SATCOMM911.COM
This is a work in progress. The posts below are complete (but with what I consider irrelevant posts omitted) up until the day Bill signed off, with a few past that date. Please do look at posts made for some time after Bill left; there are still some gems among them from folks in-the-know.
The topic headings below are most every topic Bill posted under, often more than once. These are not every single post by Bill, as I didn’t include some that were meant to merely keep the group on track.
These topic headings are in the order they were started. All but the first 2 links below take you to the forum posting online. Below these are all relevant (once again, by my thinking) posts from all members, numbered in sequence. The ‘re.’ and number after some posts refers to the post that post is in response to.
Re: FORECLOSURE MESS
Re: FORECLOSURE MESS-COLLAPSING THE TRUST
Re: FORECLOSURE- Expressing the trust / Foreclosing ON THE BANK
Re: FORECLOSURE- OVERVIEW
Re: Trial Hearing 8/2/12-The Bank needs to perform.
TOPIC: WHY YOUR PROM NOTES WORKED & others did not
TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
TOPICS: THE REVERSE MORTGAGE SECURITY TRUST RELATIONSHIP
TOPIC: LOST IN ESTATE. DON'T KNOW WHERE TO GO.
TOPIC: TREASURY PROCESS
TOPIC: HOW YOU TAKE CONTROL OR CASH OUT.
Re: Does this apply to Canada or the US? - BOTH
Re: How to get started
TOPIC: SPLASH: FINAL WORD ON STATUS, STUDIES, CONSENSUS---for this Group
P.S.....
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
FOR CSEAFREACK
TO ascended2012: YOUR THOUGHTS ARE YOUR REALITY.
TOPIC: FINAL WORD ON STATUS, STUDIES, CONSENSUS---for this Group
TOPIC: CRITICAL LESSONS- PLEASE CIRCULATE FAR & WIDE
"THANK YOU MS. VITO. YOU'VE BEEN A VERY GOOD WITNESS."
TOPIC: TRUTH ABOUT COUPONS & BILLS aka SECURITIES & TRUSTS
TOPIC: WHICH IS G-D'S WAY...DO WE TAKE OR DO WE EXCHANGE?
TOPIC: COURT, SECURITIES, CASE BOND & TRUSTS --THE INSIDE STORY
Re. help getting started.........CULTIVATING THE "BEGINNER'S MIND"
Re: TOPIC: WHICH IS G-D'S WAY...DO WE TAKE OR DO WE EXCHANGE?
TOPIC: TOUGH LOVE FOR ALL WHO HAVE IMPENDING ISSUES:
TOPIC: BRAIN SURGERY ANYONE?
Re: TOPIC: BRAIN SURGERY ANYONE? 2nd Notice
TOPIC: GETTING RID OF DEBT COLLECTORS....PERMANENTLY.
CRITICAL READING-POSTING #194-LEARNING v BLOCKING
TOPIC: COLLAPSING A TRUST
ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
Re: Funds in treasury come from a conversion, NOT liens upon estates.
TOPIC: REPORT OF A PRIVATE MEETING WITH A FRIENDLY JUDGE...
Re: AMAZING-THE TRUTH ABOUT OUR TREASURY PACKAGES!!!
Re: What is the quickest way ??
TOPIC: O CAN-A-DA; GLORIOUS AND FREE....well not really
IF IT'S LEGAL, IT AINT TAX FRAUD, is it?
TREASURY PROCESS - WHERE DO I BEGIN? - Right here.
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--BONDS AT TREASURY
Re: TOPIC: CANADIAN GOVERNOR FOR IMF
Re: "treasury process" - Let' do it right.
TOPIC: OWNERSHIP - LEGAL TITLE
Re: LET ME ANWER ALL YOUR QUESTIONS STARTING WITH: What is the quickest way ??
TOPIC: STRATEGIC ANTICIPATION - A GAME CHANGER
Re: Status of Limitation Question
CAUTION!!!!
DEFINITION OF INCOMPETENCE
Re: TREASURY PROCESS SHORTCUT??
TOPICS: SETOFF PROTOCOL; UCC's, ESTATES; MARITIME LIENS;
TOPIC: ALL ABOUT TRUSTEES
Re: TOPIC: ALL ABOUT TRUSTEES-INSTANT CHANGE IN THE COURTROOM
Re: TOPICS: SETOFF PROTOCOL; UCC’s, ESTATES; MARITIME LIENS-CLARIFICATION
Re: TOPICS: WHERE ARE THE MENTORS?
NOTICE - NOTICE - NOTICE
TOPIC: COURT CASES & MAXIM #1
Re: Trustee in DSS case?
INSIGHT FROM A GROUP MEMBER INTO THE COURT TRUST......
Re: BILL?? QUESTIONS REGARDING >>>> TOPIC: COURT CASES & MAXIM #1
CORRECTION:....THE COURT IS THE JUDGE. THE CLERK IS NOT.
TOPIC: JUDGE'S OATH
TOPIC: HOW TO ADDRESS JUDGE
Re: back to basics
PERRY MASON AND THE MINISTERIAL JUDGE
TOPIC: AUTHENTICATING EVIDENCE
TOPIC: PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROCESS?
TOPIC: PLAYING THE TRUSTEE WHEN IT SUITS YOU.
TOPIC: DANGER OF OPERATING COMMERCE SUI JURIS
TOPIC: LIVE SUI JURIS OR LIKE ROCKEFELLER?
TOPIC: Do you REALLY understand the system? MOST DO NOT.
Re: 30 day time for appeal-NOT IF ITS A COURT OF RECORD
TOPIC: THE BIBLE, COMMERCE, JESUS, LUCIFER, AND YOU
MY QUESTION TO ALL PATRIOTS IS THIS...
CRITICAL TOPIC: WHAT IS YOUR ESTATE? NO MORE CONFUSION
Re: Mentor
Re: FOR IRIS
CAUTION - CAUTION - BEWARE VULTURES IN MENTOR'S CLOTHING
SPEAKING OF GENUINE MENTORS...
TOPIC: USING THE BC
TOPIC - ACCOUNTING 101. HIGHWAY ROBBERY.
TOPIC - PLEADING GUILTY TO THE FACTS.
TOPIC - How to win.....How NOT to lose. CAUTION...
TOPIC: DON'T TELL THEM WHAT THEY KNOW. EXPRESS YOUR CLAIM.
TOPIC: DON'T TELL THEM WHAT THEY KNOW. EXPRESS YOUR CLAIM-CLARIFICATION
Re: UCC-1 Lien
TOPIC: CREATING A TRUST RELATIONSHIP
Re: BC & Trustee
Re: BC TRUST IS THE SURETY FOR THE DEBTOR WHICH = DEBTOR
TOPIC: "EXEMPTION #" - CLASSIC PATRIOT MYTHOLOGY.
TOPIC: "CHARGE THE SAME TO ACCOUNT 123-45-6789"
TOPIC: "CREDIT ACCOUNT # 123-45-6789"
Re: Group Question on Foundation???
TOPIC: PATRIOT MISCONCEPTIONS RE. PAYMENT, CHARGING, CREDITING, etc.
CRITICAL TOPIC: OID's, GURUS & CORRECTING PAST FILINGS
TOPIC: FIDELITY; NAKED INSTRUMENTS
OF COURSE. SEEK AND YE SHALL FIND.
TOPIC: PUT ESTATE ON FINANCING STATEMENT?...WHICH ESTATE?
B2B Re: Court security origins
CRITICAL CLARIFICATION
TREATISE RE BC, STATUS, EXEMPTION, ETC.
TO ALL MEMBERS - THIRD NOTICE: CAUTION, CAUTION, CAUTION, PLEASE.
Re: Do we Have standing?
Re: Entitlement holder
Re: executor-PERFECT EXAMPLE OF PATRIOT ILL-OGIC KILLING US
Re: executor
RE: THE TURNER DOCS...
TOPIC: POA TO THE AGENCY?
Re: TreasuryDirect Acct. - First Baby Step?
Re: TOPIC: CORPORATE FIDUCIARY?
TOPIC: THE FACT IS...
TOPIC: REASONS I LOVE SECURITIZATION
TOPIC: DOUBLE ENTRY BOOKEEPING & MY ONE JOKE FOR THE YEAR.
TOPIC: DTC
TOPIC- NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD
MAJOR TOPIC: THE BIRTH SCAM - THE UNIFORM SECURITIZATION SCHEME
THE BEST ADVICE I WILL EVER GIVE TO THOSE FACING IMMINENT TRAGEDY...
TOPIC: SIFTING THROUGH THE PATRIOT SPOILS TO FIND THE FRUIT.
CRITICAL TOPIC. CAUTION: THE SEDUCTION OF "MAINSTREAM THINKING"
TOPIC: UNDERSTANDING THE WHY, BEFORE THE HOW.
TOPIC: WHO OWNS THE BONDS? WHO OWNS THE STRAWMAN? WE DO.
CONTRACT LAW IS IRRELEVANT. IT'S THE SECURITY.
Re: BC Scam Email
Re: Understanding the power of the Knowledge/CONTRACT LAW IS IRRELEVANT. IT'S THE SECURITY.
RE. THE DMV POSTINGS
REGARDING THE DMV POSTINGS (#2)
CAUTION - CAUTION - CAUTION
Re: IRS - why the caution?
Re. CAUTION - CAUTION - CAUTION.....CLARIFICATION
SPEAKING OF FORMS 56...
1. WHAT ALL YOU "ESTATE PEOPLE" NEED TO KNOW...
2. FOR THE "ESTATE PEOPLE" & OTHER MEMBERS ...
ESSENTIAL READING - THE ESTATE PROCESS (pt. 1)
ESSENTIAL READING - THE ESTATE PROCESS (pt. 2)
RE. THE CUSIP #
Re: Seeking primary docs for this site to get started in the process
Re: RedressRight at YouTube
TOPIC: GSA FORMS NO. 1
TOPIC: FAULTY PREMISES
Re: FAULTY PREMISES/JT McBride
Re: FAULTY PREMISES/JT McBride - LET ME ADD...
TOPIC: CLARIFYING THE PARTIES.
