=1468&viewfull=1#post1468

Maybe next time remember to make a notation to the readers that it was you that put the insertion in?

If you missed it, the consideration is since we have to click on a link to download from your public google repository why will you not give us the same consideration?

[motla68]

Ms. PEET signing her oath of office makes her a party to the Constitution.

Her oath of office is a fungible fidelity bond assuring her performance will be as such - pursuant to the constitutions. Your misinterpretation of the Padelford opinion is common.

Alright now in that thought, where is our oath of office a fungible fidelity bond we signed off on assuring performance to be a part of the Constitution?

Please do explain your position on this case with inserted documentation to back up your position? thank you

[David Merrill]

2nd sentence relating to the image above it using the link below from this forum, is this not you?

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?109-Coresource-Solution-attempts-to-disclose-from-man-on-the-land-since-1968&p=1468&viewfull=1#post1468

Maybe next time remember to make a notation to the readers that it was you that put the insertion in?

If you missed it, the consideration is since we have to click on a link to download from your public google repository why will you not give us the same consideration?

Simply because I provide source and otherwise productive learning explanatory documentation in the Google Link Library. All you have been providing is the excuse that your source docs are secret.

You are telling us, on the other thread that Coresource Solution can pay a roofer for his work. That is what you keep evading by quibbling about my misjudgment about inserting my name in red, in brackets for some people who can't wrap their minds around your obfuscation.

This is really a compliment though - to StSC that you will not or cannot play nicely in a learning forum, yet you cannot find any other sandbox to play in!

[David Merrill]

Alright now in that thought, where is our oath of office a fungible fidelity bond we signed off on assuring performance to be a part of the Constitution?

Please do explain your position on this case with inserted documentation to back up your position? thank you

I guess it does not dawn on you that for people to want to learn from you they have to like you first.

I am not going to keep trying to mop up after you, or try to stay ahead of your misdirection. I know many of the folks here are smart enough not to bother with your kind of fun.

[motla68]

Coresource Solution can pay a roofer for his work. That is what you keep evading by quibbling about my misjudgment about inserting my name in red, in brackets for some people who can't wrap their minds around your obfuscation.

This is really a compliment though - to StSC that you will not or cannot play nicely in a learning forum, yet you cannot find any other sandbox to play in!

I did not say Coresource Solution can pay a roofer for his work, you have misinterpreted this and keep throwing it back in my face as I have explained already among your fascinations with Sheriff Harrison.

Ok, what have you not addressed the links I have provided information to in the context of consideration? A lot of that information is how the documents happened in the first place directly linking to what I consider private and it would be of dishonor to those who own the property. So links is all that I can give on it.

Please explain to me how misjudments is playing nicely both in quoting of posts and what was mentioned above?

[motla68]

I guess it does not dawn on you that for people to want to learn from you they have to like you first.

I am not going to keep trying to mop up after you, or try to stay ahead of your misdirection. I know many of the folks here are smart enough not to bother with your kind of fun.

This just simply does not address what I asked, if anything your reply here is a misdirection of assumption and presumption.

[David Merrill]

I did not say Coresource Solution can pay a roofer for his work, you have misinterpreted this and keep throwing it back in my face as I have explained already among your fascinations with Sheriff Harrison.

Ok, what have you not addressed the links I have provided information to in the context of consideration? A lot of that information is how the documents happened in the first place directly linking to what I consider private and it would be of dishonor to those who own the property. So links is all that I can give on it.

Please explain to me how misjudments is playing nicely both in quoting of posts and what was mentioned above?

Right! While you are the one who linked your post to the other thread, you say I am off topic!

I've spent enough time bickering with you. You posted what you posted and it is easy to interpret even without my interpretation. You imply that there is a funding program in the Treasury for private business in a privy purse. I say you are in error and keep showing the proof.

[Richard Earl]

I can't wrap my head around the AFV method. This, to me, seems it would just constantly increase the country's debt - expanding the obligations of the United States. I just don't see how that is a good thing.

[motla68]

Right! While you are the one who linked your post to the other thread, you say I am off topic!

I've spent enough time bickering with you. You posted what you posted and it is easy to interpret even without my interpretation. You imply that there is a funding program in the Treasury for private business in a privy purse. I say you are in error and keep showing the proof.

Fine, you did not have to comment on it. You had a choice written on the wall. Sometimes "we" ( you and I without perfection) make mistakes all the time, that is just nature of man.
Unfortunately the public got a benefit they had not signed up for, for that I do apologize to the public.