Say Goodbye to Property Taxes?

[shikamaru]

If you are using the R4V method you would need to sent you coupon and money order to the IRS. There are only 3 offices that process R4V payments.

IRS technical Support
1500 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington, district of columbia

IRS crimminal division
Box 192
Lovington, Kentucky

and

IRS stop 4440
PO box 9036
Augdon, Utah.

Allow 3 weeks for processing if this is your first R4V. fB

This has nothing to do with ACV/RCV.
This has to do with common law contracts vs. maritime contracts (insurance) as well as customs of law versus equity.

[KnowLaw]

Say Goodbye to Property Taxes

Let's look at it this way.
Let's say we successfully negotiate with a seller to accept gold and silver coin.

The parties are free to draw up the contract to their mutual benefit.

The contract could say something to the effect that "$2000 in 40 $50 gold pieces and other valuable consideration tendered AT LAW for closure and settlement.

Remember contract makes the law. Contracts even supersede constitutions .

The contract expresses the intent of the buyer.
There are other tricks too such as a absolute bill of sale rather than a receipt.
It has to do with common law vs equity if you will.

One is expressing intent to extinguish a debt at law rather than discharge in equity.

Excellent, Shikamaru.

That's what I was looking for. It's important to be clear about the verbiage, details matter in lawful and legal documents and proceedings. So, it is the words "at law" that are important to be included in the statement.

While we're at it, might you be able to clear up another question I have with regard to the wording of the deed. Because the underlying instrument was a warranty deed before the property succeeded to me, that document contains wording pertaining to certain mineral rights reserved by the State, which I have preserved in whole. Since that was part of the original instrument, it seems of necessity to be needing inclusion in the deed. I was also compelled to use the State's generated mapping coordinates in order to identify the lot. Do either of these factors pose any problem that you might see to the assertion that this document is being offered at common law?

Thank you for your feedback. It has been tremendously helpful.

[shikamaru]

While we're at it, might you be able to clear up another question I have with regard to the wording of the deed. Because the underlying instrument was a warranty deed before the property succeeded to me, that document contains wording pertaining to certain mineral rights reserved by the State, which I have preserved in whole.

This is common in land patents that were issued by Sovereigns. The king would reserve the mineral rights to the land while granting the surface rights.

I would even look into pursuing the mineral rights from the State in order to bring them all under one unified whole.

Since that was part of the original instrument, it seems of necessity to be needing inclusion in the deed. I was also compelled to use the State's generated mapping coordinates in order to identify the lot. Do either of these factors pose any problem that you might see to the assertion that this document is being offered at common law?

Neither of these should present a problem. The "common law" if you will is in the instrument.

Land patents as well as title abstracts are lawful paperwork. The reason for the abstract is that deeds are colorable. They color the patent as to who the owner is when land is conveyed. The original issuance of the patent is as is.

You could even look to acquire the land plat as well as all treaties and statutes on the books at the time the patent was issued. This would be your "sandwhich" if you will.

Some of these tidbits are courtesy of David Wilbur Johnson whose audios I highly recommend.

Thank you for your feedback. It has been tremendously helpful.

No problem. As always, do your own research. You are always welcome to my resources as well.

[stoneFree]

I heard some of Angela's Talkshoe call last night (10/20/11) http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/39904
and the guest was a "Robb Ryder" who talked of taking ownership of your property with a CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE. Essentially, as grantee on your deed you just accept it and acknowledge it before a competent officer. Sounds too easy, but then .. I'm new at this. His website is: http://robcourtofrecord.wordpress.com

"This evening I’ll be using the following as an example of how I might do an acknowledgment of a warranty deed. Over the last couple of weeks I’ve had the opportunity to talk to many who have interest but concerns.. or have met resistance by a counter troll. In an effort to squash the latter …. and insure all of your interest are protected I might write it this way…… (and attached).. A few have questioned where the “authority” comes from… that’s easy Article 4 Section 1 of the constitution they took an oath to… Full faith and credit to all public records, acts, and judicial proceedings… As a sovereign man these are your records, acts, and judicial proceeding all done as a form of acknowledgment… and as long as lawful has full faith and credit.. IMO you do not need to get 3 witnesses.. as you already have them.. as a conscious man you are always witnessed.. (so do not charge your brother), and the notary under their seal is a witness, as is the competent court that holds the notary’s or similar competent officers oath.. Those are your 3 witnesses… and “they” have now said that your instrument is in due form of law.. and under their seal.. making it binding on all other courts, officers etc.. If it is an unlawful order, they are under no obligation to follow it…. however they have to put their reason under oath… (lawful affidavit) , what is unlawful about it… and as the king you are… simply ask for the remedy so the spirit of the order can be fulfilled.. But in the specific case of acknowledging your warranty deed (or similar) you are asking for a very much lawful recording to be done…. a deed is not completely executed until the grantee accepts it… and acknowledges it before a competent officer.. the paper it’s self is just a memorial to your wish… the wish happened before you wrote it down.. and a king merely wishes for things… comes with the office… office of king, the sovereign of your own nation state.. and you just made law.."