Re: Coin and currency
TOPIC: PUBLIC OFFICIALS DO NOT HAVE TO OBEY THE LAW
Re: What would you do....SIMPLE...FORGIVE.
HERE'S WHY IRS IS IGNORING YOUR EXECUTOR LETTERS...
A REVELATION...
TOPIC: STEALING INSTRUMENTS??
TOPIC: ACTING AS TRUSTEE...
Re: Patents as Securities
Re: GSA forms----WOW!
CODE OF BEHAVIOR
TOPIC: FIRST, do your homework. THEN Share your opinions.
Re: Naturalization Certificate
Re: WE ARE HERE TO LEARN, NOT ARGUE.
TOPIC: THE LONG LIST OF PATRIOT MISCONCEPTIONS.
TOPIC: DISCERNING THE TRUTH
TOPIC: CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH
TOPIC: 2 SIDES TO THE SSN - IT'S ALSO A CONTRACT, A TRUST, A SPECIAL DEPOSIT.
Re: TOPIC: GSA FORMS AGAIN. Hey, ONLY you can use them as intended.
TOPIC: WHICH BC TO REGISTER WITH TREASUR?
TOPIC: YES, You CAN collapse the trusts.
Re: My BC Name differs from my SSN/IRS NAME!-OF COURSE!
Re: TOPIC: YES, You CAN collapse the trusts - CORRECTION
Re: Birth Certificate's 'capital value'
Re: Maritime Law Abandonment - TOPIC: ABANDONMENT
CRITICAL TOPIC: - SPECIAL DEPOSIT –
TOPIC: THE TRUE PROBLEM IS not KNOWING WHO YOU ARE.
TOPIC: RETURN OF EQUITY
TOPIC - RETURN OF EQUITY 2. No return?->Resulting trust.
Re: Personal Advice for Newer Members
TOPIC: USE OF TERM OWNER
TOPIC: THE TRUE PROBLEM IS not KNOWING WHO YOU ARE-clarification
DOT INFO
TOPIC: TRUST V. CONTRACT
TOPIC: SPECIAL DEPOSIT
TOPIC - HERE'S THE TRUTH YOU'VE BEEN WAITING FOR...
TOPIC: NEVER A SECURED PARTY CREDITOR
Re: TOPIC: SPECIAL DEPOSIT-CAUTION PLEASE.
TOPIC: A4V MYTHS (Question directly for Moderator Bill re. A4V)
TOPIC: ESCROW - OPEN THE BOX. EAT THE FOOD, LOSE THE WEIGHT.
Re: EIN
Re: EVERYTHING'S A SECURITY
TOPIC: TRUE VALUE OF A MORTGAGE NOTE
Re: Walter Burien and CAFR
TOPIC: EXECUTOR LETTERS
Re: here in Toronto, Canada.....
TOPICS: 5 ADDRESSES; SPECIAL APPEARANCE
TOPIC: THE ESTATE, GEN APPEAR & GEN DEPOS.
TOPIC: DEFUNDING THE CASE AND THE BOND (same post)
Re: THE JUDGE IS ALREADY THE TRUSTEE.
TOPIC: SETTLING WITH PROSECUTOR? - PATRIOT MISCONCEPTION
TOPIC: PLEA BARGAIN
Re: HOW TO "DEPOSIT" A NEW MORTGAGE NOTE/MORTGAGE DEED
Re: Newbie - TOPIC: HEALTHY FEAR
Re: Bonds
TOPIC: LAZINESS IS THE DEVIL'S WORK
CAUTION - CAUTION - CAUTION
CAUTION-CAUTION-CAUTION ADDENDUM...
Re: A Man who Tried to Reclaim His Public Estate in the Wrong Way...
Re: Authentication of Long Form BC
TOPIC - DISPELLING MYTHS ABOUT NOTARY PUBLIC, AUTHENTICATION.
TOPIC: C O What's missing?
Description
THE WALL OF SILENCE IS CRACKING. A growing number of people HAVE SUCCESSFULLY REDEEMED their birth certificate accounts and all the securities issued against it. Some have had breakthroughs in redeeming liens and Case bonds predictably, closing cases, taking control of the trusts that are created with the deposit of every charging instrument, and forcing judges to dismiss or return the court securities. Many of us know people who have secured do-not-detain orders, black cards, DTC entry, warehouse release and REPEATABLE setoffs. We’ve seen mortgages released by claiming our interest in the note AND mortgage (didn’t WE issue it?) We’ve seen various ways to monetize instruments and deposit securities into banks just like a Court deposits an indictment (we have the smoking gun). If this interests you, WELCOME TO OUR GROUP.
Please note:
1. THE STRAWMAN CANNOT REDEEM ANYTHING. It’s chartered only as a debtor. This is why your 1099s and acceptances keep failing.
2. IRS CANNOT SERVICE LIVING MEN. The living have no standing among the walking dead.
3. IRS WILL NOT RECOGNIZE YOUR EXECUTOR. The way most people have been taught, the Executor still lacks the one specific qualification IRS requires to act as your collection agency.
Why do we care? Because IRS controls the portal to the Matrix. And the key to using IRS properly is to understand security futures (15 USC 77ccc) and the trust that’s created when you hand them your signature and they falsely presume themselves to be the beneficiary.
The group is dedicated to discussing how to control those implied trusts, restore ourselves as beneficiaries, reclaim all of our securities through STRENGTH AND KNOWLEDGE, and LEGALLY employ IRS as THE GRANTOR’S collection, setoff and refund agency to achieve peaceful lives under G-d without becoming hermits.
We are PRIVATE and NONVIOLENT. No advertising please. Please keep comments relevant. And always remember, the Father loves you.
The posts in order:
#1
FORECLOSURE MESS
"cnj_trustee"
Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:07 pm
I guess I'm the first member. Not sure what to do. I have a nasty foreclosure that’s been going on for a few months. The judge is a golfing buddy with the banks attorney. He rejected my petition to have them bring the note in. Any suggestions would be SO appreciated.
Carl
#2 re. #1
Re: FORECLOSURE MESS
joshuasdad100
Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:35 pm
Hi Carl,
This may be shocking, but demanding to see the note is the exact opposite of what we want. When a bank forecloses, it's ADMITTING that it possesses the note. That's where we want them because it's an admission that THE BANK HAS THE OBLIGATION TO PERFORM, not you. By trying to foreclose, it's telling you that it accepted a security, its RIGHTS OF RECOURSE ARE DISCHARGED under the UCC (3-311, 3-603 and 604), and therefore the bank owes YOU money, NOT the other way around.
Something else is even more important. Its admitting that YOU hold the security interest in the note. If you think about that, you may see some remedies since security interests control all the world's property.
And here's something even more important. YOU HOLD THE SECURITY INTEREST IN THE MORTGAGE TOO. Yes I know it says you give them the interest. But under public policy, the words don't matter. Think of a promissory note. Before 1933, it signified your debt to the bank. Now, the bank enters it as a debit to their assets - meaning an increase in assets. IT'S THE PAPER THAT COUNTS. It's a security. Read the definition under 15 USC 77ccc.
YOU signed the mortgage. It's YOUR security. THEY have the obligation to perform on the security by exchanging it for equal value (just like giving a check to the bank in return for currency), namely the release of the mortgage. OR YOU CAN DECLARE YOUR CLAIM OR RETURN OF YOUR SECURITIES. You would have to know how to collapse the trusts.
So YOU hold TWO security INTERESTS. THEY hold the securities. Who is supposed to perform???? By having failed to return the securities or give you equal value such as a release of the mortgage, THEY COMMITTED SECURITIES AND TAX FRAUD, and you can prove it easily. The bank knows that their books will show that they NEVER PAID TAXES ON THE GAIN. We WANT the bank to be the holder. If you demand to see the note, you're handing the attorney an easy win because you're admitting you abandoned it.
You might begin thinking about how you might demand THEY PERFORM on the note or use their failure to perform against them. "Where is my value?" "Show me the tax forms that declared it at a taxable gain since you've construed that I abandoned the property." And so forth.
Whoever holds a security has the OBLIGATION OF PERFORMANCE. They are required to exchange it for equal value. That's the real message in HJR 192. If you don't know how to collapse the trusts, how can you use subpoena, discovery, procedure, trusts and such to place them on the defensive? You might glance at Articles 8
and 9 of the UCC.
Unless you know how to reclaim your account and securities which is the only real winner. That can't be done by the strawman, the living man or even the executor as most people have constructed it. You have to have the very specific status IRS requires to process your forms when you foreclose on them. So unless you know how to reclaim the original trust, you've got to process their performance obligation inside the box.
That's where the UCC comes in. UCC does not apply to the mortgage because as a private trust, but IT SURE AS HECK applies to the note and the mortgage as a security future. I would keep it short and simple. See 8-102, 3-305, 3-306, and especially 3-105. "Excuse me, did you pay the taxes on the secondary issue when you issued the bank certificates against my note, or did you construe that it was a tax-exempt original issue because you presumed I had abandoned my security?"
Blessings to you,
Bill
joshuasdad100
#4 re. #2
Re: FORECLOSURE MESS
thebradleys2012
Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:05 pm
Wow! This is pretty wild being in at the beginning. My husband and I are intrigued by the message on the home page and joshuasdad's answer about Carl's foreclosure. He mentioned collapsing the trusts (plural) ac couple of times. Carl, you may think he was referring to the mortgage trust, but I'm sure he was referring to the trust that's created when you give them a security. When someone accepts a security they're obligated to perform on it. Our big problem is that the trust is implied, and so the judge presumes that the plaintiff and/or the court are the beneficiaries and we're the trustee. You need to defeat that presumption IMMEDIATELY. I believe that’s what joshuasdad was implying. You do that in a case and you can expect the judge to run from the room, call a recess or get very nervous. The trustee's the one who is obligated to perform on the security. I hope this helps you out Carl. Sheila
#5 re. #2
Re: FORECLOSURE MESS
thebradleys2012
Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:06 pm
PS. Forgot to ask joshuasdad how he would collapse the trust. Is he thinking UTC 402? Sheila
#7 re. #5
Re: FORECLOSURE MESS-COLLAPSING THE TRUST
joshuasdad100
Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:55 am
You are absolutely right Sheila! I was suggesting that Carl appoint the Court (the court is the judge's public trust: JUDGE TIM TERRIBLE) as trustee of the trust created by the deposit of the bank's foreclosure complaint security in the Court's books, and order the trustee to exchange the Complaint security for a dismissal order security. When the trustee fails to perform, he's breached the trust and loses his appointment, so the trust loses legal title and trusteeship reverts to Carl which means that he is now the sole trustee and beneficiary - which collapses the trust under trust law AND under statutes, Sec 402(a)(1) of the UCT (Uniform Trust Code) if it's a public trust. Bill
#8 re. #7
Re: FORECLOSURE MESS-COLLAPSING THE TRUST-you foreclose on them brother
asiaticmigra...
Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:18 am
Good group-thanks for taking me. We’ve been doing this too. They do tremble when someone who knows how to restructure the trust does it to them. They issued the bond before you got there so they’re on the hook as surety if you don't accept the role of trustee by telling them you’re the strawman. Under that UTC the guy
mentioned, section 407 says you can do it orally right in court. you do it right back to the original date of the indictment. Sec 416 lets you do that retroactively so now they’re stuck with being the trustee and you tell them to
exchange the security, like he said, the complaint or indictment, for the dismissal; it don’t matter. What you’ve done is foreclosed on them brother. They foreclosed on you by presuming you breached the mortgage. You foreclose on them by showing they breached on the trust when they deposited the security and didn’t perform. Now they’re screwed because they have to perform by dismissing or returning all the securities to you since they were issued against your credit, the estate. Hey judge, here's what you got to do. Dismiss or give me back all them securities and all the money you’ve been making. This is a good group-tying it all together-securities, trusts, estates.
#10 re. #8
Re: FORECLOSURE MESS
cnj_trustee
Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:36 am
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU ALL!!! This is the first time anyone's said anything worth listening to. I'm a broker who deals in trusts but I NEVER EVER thought about using that knowledge in court. Would you be able to answer some questions please?.....
1. You said I can do it orally, what about a trust indenture? Can I issue one re the case or the directly to the bank?
2. I don't see the complaint as being a security. Can you steer me to the law on this? I'm always afraid of going off on some patriot crapola.
3. What do you mean I foreclose on them? Where's my standing to do that?
Thank you again guys (and gals)
Carl
#11 re. #10
Re: FORECLOSURE- Expressing the trust / Foreclosing ON THE BANK
joshuasdad100
Thu Jul 12, 2012 8:57 am
Carl, you can apply your trust experience to convert the implied Court trust into an express trust so you can foreclose on them...
Q1. Yes. That's exactly what I do. They have an implied trust which is created when they deposit of the Complaint into the Court's books. I convert it into AN EXPRESS TRUST, meaning a trust with exact written directives which tells them the Grantor's specific intentions and directives to exchange the securities. THIS ENDS ALL THEIR FAULTY PRESUMPTIONS (like they're the beneficiary, I'm the trustee, I have to perform, etc). With your experience you may be able to dope this out in theory, but you need to include the specific directives that require them to complete the tax forms on the transfer taxes and capital gains if they fail to exchange the securities so that the IRS can collect the trust's property (the tax they withheld when they failed to return your securities to you). On the other hand, your experience may be a deficit. Most people have to unlearn much of what they were taught about securities, trusts, estates and the like. The patriot "crapola" as you called it is often wrong. For instance, ZYA is backwards. The strawman can't possibly order a setoff. Many well-intentioned gurus are still trying to do that but its from the dark ages. The reason I know is because I was taught by a former agency employee years ago.
Q2. In this monetary system, just about everything with a signature is a security future. You might lookup the definition of security in Title 15 (77ccc and 78(a)(1)), legal def of SF, and read the applicable ref in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Isn't a complaint or indictment an assessment seeking someone to perform in the future?
Q3. As to foreclosure: the bank is foreclosing on your strawman because it presumes that it breached the trust by stealing the beneficiary's property when it failed to pay. Didn't the mortgage name the bank or its agent as beneficiary? When you breach, the trust collapses as noted in Sec. 402 of the Uniform Trust Code as Sheila pointed out and legal title to the trust property reverts back to the grantor. When legal and equitable title (interest) merge, you have a foreclosure. It's better if we foreclose on them, don't you think?
We can do this because the trust created by the deposit of the security in their books precedes the trust created within the mortgage. The mortgage IS FIRST A SECURITY. As someone mentioned (maybe it was me), the words in the mortgage don't matter any more than the words matter in a promissory note. Banks treat them as assets. That's important to remember.
Q3a. Standing. YES, THAT'S THE KEY. You can't claim your securities yourself. They presumed you abandoned them at age 25. So you've got to use a proxy. THIS IS KEY. Otherwise the IRS won't accept your returns. I think a lot of people wasted big bucks learning how to craft the executor, because the fact is the executor also lacks that standing. This sudden slew of "mentors" either do not know or aren't telling their "students." But it's actually fairly easy to get that status once you understand the principles of trusts, estates, taxes and securities. Every minute spent on doing acceptances without proper status is time away from life. Bill
#12 re. #11
Re: FORECLOSURE- A ZILLION QUESTIONS
cnj_trustee
Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:51 pm
Thank you again! I actually understand what you're saying but I've got a zillion questions. I feel like I'm building a car and don't even know where to begin. I read the definitions you mentioned and so I'm on board with the idea that everything's a security. Now what? I've got a hearing coming up and I'm confused as to whether to stick with what I've been doing or shift over, but it's like moving to another computer platform, I feel like I'm all thumbs. How do I foreclose on the banks (there's two o them, I've got a 2nd)? Can I pay someone to handle it for me?
#13
Trial Hearing 8/2/12
sawasinc
Thu Jul 12, 2012 3:27 pm
Been in foreclosure for 2.5 yrs Pro Se. No matter what I asked for during discovery the purported lender NEVER replied with answers and I never gave them any either. When compelled to answer I stated it would be a waste of time due to the PSA/PROSPECTUS showing they do not have standing to foreclose and they have not suffered any lose but have profited during the 2.5 yrs while I've been in foreclosure AND they had sold the loan many times, again being paid many times.
I am Currently getting all of the CUSIP numbers.
Is there anything else that is needed for me to show when I go to this foreclosure hearing on 8/2 ?? in the judge's chambers.
Oh and I gave the purported lender a Cease and Desist letter way back 2.5 yrs ago and to this day they have continued to call me off and on totally 10 times which I have kept in my voice mail on cell phone as my proof.. The last call to me was just 3 days ago.. perhaps wanting to settle ??? no clue I did not answer it but let it go to voice mail for added proof.
ALSO what are the level loans ??? I've been hearing about?? I think I need those also..
HELP !
Sharon
#14 re. #12
Re: FORECLOSURE- OVERVIEW
joshuasdad100
Thu Jul 12, 2012 4:29 pm
Now what? You establish your status properly so that IRS will process papers, you learn all you can, you take control of the trust that was created when you deposited your securities with the bank (to clean up the underlying issue) AND you take control of the court trust created when they deposited your securities (the summons and complaint) into the courts books. They you appoint them trustee and wait or them to breach. When they do, it's foreclosure.
To answer your other questions, until you have the education, it's generally best to stick with what you know. In my experience, paying someone almost never works. If I was the judge, I'd test you and you would fail the first time UNLESS you've mastered the knowledge and established proper status.
I suggest using delaying tactics till you're up to speed. If you want, I'll send you my contact information by private email. Bill
#15 re. #13
Re: Trial Hearing 8/2/12-The Bank needs to perform.
joshuasdad100
Thu Jul 12, 2012 4:45 pm
Hi Sharon,
They're walking over you because you don't understand how admiralty court works.
If you ask and they fail to provide, you can compel with a hearing to show cause why they should not be held in contempt.
Have you downloaded the Call Reports for the bank for the period when the loan began? Schedules RC-Balance Sheet (Line 13) and RC-E-Deposit Liabilities (line 7) will prove that the amount the bank deposited from your promissory note is equal to the amount they issued as a deposit liability owed to you. Now you start asking the hard questions. Why they haven't paid you the liabilities they owe you? Where's the 1099-A or C in which they claimed you abandoned your interest? Did they file a tax return reporting the capital gains when they failed to return your security of the deposit liabilities???
But all of that's still fighting. It is better to claim the securities, but you first have to have proper status to do that since they construed you abandoned them years ago.
In chambers, if you prove the deposits equal the deposit liabilities, then you can demand performance on YOUR securities, namely the note and the mortgage itself. The mortgage is YOUR security. YOU signed it. The fact that it says you're giving them an interest is irrelevant if you take control of the trust that was created when they deposited it. At that exact moment, they became the debtor and the trustee on the deposit trust, and THEY owe YOU performance. So that's when we demand they exchange the mortgage security for a notice of release security OR return all securities to the Grantor (you) INCLUDING all of the profits.
Obviously you lack the knowledge to do this at this time, but here's the link to download the call reports:
If it doesn't work, then just Google "call reports download" and look for the FDIC webpage then link over to FFIEC. Good hunting. Bill
#24 re. #15
Re: Trial Hearing 8/2/12-The Bank needs to perform
sawasinc
Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:54 pm
PLEASE SEE MY REMARKS IN BLUE
Hi Sharon,
They're walking over you because you don't understand how admiralty court works.
If you ask and they fail to provide, you can compel with a hearing to show cause why they should not be held in contempt. Exactly
Have you downloaded the Call Reports for the bank for the period when the loan began? I tried the website you gave me below but did not find BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC in Florida, call/transfer info for the period of 01/31/09 up to the present.
Schedules RC-Balance Sheet (Line 13) and RC-E-Deposit Liabilities (line 7) What reports are these? and WHERE do I find these ??? Really wish to !!! will prove that the amount the bank deposited from your promissory note is equal to the amount they issued as a deposit liability owed to you.
Now you start asking the hard questions. Why they haven't paid you the liabilities they owe you? Where's the 1099-A or C in which they claimed you abandoned your interest? Did they file a tax return reporting the capital gains when they failed to return your security of the deposit liabilities??? EXACTLY !!!!