Word File: Acknowledgment Form

I Robert Allen the living man created in the image of god, with indefeasible title to my land and lawfull owner of the landed estate known as ROBERT ALLEN RYTLEWSKI and it’s real property and interest, under the seal Robert Allen Rytlewski, or it’s derivation am recorded as the grantee on the warranty (grant) deed for the real estate described on the attached certified copy of said deed.

It is my freewill act and deed, to execute this acknowledgement of my acceptance of the deed and lawfull ownership of the property under the terms of the deed.
I ask that the record on file in the office of register of deeds be updated to show my acceptance of the deed, as lawfull owner of the real estate.

All my other real property and interest issued for this real estate and its gain is to be immediately returned to me. What’s mine is mine, what’s yours is yours.

I accept the oaths of all public officers and bind them to it, as well as bestow my sovereign immunity on them while administering my lawfull orders. This public record under the seal of a competent court is guaranteed full faith and credit per Article 4 Section 1 of your Constitution. Any officer of the public who does not immediately carry out these lawfull orders acknowledges warring with the constitution, and committing treason. So let it be written, so let it be done.

Done under my hand and seal of my freewill act and deed.




State of Michigan, County of ________________________ ss.

On this _______day of September 2011, before me the subscriber, ______________________ , Robert Allen; Rytlewski, to me known to be the living man described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged before me that he executed the same as his freewill act and deed.

[motla68]

I heard some of Angela's Talkshoe call last night (10/20/11) http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/39904
and the guest was a "Robb Ryder" who talked of taking ownership of your property with a CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE. Essentially, as grantee on your deed you just accept it and acknowledge it before a competent officer. Sounds too easy, but then .. I'm new at this. His website is: http://robcourtofrecord.wordpress.com

Hey Stonefree, this guy Robb Ryder is definitely on to something good here. I shared such information towards the beginning of this year with this group and also was on a private conference call back then with RR and shared this with him. He is very thorough when it comes to explanations and I am glad he is able to do a better job then me in explaining all the technical aspects.
Some of you on the group here may have remembered me posting this showing a setoff of vehicle taxes:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?109-Coresource-Solution-attempts-to-disclose-from-man-on-the-land-since-1968&p=510&viewfull=1#post510

I then later explained how when property is registered with government, they are just holders of the property, they do not own it:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?109-Coresource-Solution-attempts-to-disclose-from-man-on-the-land-since-1968&p=1460&viewfull=1#post1460

(Read the next post after that one you will see where DM finally acknowledges this)

On another funny note though back then I was called a fraud and some conspiracy nut job for bringing this up if you read the posts before that on that same thread.
It's all good now though, Robb was able to take it to another level with other property taxes and to show that it is just there being held waiting for someone to claim ownership on it.
His talkshoe call with Angela Stark on myprivateaudio was fantastic, I could not have done it much better myself.

Who makes the law? Man makes the law, one man has just as much right to make law as the other, even a conditional acceptance is making the law:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?277-Does-receiving-a-wet-ink-signature-or-seal-from-an-agent-on-a-doc-make-the-law&p=2576&viewfull=1#post2576

Law is contract, contract is law.

motla68

[shikamaru]

Law is contract, contract is law.

That is contract makes the law.

Contract is voluntary.
Law is compulsory.

[motla68]

That is contract makes the law.

Contract is voluntary.
Law is compulsory.

Did i say contract was mandatory? Can one choose not to contract? Yes, some kind of law was here before man came into the picture to create contracts. I guess whatever makes you feel good.