But all of that's still fighting. It is better to claim the securities, but you first have to have proper status to do that since they construed you abandoned them years ago. How long does it take to get proper status?? Direct me.
In chambers, if you prove the deposits equal the deposit liabilities, then you can demand performance on YOUR securities, namely the note and the mortgage itself. The mortgage is YOUR security. YOU signed it. The fact that it says you're giving them an interest is irrelevant if you take control of the trust that was created when they deposited it. At that exact moment, they became the debtor and the trustee on the deposit trust, and THEY owe YOU performance. So that's when we demand they exchange the mortgage security for a notice of release security OR return all securities to the Grantor (you) INCLUDING all of the profits.
Obviously you lack the knowledge to do this at this time, but here's the link to download the call reports:
The link worked I just was not able to locate them for the call duration needed. I don't believe they report them. ?????
ALSO what are the level loans ??? I've been hearing about??
I think I need those also.. OR DO I???
If it doesn't work, then just Google "call reports download" and look for the FDIC webpage then link over to FFIEC. Good hunting. Bill
#25 re. #24
Re: Trial Hearing 8/2/12-The Bank needs to perform
sawasinc
Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:09 am
OK, I Googled and found this:
|| |FFIEC CDR PDD -
Call Report/TFR Data || |FFIEC: Consolidated RC & RI -
Quarter Information || |RC & RI Report Forms
& User Guides || |Call/TFR Information || |TFR -
Instructions & Forms | |
So I see I can find the other info also from this site? Am I on the right track now??
Sharon
#26 re. #25
Re: Trial Hearing 8/2/12-The Bank needs to perform
asiaticmigra...
Fri Jul 13, 2012 7:41 am
You need call reports for the issuing bank. the servicing co don’t matter none. They got them at the site he told you. thrifts and credit unions got to file them but they at other sites. If its a credit union you got to check national cu assoc. You got to do research. Wikipedia got good information. Not sure if status he refer to and what I do the same, but it kind of like asking to show me how to overhaul an engine. status only one step if you take this direction and claim your securities. you got to learn all about trusts and trust banking and securities and the biggest thing is you got to know how to work with the agency. that took me a long time and I still doing learning as I go do my things. One thing I learned a long time ago is to not use anything I haven't mastered. that
is trouble. I’d rather loose a house than do that. What state are you in? Where you at in foreclosure? How longs it been on?
#27 re. #25
Re: Trial Hearing 8/2/12- One other thing...
asiaticmigra...
Fri Jul 13, 2012 7:50 am
Any evidence you bring to trial you should authenticate at the SOS in your state. See his website for how they do it there. Otherwise they do nothing with it. People learn that the hard way and still don’t correct it. like the CUSIP’s. if you bringing them in, then you got to demand they perform on them or return them. if you doing all this, you got to know something about being a creditor. but like the guy said, the strawman ain’t got no creditor chops. you can assign the lien if you got one to someone else, but it cant be no strawman that IRS got trustee right in. like I said, best to use what you know if you don’t know about something new. houses come an go. I seen many of them over the years. peace of mind don’t come cheap.
#28 re. #7
Re: FORECLOSURE MESS-COLLAPSING THE TRUST
wakerobinii
Fri Jul 13, 2012 1:40 pm
QUESTION: Is it not true that the CFO of a Bank - a "Clearing Corporation" - acts as Trustee by "accepting" the deposit created by the Signature (on a PN, for example)? So, the "deposit" of the Security Future creates a trust obligation on the part of the Trustee. Correct?
Now, suppose you serve notice to the Trustee via Secured Party Security Agreement, i.e., notifying the "Debtor CFO" - the person who owes performance of the obligation secured - that you want the obligation set-off by debiting the original account set up in your name at the time the security was created. That is, the account was credited the date the loan was taken out, therefore debit the account to pay it off. Wily "Trustee" instead absconds with the wife's funds from another account, of which you are a signatory, but do not have access to the account.
Under this scenario, the CFO acting as Trustee has breached the trust and can now be held liable, thereby collapsing the trust, per UCT 402, and all the fines and penalties can now apply.
Therefore, I become sole beneficiary/trustee and can order the CFO to do my bidding by explicit written instructions to exchange the securities, etc.
Other than having UCC-1 Secured Party Status with Indemnity Bond recorded in the National Data Base, is their something else you refer to as establishing Status??? I also have Will and Executor appointment recorded. Have I missed something important???
Is this part necessary before you can hold a Bank CFO accountable? Or is knowledge enough to hold their feet to the fire?
#29 re. #28
Re: FORECLOSURE MESS-COLLAPSING THE TRUST
hammond_ted
Fri Jul 13, 2012 2:04 pm
great site, very interesting info, but the million dollar question is still, what status our we missing ?????? I've been at this now for 10 years and have had 2 promissory notes accepted by the IRS, but cant duplicate it. what status did I have then, that I don’t have now ? like first mate I have done most of the UUC-1 secured party, bonds to Treasury, will, even had my Birth certificate acknowledged by Hillary Clinton, so............... what am I missing ?
#30 re. #29
Re: FORECLOSURE MESS-COLLAPSING THE TRUST
wakerobinii
Fri Jul 13, 2012 2:16 pm
AND I have declared my Status as Superior to theirs, because I KNOW that their claims are bogus. Nevertheless, I have attempted to stay in honor by fulfilling the requirements of their law, not because I have to, but because I respect the rule of law. I feel that is an important distinction.
So, Ted, I have to agree with you. If someone has answers other than what we have done, then please, don't hold us in suspense. It appears that we have done the hard work to get to this point. So let us get on with it!
What have me missed??
#32 re. #7
Re: FORECLOSURE MESS-COLLAPSING THE TRUST
cseafreak
Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:12 pm
Joshuasdad, I think this would make you the administrator or executor/beneficiary--the judge is the trustee as he is the public servant therefore the fiduciary. You put the equity in therefore you have equitable title and give the orders. The judge operates under presumption that unless you rebut, he is the administrator and you are the trustee (taking his orders).
#33
HELP - MENTOR ABANDONED US - FROZEN IN ESTATE
sharon_marianne
Fri Jul 13, 2012 5:50 pm
Whoever's listening - my friend and I hooked up with a "mentor" six months ago. He was very knowledgeable, but never answered calls or emails even though we paid him thousands of dollars. He was sure there when we had more money to pay him. We suspected he was in it for the money but ignored our guts. Now we've got our Estates and bank accounts set up but we don't know what to do with it. We've both got court cases and they're ignoring the executors like they ignored us. He claimed he was given a black card and had to "disappear," but I found out he's doing the same thing to others. Ashamed to admit it, I think we got taken. Can anyone guide us? We're willing to pay, but it's got to be someone who is honest and KNOWS HOW TO TEACH INSTEAD OF PREACH.
I read all the postings here. I don't think he ever mentioned using trusts. The posting made SO MUCH SENSE it's like our eyes instantly opened. Would like more information if other members would be kind enough to share.
As we asked around, we've spoken to many people who only have morsels of information and they're stuck too. The mentors seem clustered in the South and they're milking us dry like PTK did. Some of the information people have alluded to is really old stuff we tried years ago (without success).
Thanks and Yahweh's blessings to all! Sharon
#38 re. #24
Re: Trial Hearing 8/2/12-The Bank needs to perform
sawasinc
Sat Jul 14, 2012 12:58 am
Ohio, and it's been 2.5 yrs.. now judge is having hearing 8/2 to see if we can settle or we go to trial same day.
Sharon.
#41
Status - what is it?
peterpapoulias
Sat Jul 14, 2012 8:13 am
It's all about status. This is true. But what is status? Well for the answer we need to understand the way it's all setup.
The system is dead. Meaning its all paper. Paper is dead. But raises a question. If we read the cestui-que vie act of 1666 we find that your estate was probated (proven up) and placed in a cestui-que trust (your BC). Your BC is the debtor as it is borrowing from your estate to acquire title to property (a legal interest). You sign as the trustee of the BC trust granting the authority to ledger against it. The cestui-que vie act of 1666 says that you are a decedent (presumed dead) and that the judge will act as the executor and instruct you as the trustee of the trust to do some performance to settle with the adverse party who is claiming tendency on your farm (estate). They are maintaining that they are entitled to the produce (labor, energy) that your farm produces. But the cestui-que vie act says if you can prove you are alive then all tendency reverts back to you. How. do we prove we are alive in a dead system?
In admiralty and equity we must show we have the highest claim. That makes us the entitlement holder (highest creditor). Entitlement holder is the key.
But how do we do that? People have tried but they are missing some key elements to success. Know this, establishing entitlement over the debtor is how we establish that we are alive in this dead system.
We want to follow Rockefellers advice. Own nothing and control everything. Redeeming your BC (not such what means really) the way PTK describes IS NOT the way to do it. It's like taking your car out of the race. We just want a new driver.
More on this next time. Do your research. You will find that the. cestui-que vie act has been codified in state law for every state.
#43 re. #41
Re: Status - what is it?
hammond_ted
Sat Jul 14, 2012 8:47 am
I understand what status is, what I want to know is what "we" need to do to let "them" know we have it. In the message on the home page the moderator says we can not do set-off because we don't have proper status. I could live the rest of my life very happily using the right of redemption as it is laid out and is what I believe is the proper way for this debt-based system to operate. However, I am not being allowed my right to set-off or, what I think is probably the case, their stealing it and not crediting my account. The moderator suggests the
reason is, they don’t recognize "us" and I would like to know if he has an answer on how to show that "we" do have status. I have recently been involved with JT McBride, who has paper work claiming the right of entitlement holder of the Divine Trust, where he claims status as the Post Master General of N.A. granted to him by the Vatican... if nothing else, it is certainly is an intriguing concept. His site is at notice recipient, and the office of the postmaster general if anyone is interested in checking it out. and he is saying the exact same this as this moderator, that we are not the executor of the estate, we are the beneficiary and any claim should be sent to probate.
#47 re. #29
TOPIC: WHY YOUR PROM NOTES WORKED & others did not
joshuasdad100
Sat Jul 14, 2012 10:04 am
TOPIC: CHOOSE YOUR STATUS WISELY..........
"Ted", I can tell you why your promissory notes worked. I'll bet this was a few of years ago because they WON'T work now. Things have change at the agency. Back then, it depended on where they landed and the knowledge of the people processing them. The same is still true, but new guidelines were implemented some time ago. I can't be more specific without compromising friends. Basically we swamped them with securities and acceptances, which you probably know are securities also.
Regarding status, with respect, I'm willing to bet you don't have proper status to do what you want to do (commercial setoff) and probably don't know what's involved in achieving status that the agency will honor instead of ridicule (see my next posting for more on this). Divine status is correct. It's the truth. We all understand that. But there's a problem…….
It won't (canNOT) work in the admiralty. How can it? The admiralty is Lucifer's secular commercial system of feudalism designed to draw you away from the Father. That's why attorney's pray to Courts. Divinity and admiralty mix like oil and water. You may as well ask a dog to meow. It's not in the public genes. Trying to do a security like a bankers acceptance from the Kingdom is a lesson waiting to be learned the hard way.
Many patriots have trouble seeing how the other side views things. We could all use a good out-of-body experience. (I'd like 5 minutes in Tim Geithner's office.) If you invoke the Father, the land, the county, or any other TRUTH to robots who have been trained from birth to enforce lies, you're dead on arrival unless you have exceptional skills. You should wear ear plugs when you mention the Postmaster in court as the laughter is likely to be deafening.
WHAT HAPPENED TO YEHOSHUA IN THE ROMAN COURT? We look no further to know what to expect. And of course there's "Agree with thine enemy."
So we need to choose our status based upon what we want to do. Do you want to fight and face the lions, or simply order them to do your setoffs? See the next posting and also the one from "Peter" [#41] – he's exactly right on every point.
Bill.......
#48 re. #43
TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
joshuasdad100
Sat Jul 14, 2012 10:04 am
TOPIC: THE TWO PARTS TO STATUS.............
"ted", When you sign that agency or bank coupon, which is the asset side of the presentment, you create a new security. You OWN that one. This is NOT a good thing.
OWNERSHIP'S A LIABILIITY. They won't process any security from an owner. The owner's a debtor, a trustee with the obligation to perform on the security (at least in their eyes).
THE SECURITY NEEDS TO BE PLACED INTO THE HANDS OF A QUALIFIED PARTY WHO HOLDS
THE SECURITY INTEREST, a holder in due course. Haven't security interests ruled society for centuries?
But you probably have a security interest in the strawman right? The problem is that yours, mine, all of ours from 1999 through now, and most people still doing them, are fatally flawed because the living man doesn't exist in the admiralty world of res. When you file that UCC, the secured party is AUTOMATICALLY
CONVERTED INTO A TRUST, and since a trust already exists with the same name, it reverts back to the STRAWMAN trust in which the agency's a trustee. You're dead on arrival. Defect 1.
In order to process the security, you need a proxy who the agency will recognize as having a security interest in admiralty, AND a second proxy who has all of their approvals and qualifications to collect on it. (Most do not. Defect 2.)
Both of those proxies need to be constructed so the AGENCY DOES NOT HAVE RIGHTS AS A TRUSTEE (defect 3 for many). The first must have a RECOGNIZABLE proper lien in the security. The other is the holder in due course of the security interest AND has all the qualifications for the agency to do the processing. (Most patriot liens are defective for a very simple procedural error-defect 4).
The trick is to thread the needle to acquire those bells and whistles without inadvertently allowing the agency to get its hooks into them as a trustee. THAT'S WHERE WE'VE ALWAYS SCREWED UP (defect 5). Filing the UCC as a living man is just one of the pitfalls that brings us back under their control.
So there are really two stages in getting prepared:
S ecured
P arty
L ienor
A nd
S ecured
H older
S P L A S H (easy to remember).
This is why people hit a dead wall when they ask about "status" looking for a short answer or magic bullet, or profess that they have status. It's not an email or blog process any more than learning how to overhaul an engine, but I'm living proof it can be learned.
Don't get me wrong. A properly done process isn't complicated. It's a fraction of what people have been through if they've set up a decedent estate paying by the hour. But it's the understanding that's critical to success. Ignorance IS FATAL. So when the Ice Cream man comes calling, you can tell him exactly what to do on your behalf, and why. That's when the do-not-detain orders start happening behind the scenes.
Check out the posting just before this one from a "Peter." He' right on target. If you've ever done an estate process, then presumably you know that the estate's a trust also. EVERYTHING'S A TRUST. When you hand a guy a piece of paper, you've created a trust relationship, and HE now has the obligation to perform (see my next posting on this). This blog is about wisdom from people like Peter. We are blessed.
Like anything in life, those who succeed are the ones who persist. I never look back at past failures because there are none. (Your promissory notes that didn't work held the real lessons.) I'm climbing the ladder of necessary experiences created by the Father in my ascension back to the Kingdom. I persisted until He saw fit to bring me the insiders who had reached the point of conscience and enlightenment where they were willing to talk about the real deal. Bill.
P.S. Can I order some stamps? (Couldn't resist.)
#49 re. #28 & #32
TOPIC: THE REVERSE MORTGAGE SECURITY TRUST RELATIONSHIP
joshuasdad100
Sat Jul 14, 2012 10:05 am
First Mate & cseafreak, Yes, the trust relationship is created when you present the security. The recipient is the trustee with the obligation to perform on the security. He has limited of legal title and you, the beneficiary, have equitable title a/k/a equitable interest (as you said cseafreak, because you put the equity in). What they do is turn it around and presume to be the beneficiary and that you're the trustee. THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST VALUABLE NUGGETS OF KNOWLEDGE FOR ANY PATRIOT. Nice work. (Members can ref. posting #28 and #32 for good information.)
MORTGAGE
Nowhere is this more clear than with a mortgage. It's worded to make the bank the beneficiary and give all of the trustee's duties to the Grantor. This would be laughable if not so sick. But the beauty is…IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE DOCUMENT SAYS.
MORTGAGE NOTE
Don't they enter the note as an asset (actually as an increase in assets, a debit on the left side of a T chart)?
Prior to 1933, a promissory note was evidence of the issuer's liability. After 1933, it became an asset to the bank. They offset the asset posting with a liability posting on the right side of the equation (an increase in liabilities, meaning a credit on the right side of a T chart). Those are the liabilities that they owe you which they ignore through accounting trickery, but that's another topic.
REVERSE MORTGAGE
Don't you just love Fred Thomson telling you he's honored to be selling this crap? But EVERY MORTGAGE IS A REVERSE MORTGAGE if you understand that its not the words in the mortgage that matters.
It's the security, not the words in it. When we hand the bank attorney the mortgage, he and the bank become the trustee ON THE TRUST CREATED BY THE TRANSFER OF THE SECURITY. And if you have a security interest in that instrument, the mortgage is DEAD ON ARRIVAL if you know what you're doing.
But now it's years later. Too late, right? Wrong. It's about how the security is deposited and exchanged. You're right, First Mate. The exchange is retroactive (nunc pro tunc) to the day the mortgage was issued. This is a huge defect in most people's procedures.
You're also right in the third paragraph of your email. If they don't perform, they've breached, the trust collapses, and they're obligated to return all of your securities, including the one's they traded through Fidelity.
Doesn't mean banks will rollover. You've got to have status and real understanding as demonstrated by "Peter" and yourself. See the last posting about status. It's critical. Bill
#50 re. #43
Re: Status - what is it?
peterpapoulias
Sat Jul 14, 2012 10:44 am
There are a few mechanics involved (paperwork). Most important to know is this system was setup for the benefit of the beneficiary. Question is which beneficiary? And beneficiary of what exactly? Once you understand that and how the admiralty system operates you can setup your claim and control everything.
Peter
#51 re. #48
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
cseafreak
Sat Jul 14, 2012 10:57 am
Wow! Thank you--I can't wait for the correction of the defects clarification--What is the procedure? Thank you so much for I have made all of these mistakes, but like you say--they are not failures. I just didn't understand why they didn't work...
#52 re. #33
TOPIC: LOST IN ESTATE. DON'T KNOW WHERE TO GO.
joshuasdad100
Sat Jul 14, 2012 11:27 am
TO ALL THOSE STUCK WITH DECEDENT ESTATES........
Sharon (see posting below), you're not alone. SAFER search under the word "Estate" at DOT shows hundreds have constructed decedent estates. I keep hearing the same complaint about "mentors" who took "donations," blasted all those who came before them (good people like Jack Smith), but operated like PTK never answering calls or emails unless you offered more money. Here are some things to think about.
1. The Estate is actually the surety for all the securities you and the public have issued against your credit.
2. If you bank with special deposit you cannot claim a refund later because the funds are never commingled with the banks. Not one person I've spoken with is aware of this.
3. The Executor's information reports are ignored the way most people have constructed the office due to various defects (see posting #48).
4. You also canNOT use the second entity, the irrevocable trust many have created, whether under your own name or pseudonym, because it lacks the credentials the agency requires to process forms (see #48).
5. Despite your procedures, the IRS will maintain the position that it's a trustee on the strawman trust. So working around it won't work. You have to employ the agency to perform as trustee.
6. The most critical deficiency is the lack of a proper security interest and lien. Filing the UCC-1 as so many have done it is defective as the security interest has not been developed.
7. From what I've seen, many people remain confused about the difference between the estate David Clarence was talking about, and the Estate they've tried to file as a secured party, and the PUBLIC ESTATE the agency returns in the CP 575.
8. In most cases, there's no credentialed holder in due course of the security interest. I wish I could say this was due to a lack of knowledge, but I believe the info was withheld in many cases because I have located some of the "mentors'" credentials through internet search.
Despite all of this, I DON'T BELIEVE THE ESTATE MOVEMENT WAS A FAILURE. It got many pointed in a better direction. My people perish from a lack of knowledge. I am disappointed that no one I've spoken to really understands the implications of their bank account, positive AND negative.
Please contact me by private email if you seek further discussion. Bill
#53
How to get started
rpacheco_02740
Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:23 pm
What do I have to do to get started understanding all this? Is there step by step studies I need to take? If so, what are they and where do I get started with them. Where do I learn about the proper status and paperwork?