[Anthony Joseph]

Hey Stonefree, this guy Robb Ryder is definitely on to something good here. I shared such information towards the beginning of this year with this group and also was on a private conference call back then with RR and shared this with him. He is very thorough when it comes to explanations and I am glad he is able to do a better job then me in explaining all the technical aspects.
Some of you on the group here may have remembered me posting this showing a setoff of vehicle taxes:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?109-Coresource-Solution-attempts-to-disclose-from-man-on-the-land-since-1968&p=510&viewfull=1#post510

I then later explained how when property is registered with government, they are just holders of the property, they do not own it:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?109-Coresource-Solution-attempts-to-disclose-from-man-on-the-land-since-1968&p=1460&viewfull=1#post1460

(Read the next post after that one you will see where DM finally acknowledges this)

On another funny note though back then I was called a fraud and some conspiracy nut job for bringing this up if you read the posts before that on that same thread.
It's all good now though, Robb was able to take it to another level with other property taxes and to show that it is just there being held waiting for someone to claim ownership on it.
His talkshoe call with Angela Stark on myprivateaudio was fantastic, I could not have done it much better myself.

Who makes the law? Man makes the law, one man has just as much right to make law as the other, even a conditional acceptance is making the law:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?277-Does-receiving-a-wet-ink-signature-or-seal-from-an-agent-on-a-doc-make-the-law&p=2576&viewfull=1#post2576

Law is contract, contract is law.

motla68

I am in the process of listening and studying Robb's offerings regarding the acknowledgement and acceptance of the deed and I also find his explanations and supporting law/definitions quite interesting and thorough.

I am still sketchy on the aspect of executing this same method on the birth certificate. He offers that the "Legal M. Name" (First Middle Last) is a "landed estate" granted by your natural father and is also awaiting acknowledgement and acceptance to obtain good and highest title to that "Legal M. Name" estate. Robb opines that once this is done, no one or nothing can charge that name under law unless a claim via sworn affidavit by a living man is presented stating the harm or injury which occured. He says that it will never happen since that requirement will never be met by any moving party under those conditions.

I am still trying to wrap my mind around this one since the discussions of the Legal M. Name being property of the creator of it; the STATE. However, if the birth certificate is considered a grant deed as well with the same defect as the warranty deed, which is in want of acknowledgement and acceptance, then completing that process and correcting that record could have the same effect; any and all claims, liens encumbrances against that name subsequent to the original birth certificate/deed is a nullity and void in law. It becomes our lawful property as a landed estate which we have highest and good title to. If it is possible to acknowledge and accept the birth certificate as a deed then that means the STATE that created it never did; perhaps they never can. It is abandoned property in limbo which allows the STATE, and any other rogue party, to charge against it and claim interest in it via notice.

[shikamaru]

Did i say contract was mandatory?

You said:

Law is contract, contract is law.

You mistook contracts as the element itself when it only has agency of that object, in this case, the force of law.

Can one choose not to contract?

This is not the element of dispute.

Yes, some kind of law was here before man came into the picture to create contracts. I guess whatever makes you feel good.

Pick whatever law floats your boat. Law implies compulsion whether it is your Creator or government.
The 10 Commandments is a covenant (contract). Is its terms and conditions voluntary or compulsory for those who entered that covenant?

Here again: contract MAKES the law not contract IS law.

[motla68]

I am in the process of listening and studying Robb's offerings regarding the acknowledgement and acceptance of the deed and I also find his explanations and supporting law/definitions quite interesting and thorough.

I am still sketchy on the aspect of executing this same method on the birth certificate. He offers that the "Legal M. Name" (First Middle Last) is a "landed estate" granted by your natural father and is also awaiting acknowledgement and acceptance to obtain good and highest title to that "Legal M. Name" estate. Robb opines that once this is done, no one or nothing can charge that name under law unless a claim via sworn affidavit by a living man is presented stating the harm or injury which occured. He says that it will never happen since that requirement will never be met by any moving party under those conditions.

I am still trying to wrap my mind around this one since the discussions of the Legal M. Name being property of the creator of it; the STATE. However, if the birth certificate is considered a grant deed as well with the same defect as the warranty deed, which is in want of acknowledgement and acceptance, then completing that process and correcting that record could have the same effect; any and all claims, liens encumbrances against that name subsequent to the original birth certificate/deed is a nullity and void in law. It becomes our lawful property as a landed estate which we have highest and good title to. If it is possible to acknowledge and accept the birth certificate as a deed then that means the STATE that created it never did; perhaps they never can. It is abandoned property in limbo which allows the STATE, and any other rogue party, to charge against it and claim interest in it via notice.