#54 re. #41
Re: Status - what is it?
sawasinc
Sat Jul 14, 2012 3:46 pm
But the cestui-que vie act says if you can prove you are alive then all tendency reverts back to you. How can we prove we are alive in a dead system?
now don't laugh.... but Could we just prick our finger using a diabetes pin?? and let them see the drop of blood flow in front of them in court ??? since we are of the flesh and blood. Doesn't that prove we are alive ???
Sharon.
#57 re. below
Re: Status - what is it?
artie2011z
Sat Jul 14, 2012 5:01 pm
"All these judges are required to have the following 5 qualifying methods in court with them at all times: Commission of Office, Oath of Office, Public Bond, Letter of Marque, and Delegation of Authority Letter with your red ink signature on it. "
Required by what or who? Just curious.
Re: Status - what is it? Re. #54
private sovereign people
Saturday, July 14, 2012 7:49 PM
Stating a proper claim of rights for the reason the judges address defendants as Mr., Mrs., Miss., and Ms. is those are the lowest civilian military titles as one is being court martialed by them as a military tribunal. What you need to do is give them a verbal statement for which the judge should grant relief then remain silent. For the judge to move the court forward against one of the sovereign people is treason! The proper claim of rights is, "All Sovereign Birth Rights are Expressly Claimed and Retained by Me." You now have taken both Subject Matter Jurisdiction and In personam Jurisdiction away from the court having full immunity being an individual, as defined as a "Foreign Government". See: 5 USC Chapter 5 Section 552a(a)(2), 18 USC 11, 28 CFR 1604, 18 USC 288 and 112. Federal and state statutes do not apply to an individual only applies to judges, attorneys, plaintiff and organizations as defendant. See: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure under Applicability - Rule I(b)(7), and 18 USC 18. These two Federal Statutes were created in 2007 by the U.S. Congress when a few of the people had discovered the original Statute that was 18 USC 54(C), which stated, "Federal and state statutes within the fifty states do not apply to the sovereign(s)..."
Use the same statement above your signature on an affidavit of truth if you wish. Use your blood for your ink for right-thumb print, then you do not need notary public as you do what is called a self-notary. To read all about your status as one of the sovereign people read:
Federal and state administrative courts in fiction under color of law have no authority over an individual unless we volunteer both Subject Matter Jurisdiciton and In personam Jurisdiction to the judge. See: Black's Law Dictionary Fourth Edition definition of In personam for case law. All these judges are required to have the following 5 qualifying methods in court with them at all times: Commission of Office, Oath of Office, Public Bond, Letter of Marque, and Delegation of Authority Letter with your red ink signature on it. Police are the same as they really are all violating the law to touch or arrest anyone, which is kidnapping. See: 18 USC 1201 - Even a judge sentencing anyone to prison he/she commits the following Federal crimes: 18 USC 1583, 1581, 242, and 241.
This is why they are called public servants!
#60 re. #48
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
kippsterling
Sat Jul 14, 2012 5:33 pm
So how does one "thread the needle to acquire those bells and whistles without inadvertently allowing the agency to get its hooks into them as a trustee."?
What is the:
S ecured
P arty
L ienor
A nd
S ecured
H older,
or S P L A S H, if you please?
I was just ready to pull the trigger on my "Freedom Documents", and I must admit that what you have told me, frustrates me a bit, BUT, assuming this is so, it will be much more valuable to follow this path rather than that.
If you could, please enlighten me on your process, I would like to follow it.
Much thanks!
#61 re. #52
Re: TOPIC: LOST IN ESTATE. DON'T KNOW WHERE TO GO.
cseafreak
Sat Jul 14, 2012 5:34 pm
Thank you! I did not know what it meant to bank with special deposit? I found this online:
The Special Deposit Account while being marketed by most banks is actually a borrowing by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). On this note, this makes the investment default-risk free or your almost sure that you get your money back. It's like having a time deposit with the central bank.
now why do banks offer it? Banks are just pass through facilities or intermediaries. They earn fees by offering it.
Being a BSP borrowing, I would say this is already much better than a time deposit with an ordinary bank that just offers a P250,000 PDIC Coverage.
What does this mean? Say you have a 1million investment with Bank A. Then Bank A can't pay you anymore, PDIC now gives you P250,000. On the other hand, if you have 1M investment in the SDA, the government can always print money to pay you. so you get your full 1M. Now that is something an ordinary bank can't do.
Most financial institutions with TRUST departments offer this investment. You can check out your bank.
Who offers the Best SDA?
The BSP has a fixed gross rate for certain terms: Example for
30 days - 5.25%
60 days - 5.25%
90 days - 5.3125%
180 days - 5.50%
It now depends how much is the fee charged by your bank to know what is your effective return.
if you're interested in the SDA you better ask your local bank before Thursday afternoon as the BSP may lower its rates by Friday.
So, if that is what you are talking about---I really just want to know how to cure the defects in our process--How do you file the UCC 1 correctly? How do you correctly establish the security interest? How do you get them to recognize your status? I have been trying for 15 years and have never been successful. They ignore everything--very discouraging! I am now trying to put together lawsuit against the Justice Dept for theft of my property without due process. If I am unable to effectively rebut their presumption that they own me and can do whatever they want, then I will fail again. I want a road map. I don't want to spend umpteen more years studying everything that comes down the pike. If you have something that works, then lets start there and go--that way we don't have to read three thousand emails or posts that say nothing. PLEASE!!!
Thanks,
c
#65 re. #41
Re: Status - what is it?
rcarne...
Sat Jul 14, 2012 7:04
Must send to the Sec. of Treasury the BC that you have endorsed on the back with a affidavit of status/proof of life notarized.. noticing them of your status ! along with a notice of standing your also telling them to "deposit it" and to "ledger it’s as an asset then after that send in a bond attaching the asset (BC) and then an indemnity and discharge bond is sent referring to the BC bond that now has asset attached i.e. thus Collapsing their interest in the trust and making yourself the "Holder in due course" and also listing it in a security agreement via the UCC-1 establishing that the Fiction has been bound by yourself and the state no longer is the fiduciary and has no claim to the BC...that’s the way I understand it. did I miss anything?. what a way to spend a Saturday gotta get this though!! some one please enlighten us!! so many paths leading to the same place like a fricken maze!!
Rick
check this out..
#66 re. #65
TOPIC: TREASURY PROCESS
joshuasdad100
Sat Jul 14, 2012 10:10
Hello Richard, The Treasury process you describe is dated. Here are some thoughts:
- You don't endorse the BC on the back. You convert it into a new security on the front.
- No affidavit, proof of life, notices or other patriot stuff. That will identify you as a poor candidate for an admiralty remedy.
- No indemnity or discharge bond.
- There are two critical elements:
(1) you cannot annotate the BC yourself, you don't exist in the admiralty. The Strawman can't do it, it's a pre-programmed debtor. You need a proxy. See posting #48. Probably 80 or 90 percent of previous filings are defective or this reason alone. This is an almost imperceptible change in the indorsement . BUT IT'S A KEY FLAW THAT HAS SEPARATED THOUSANDS OF PATRIOTS FROM THEIR SETOFFS.
(2) Your lien must be perfected in advance. The proof of claim IS your proof of status.
- You cannot be the holder in due course. You're the Grantor, maker, depositor, beneficiary, bailor, and a partial trustee. But NOT the holder in due course. You need a second proxy for that. Again, see posting #48.
It seems like a maze because you haven't had someone take you through it step by step for understanding. Once you understand, the logic is striking.
Hope this helps. Bill.
#67 re. #66
Re: TOPIC: TREASURY PROCESS
kippsterling
Sat Jul 14, 2012 10:49
joshuasdad100,
What you have said makes sense. Once this is done, you have access to the trust account to blow or use wisely as you see fit, with a black card and all the Accouterments, such as do not detain, am I pretty much right?
Of course, the devil is in the details. How do we endorse it on the front to convert to a new security, how do we set up a proxy, second proxy, how do we get that anointed black card, etc.
I imagine the question on most of the readers mind is where do we get the set of instructions on how to do all this, a la Winston Shrout's or Tim Turner's "freedom documents". At the least, where is the info to read, outside of just reading a law book on trusts. I can read it, but without experience, it is only so good in surmising what applications that I can use, out of it.
I know you don't mean to be a tease, but I am chomping at the bits to find this out, as I am sure you are about to have a flood of new members, when they find out about this. Could you recommend some material that shows how to endorse your birth certificate, for one example, on the front, as you speak of? Could you recommend some mentors? Could you provide some people that have done this process and their successes and failures? Maybe not something like "S.P.L.A.S.H. for Dummies"(hey, if you use the name, give me a cut, ha-ha) but
something in between. It's the weekend, and I have a lot of time to read.
BTW, thanks for your previous, and future comments, this is not something that you have to do, I realize that, and appreciate it.
Sincerely,
Kippsterling
#68
Does this apply to Canada or the US?
ascended2012
Sun Jul 15, 2012 7:30
Are these remedies for Canada or for the US, and does that matter?
#69 re. #67
TOPIC: HOW YOU TAKE CONTROL OR CASH OUT.
joshuasdad100
Sun Jul 15, 2012 7:43
kippsterling: PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY. First, your premise is incorrect: No black card. No do-not-detain order. The Treasury process is only one step in such goals. It sets up an intermediary account for things one might want to do later.
The fact that you and many others don't understand rudimentary principals like that is why those in control don't make it easy to get out of the maze or to control your position in the maze (the strawman). I'm not being critical, but you need to know the truth as its been related to me from the horse's mouth. How well have you done with Turner's Freedom Documents?
THE FIRST UNDERSTANDING...
If there's one thing you need to remember, people need to hear, and people will likely ignore again and again, it's this:
98 PERCENT OF THE PROCESS IS UNDERSTANDING.
That's not hype. You can have a 300 page manual, template documents, a study group, a note from your mother - IT DOESN'T MATTER. They will NOT comply unless you demonstrate you're ready by your knowledge.
IF YOU USE TEMPLATES - they will discard your papers.
IF YOU APPEAR SCRIPTED - they will toss your documents.
IF YOU SEEK THE CASH AND NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY - they will know AND will blow you off.
Can the process be accelerated?
Sure. If you find someone who knows and is willing to teach. Those two elements are usually mutually exclusive, and can never be done publicly or they will do more than blow you off. There are a few good people who have chosen to bless their fellow patriots in this manner but they, like myself, tend to be selective:
1. THE LEARNER BE PREPARED TO HAVE PREVIOUS PATRIOT BELIEFS STRIPPED AWAY.
Many patriots are addicted to process and philosophy that's not compatible with commerce. This is their right. And the philosophy may be totally correct but useless in admiralty or for the goals they've set. But when they visit Yahoo groups and complain that their acceptances and setoffs haven't worked, it shows a disconnect with basic reason and logic.
2. THE PERSON MUST BE PATIENT.
It takes a good six months to a year to really cover the necessary information, and maybe longer for it to sink in and become reflex. On the other hand the search could go on for decades without finding a remedy (as many patriots have learned the hard way). Cracking the Matrix is like trying to decrypt the most complicated cipher without a key. Diabolical men created it.
3. The person must be able to embrace THE BEGINNERS MIND.
They must be able to accept in their own mind that THEY PROBABLY KNOW VERY LITTLE ABOUT AREAS THEY THINK THEY UNDERSTAND.
This is HUGE. The ones with the intellect and persistence to understand trusts and securities to the degree that they have, are really the best candidates. Some of those are posting in this Group. But that same confidence is what blocks some people from making the mental commitment to learn the truth.
Those who welcome and thirst for new information are gems.
4. The person must be of good temperament.
So many patriots are haters. They hate commerce without understanding it. They hate Yahoo moderators. We've had some dogmatic arrogant people show up on this group and I've pulled their posts. The Father warned us about a gossiping tongue.
5. The person must have Faith in the Father, their teacher, and their own capacity to learn and perform. A doomsday thinker is not likely to succeed in Court.
6. The person cannot think they have a right to the work product of others.
This a problem for many patriots. When I was an apprentice, my first boss taught me the value of commanding a fair quote. "Lowball quotes lead to lowball customers." Words to remember. The guys at trade school who dropped out were the ones who were on tuition assistance from the State.
7. The person must accept responsibility for his own actions.
Those who cast blame make poor candidates to become Neo. THE MAJORITY OF PATRIOT PROBLEMS OCCUR BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE IMPATIENT OR SHORT-SIGHTED. Look at the Yahoo Groups. How many have stopped paying their taxes, credit cards and mortgages without a clue as to how to do it or what to do if the predictable happens? How many used 1099s because their buddies did? How many followed PTK around the country actually believing that 5000 people were going to score $35B each (do the math)?
8. The person need NOT be courageous. The knowledge sets them free.
This is what I look for when asked to make an introduction so people don't waste their time. I know a handful of people at most who possess this information and the qualities to share it competently. Please contact me by private email if you seek further discussion. Bill
#70 re. #68
Re: Does this apply to Canada or the US? - BOTH
joshuasdad100
Sun Jul 15, 2012 7:48
BOTH. It sure matters if you're Canadian.
#71 re. #53
Re: How to get started
joshuasdad100
Sun Jul 15, 2012 8:08
Hi Richard,
See posting # 69 for a bit more insight. Bill
#72 re. #61
Re: TOPIC: LOST IN ESTATE. DON'T KNOW WHERE TO GO.
joshuasdad100
Sun Jul 15, 2012 8:29
Cheryl,
See postings:
for more insight.
Special Deposit is a broad legal concept. Takes a few hours to review so it's in the marrow. IT IS THE CRITICAL ELEMENT in rebuffing the Courts, offsetting liens, and such, and yet most patriots never heard of it. It's in that black hole where the real remedies lie while most of use skirmish or scraps from the table. Bill
#73 re. #61
Re: TOPIC: LOST IN ESTATE. DON'T KNOW WHERE TO GO.
joshuasdad100
Sun Jul 15, 2012 8:32
In short:
In their system, everything's a security future; everything's a trust ( all demonstrated in their law), and special deposit is how the trust property is handled. Bill
#75 re. #54
Re: Status - what is it?
peterpapoulias
Sun Jul 15, 2012 10:19 am
You see this is the problem. THE PUBLIC SYSTEM IS DEAD!!! so who would you be showing the blood to? The judge? Well the judge is an OFFICE occupied by an actor (persona) his job description does not allow him to see the flesh and blood. ONLY PAPER
This is why so many people are getting stuck, spun around, tricked and deceived.
The only way to show you’re "alive" is to show you hold the highest claim. That is what this is all about. UCC-8, UCC-2 and UCC-9 spell it all out for you.
#76 re. #57
Re: Status - what is it?
peterpapoulias
Sun Jul 15, 2012 10:25 am
AGAIN. THIS IS NOT ABOUT SOVERIGNTY FOLKS. You are all sovereign. but you are not being taken into court, the cestui-que trust is. But the trust is not yours. Only the estate within it is. So think people. What do we need to do to TAKE CONTROL.
All this sovereignty stuff (although true) DOES NOT APPLY HERE as the system is DEFACTO not de jure. So here we have someone claiming that the statutes don’t apply to the sovereign yet they quote state to support the sovereign position.
Put aside all this sovereignty stuff. The courts don’t recognize it. the defendant is NOT sovereign so it is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the estate, the claim on the estate, trespass, and entitlement. ALL ADMIRALTY.
Its an admiralty system. Its like trying to use a football to play baseball. Doesn't work.
Now if you are the plaintiff you can convene whatever kind of court you want. But these threads deal with foreclosure, etc...
#77 re. #65
Re: Status - what is it?
peterpapoulias
Sun Jul 15, 2012 10:29
You are on the right track but you have the mechanics all wrong. First of all we don’t want to take over sole control. We don’t want to collapse anything.
Look people the system that was in place prior to this SUCKED!! Feudal. A few lords and the rest were serfs.
Remember anything they can do we can do as well. Their power comes from us so if they claim a power then we must have it as they claim we delegated it to them.
THINK!!!
Think about this.
THE PUBLIC DEBT
1 Who is it owed to?
2 Where is it ledgered?
3 How can we adjust the books?
4 How are they stealing our exemption?
#78 re. #75
Re: Status - what is it?
illusionsnom...
Sun Jul 15, 2012 10:30 am
Do you have any knowledge or experience with this man....?
Kelly
#79 re. #67
Re: TOPIC: TREASURY PROCESS
peterpapoulias
Sun Jul 15, 2012 10:32 am
I have been hearing a lot about this "black card" Someone please show me the statute or regulation that describes it and allows for its creation/use.
I have been studying Fed regulations for a long time and have not seen or read one single reference to a black card. UCC-9 folks
#80 re. #78
Re: Status - what is it?
peterpapoulias
Sun Jul 15, 2012 10:35 am
Nope...
Look you can setup any system you want. But since everything is voluntary none is required to participate in it.
There is a system in place. Read invisible contracts. This will help you understand.
#81 re. #69
Re: TOPIC: HOW YOU TAKE CONTROL OR CASH OUT.
ascended2012
Sun Jul 15, 2012 2:33 pm
I've read the whole discussion here and learned that unless you spend time learning and learning and learning, nothing will work. My question is this: If you can't use templates as a guide, how do you do anything. My group has done Turner's documents and they did not work. We have tried EFT's AFV, land patents and nothing has worked. So if there is NO process to follow, then it's all helter-skelter and there's no way to being. At least following the Freedom Docs, there was a process and a "way" to follow. This has been the most frustrating process we have encountered. We have investigated Ecclesiastical Deed Polls, Postmaster General etc. We have decided to use the Postmaster General process for to get control of the account controlled by the strawman...this process is a web of deception and false pathways that lead to dead ends and possibly to jail time. Just when we thought we "got it" it was snatched away by failure for some small mistake or another, but we really don't know what the mistake was, so it is a process of elimination, and retracing previous methods takes time, energy and money (which many of us don't have). So if there's no short explanation of how to proceed, I guess we'll just continue on the path we've chosen to eliminate our debt using the laws that they've already set in place. Set-off Your Debt website has some truth to it, but is missing some important info to make it work 100 percent of the time. We tried it, and it didn't work. So we are now doing a program on What Lies in Your Debt
wherein we can use our credit reports to claim unlawful pulls from them. Also there's a program to eliminate your mortgage using MERS against them. I have talked to people who have used this program which they used and they are not paying their mortgages any longer. Since we can't proceed from removing ourselves from the slave system, we are picking and choosing our battles with issues that impact our lives immediately. We have people who have used the EDP (executor) and filed their BC and other supporting docs to WASHINGTON, DC, THE CROWN, THE QUEEN, and the VATICAN. Once you file these, nothing comes of it, no answer, no acknowledgement from any of the CITY STATES, nothing...so what good is all of it.
The only thing we can do now is choose our battles, because the WAR is way too complicated to figure out. This is what we are doing...fighting the battle, while wandering through the complicated maze of the WAR-- is the only way to handle it, otherwise we will all die of old age not accomplishing much of anything; at least using the programs that work now, we can get some relief from the slave masters in a financial sense.
I've read so many times where "teachers" talk about unclear precepts and occult methods, then we are no further down the road than when we first began. This is just my view of it...from what I've read, there are quite a few who have the same questions and concerns as I do.
#86 re. #81
Re: TOPIC: HOW YOU TAKE CONTROL OR CASH OUT.
mtnbtrfly935...
Sun Jul 15, 2012 5:04 pm
I am a new member to this group, but I have been active in 'redemption' per say for almost 3 yrs. I did the TT docs and the whole UCC filing, copyright, all of it. Nothing changed ! As far as I personally can tell, and from what I have learned in 3 yrs, Tim Turner is a joke and made big bucks selling his stuff. I paid $1500 for the info and it was ALL OLD and next to useless when I got it then. There are some good 'templates' and YES I used the templates initially, newbies NEED TO for form and general content. The correct way to use them however is to EDIT them and make them yours and to do that you MUST KNOW what to change and what to leave. I did not know all that in the beginning and nothing worked. I have tried almost every remedy out there and am finding that common sense and KNOWING HOW to apply 'their codes', which are the rules that restrain THEM, not us, are the key. "CONSENT" is also a huge factor which a judge recently by way of a dismissal confirmed.