You may want to take into consideration that the law of equity or equitable interests still has a foothold in this country over any other law, first in line, first in time.
Check out some old law dictionaries on the term " FREEHOLD " and see how it may apply to what he is saying.
There is a philosphy here in line with the biblical jurisprudence that man was here before the paper, man was given earth to have dominion over and because
I know DM likes to hear it, am going to say it again Gen 1:26.
I cannot prove they will acknowledge this, but he does make mention of Canon law which I had also posted on here about in the past, all i can say is that when you bring this kind of stuff up to certain governmental entities the facial expressions can be a kodak moment, especially when there boss says we were correct, because of the above sentences you will have to find your own philosophy to it unfortunately.

[motla68]

You said:



You mistook contracts as the element itself when it only has agency of that object, in this case, the force of law.



This is not the element of dispute.



Pick whatever law floats your boat. Law implies compulsion whether it is your Creator or government.
The 10 Commandments is a covenant (contract). Is its terms and conditions voluntary or compulsory for those who entered that covenant?

Here again: contract MAKES the law not contract IS law.

Perhaps you have heard this phrase before; " What IS is, what was was " also ....." If you think you are right you are correct, if you think you are wrong you are correct."
If it works for you, use it, don't let me stop you.

[shikamaru]

Perhaps you have heard this phrase before; " What IS is, what was was " also ....." If you think you are right you are correct, if you think you are wrong you are correct."
If it works for you, use it, don't let me stop you.

A guillotine is not a scalpel, but both cut.
The difference between the two is in PRECISION, CONTROL, and SENSITIVITY.

If wielding language like a guillotine works for you, don't let me stop you.
However, let me point out you miss the finer elements while remaining none the wiser.

[motla68]

A guillotine is not a scalpel, but both cut.
The difference between the two is in PRECISION, CONTROL, and SENSITIVITY.

If wielding language like a guillotine works for you, don't let me stop you.
However, let me point out you miss the finer elements while remaining none the wiser.

Please I would rather hear of your own personal experience to rebut the point rather then unsubstantiated opinions. Yes, I plan to live and do not live to plan, so what is it you think
that you can do to change that? If you do not like it, or refuse to back yourself up then
please spare the forum space and do not even click the link to open my postings.

[shikamaru]

Please I would rather hear of your own personal experience to rebut the point rather then unsubstantiated opinions.
Yes, I plan to live and do not live to plan, so what is it you think
that you can do to change that? If you do not like it, or refuse to back yourself up then
please spare the forum space and do not even click the link to open my postings.

Off point and irrelevant to what we are discussing.
This discussion is not about you, but a comment you've made.

Let's try this again:

If clothes make the man, are the clothes the man?

Legem enim contractus dat.
The contract makes the law.

Law is contract, contract is law.

Now if you want to abandon reason, I'll let it be.

[motla68]

Off point and irrelevant to what we are discussing.
This discussion is not about you, but a comment you've made.

Let's try this again:

If clothes make the man, are the clothes the man?

Legem enim contractus dat.
The contract makes the law.



Now if you want to abandon reason, I'll let it be.

- No, clothes do not make the man, but they are connected to a man's "state of mind", it is not the only variable, but it is one of many and from that we can only make determinations or conclusions, it is NOT law.

- Eadem est ratio, eadem est lex. The reason being the same, the law is the same.
- Vitium est quod fugi debet, ne, si rationem non invenias, mox legem sine ratione esse clames. It is a fault which ought to be avoided, that if you cannot discover the reason you presently exclaim that the law is without reason.
- Ratio non clauditur loco. Reason is not confined to any place.
- Ratio legis est anima legis. The reason of the law is the spirit of the law.

IF 2 + 3 = 5 then 3 + 2 = 5, no not the same but connected in spirit to an end conclusion, both get you to the number 5. However if you are speaking in terms of man's consciousnous we can only assume what a man's plans are by the way one dresses, it is not law. We do not know until we ask and agree to what is said that there then is law.
If a man is dressed in long pants and long sleeved shirt on a Sunday in fall which you believe is warm day is their agreement or rule that the man feels cold? or would you have to ask to make the determination? It just could mean that it is the only thing clean the man had to wear.
It is all lies until there is agreement between 2 men that a connection exists.
You could be making determinations based upon some cooking cutter template, I could be making determinations based upon sentence structure. If man has a right to his own self determinations does that make your way any better then mine, if so then how? Again, Please show proof of your rebuttal?