Unfortunately I am one who learns best by error, and I have learned a lot, but I never make the same mistake twice once I have learned what I did wrong. There are remedies, but most of them are not the fly by night 'processes' that the snake oil salesmen push. They are LEARING facts and applying those to your benefit and protection.
I am a paying member of WLIYD, Jesse over simplifies many things on the site and unless there is a court filing from your STATE, the likelihood they will be denied. What most do not understand is that every state has different procedural requirements and even every county have additional rules. So if you don't follow those, you are OUT. So his template are somewhat informational, but do not work in every state 'as they are posted", so editing is a must. And he does not have a 'program' as such, what he has it ways to deal with whatever your issue is and where ever you come in at with your situation. But bottom line, it is ALL based on existing LAWS and CODES and how to USE to our advantage. And regardless of what you at battling, THAT is the ONLY way to succeed.
Calif Gal
#87 re. #72
Re: TOPIC: Special Deposit
cseafreak
Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:12 pm
William Robert, joshuasdad100@...> wrote:
Cheryl,
See postings:
for more insight.
Special Deposit is a broad legal concept. Takes a few hours to review so it's in the marrow. IT IS THE CRITICAL ELEMENT in rebuffing the Courts, offsetting liens, and such, and yet most patriots never heard of it. It's in that black hole where the real remedies lie while most of use skirmish or scraps from the table.
Bill
Found the following on "Special Deposit"--makes more sense now...
SPECIAL DEPOSIT. A deposit made of a particular thing with the depositary: it is distinguished from an irregular deposit.
2. When a thing has been specially deposited with a depositary, the title to it remains with the depositor, and if it should be lost, the loss will fall upon him. When, on the contrary, the deposit is irregular, as where money is
deposited in a bank, the title to which is transferred to the bank, if it be, lost, the loss will be borne by the bank. This will result from the same principle; the loss will fall, in both instances, on the owner of the thing, according to the rule res perit domino. See 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1 054.
or
A special deposit consists in the placing of specific kinds of money or property in the possession of the bank, with an obligation of the bank to return the identical thing deposited; the depositor retaining title. [Keyes v. Paducah & I.R. Co., 61 F.2d 611 (6th Cir. Ky. 1932)].
In a special deposit, moneys (as bills in packages, or specie in boxes, for example), are entrusted to a bank, not to be used, but to be kept safely, and specifically returned. Such a deposit of specie or other funds for safekeeping and return creates the relationship between the depositor and the bank of bailor and bailee. Where money is left with a bank with the understanding and agreement that it is to be devoted to some particular purpose, such as to be paid over to some third person on presentation of certain papers, it constitutes a special
deposit, and is held by the bank as agent of the depositor. The distinctive feature of a special deposit is that the identical money is to be kept apart from the general funds of the bank so that it can be returned to the depositor
or used for the specific purpose for which it was deposited. The intention of the parties controls, and in the absence of facts from which it can be found that the parties intended that the fund was deposited for safekeeping and return, or to be devoted to a specific purpose then agreed upon, it will be held to be a general deposit. [Bassett v. City Bank & Trust Co., 115 Conn. 1 (Conn. 1932)].
#90 re. #77
Re: Status - what is it?
rhs8963
Mon Jul 16, 2012 7:56 am
I'm hearing some powerful information-noting like I've head before.
However, I still don't see a consensus nor a potential process to obtain status. I'm not looking for templates, gurus, or someone else to do it for me. I'm looking for something that will provide me results and not just sit in a box at the dept. of treasury or in a room in Ogden UT.
I will go back to lurking now and continue to read the awesome responses and ideas in this group. I firmly believe that the remedy will come out of this group.
#91 re. #48
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
dang_78...
Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:19 am
Joshua,
By proxy do you mean appointing someone with a limited power of attorney to do this process for me ?
#92 re. #48
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
cseafreak
Mon Jul 16, 2012 1:07 pm
OK, so what do you need to have in order to feel good about showing us SPLASH process?
C
#95 re. #90 & #86
TOPIC: SPLASH: FINAL WORD ON STATUS, STUDIES, CONSENSUS---for this Group
joshuasdad100
Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:53 pm
TO ALL MEMBERS, Robyn & California Girl in particular.........I understand your frustration. You're confused. You're floundering. You don't know what's right or where to turn. One person says this, another says that. I suggest re-reading the introduction on the Group's home page.: "THE CURTAIN IS CRACKING." If you open your eyes and ears, you may find that those who know how to unravel the Matrix are among us.
Patriots have long believed they could learn rocket science at a two day seminar. It takes 7 years past high school to become a lawyer. 13 to become a brain surgeon. Those regimens have structured education, classes, homework, and apprenticeships.
And yet we presume we can take on the Courts, the IRS, the banks, the world, and gain status as beneficiaries of the public trust, after a weekend seminar. Somehow we see salvation in a handful of paper templates. We rely on emails and advice from strangers at blogs. Is it possible that these outlandish preconceptions have contributed to our problems?
At THIS Group, the word "status" does NOT mean sovereignty, common law, postmaster, kingdom of heaven, Turtle Island, or living on the county. Those may be fine concepts , but THEY HAVE NOT RELEVANCE TO THE DESIRE TO RULE ADMIRALTY AND COMMERCIAL, rather than fight them. I'm eliminating all such postings to keep the information concise and streamlined, and avoid confusing beginners even more. No offense intended to the members who posted them.
For our purposes, the concept of status means the prestige to control the admiralty:
- standing developed using the public's own rules and regulations,
- qualifications to cash out entirely if you so choose (yes, it's been done), and
- mandatory credentials required by the agency to recognize our priority claim and process our setoffs, acceptances, refunds, recoupments, directives, exchanges, dispositions, special deposits, claims, acquisitions, foreclosures and revestitures.
THAT LITTLE LIST OF TRANSACTIONS IS A FORMIDABLE ARSENAL It's all one needs to function in society, control property, and repel trespassers. If you understand the requirements and processes for making them happen, then you don't need to be reading this.
But if you do not, then the significance of these transactions will remain elusive until you do.
THIS IS WHY I SAY THAT UNDERSTANDING IS 98 PERCENT OF THE REMEDY. It's really that simple. You do not become Neo on templates and emails. With mastery of your securities and the trusts they create, it doesn't matter if you are dragged into Court in irons, slapped with a summons, foreclosed, liened, or visited by CID. Each one of those events is another opportunity to teach the public that the price is too high to mess with you. Because, you're in charge and they will know it seconds after you open your mouth. It's the knowledge, the confidence, the look in the eye, the ability to enforce on the fly.
WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING, you are likely to fold your cards at the first challenge when your heart seizes in your chest.
It's the difference between Bruce Lee and everyone else.
As to consensus, I know a handful of people (at most) qualified to teach these things. It easily takes about 20 - 40 hours of discussion to gain a handle depending on intellect and experience, and another 40 - 80 hours of home study and confirmation for reasonable understanding, or substantially more if you intend to read the actual laws in their entirety and the many fine books on admiralty, trust, banking, estate, tax, and contract law. It all depends on one's threshold for mastery. Do you want to master any Court situation? Get annual refunds? Exploit the banking advantages? Master it all? You get out what you put it, until one day the memories of floundering are too weak to recall.
What I've given you is a truthful roadmap to freedom and peace. It may seem like a lot of effort to control a system that belongs to us. But I see it as a tiny sacrifice compared to ten years of higher education or the decades some of us have spent chasing our tails.
For me, the one thing that was most tangible when I finally "got it" was the sense that I was no longer spinning my wheels. At that point, TRUTH BECAME SELF-EVIDENT. And you no longer need a "mentor" to steer you straight. This was the Lord's doing by having blessed me with a wonderful teacher who, for some reason, decided to pull back the curtain he/she had spent years protecting.
See Posting #69 for a bit of insight into the attributes which support the desire to learn. Bill
#96 re. #95
P.S.....
So, Status without understanding will be as useless to you as all the previous attempts when you filed the Turner documents.
BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE FILING. It's what you do with the claim – what you know how to do with it – after the fact.
Just remember, that most of the filings are defective (see previous postings) because neither the strawman nor living man have standing to pose a lien in admiralty. Bill
#97 re. #92
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
joshuasdad100
Mon Jul 16, 2012 3:00 pm
CSEAFREAK: SEE POSTINGS 95 AND 69 AND EMAIL ME PRIVATELY IF YOU'D LIKE.
#98 re. #87
FOR CSEAFREAK
joshuasdad100
Mon Jul 16, 2012 3:03 pm
S - You retain title to the d and the funds are segregated.
G - The title is transferred to the bank and the funds are coomingled.
#99 re. #81
TO ascended2012: YOUR THOUGHTS ARE YOUR REALITY.
joshuasdad100
Mon Jul 16, 2012 3:13 pm
Re: TOPIC: HOW YOU TAKE CONTROL OR CASH OUT.
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I THINK YOU'VE LEARNED NOTHING HERE. PLEASE READ POSTING
# 95 CAREFULLY. This concept that you can template your way out of Lucifer's dungeon is fatal. As you said yourself in the email below, you have been following process because you won't accept the truth that it WILL take work to recognize the truth and be able to use it handily. SO you have a choice to keep complaining, or make your future in commerce what YOU want it to be. You CAN do it if you decide to.
#100 repeated, but important
TOPIC: SPLASH: FINAL WORD ON STATUS, STUDIES, CONSENSUS---for this Group
joshuasdad100
Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:53 pm
TO ALL MEMBERS, Robyn & California Girl in particular.........I understand your frustration. You're confused. You're floundering. You don't know what's right or where to turn. One person says this, another says that. I suggest re-reading the introduction on the Group's home page.: "THE CURTAIN IS CRACKING." If you open your eyes and ears, you may find that those who know how to unravel the Matrix are among us.
Patriots have long believed they could learn rocket science at a two day seminar. It takes 7 years past high school to become a lawyer. 13 to become a brain surgeon. Those regimens have structured education, classes, homework, and apprenticeships.
And yet we presume we can take on the Courts, the IRS, the banks, the world, and gain status as beneficiaries of the public trust, after a weekend seminar.
Somehow we see salvation in a handful of paper templates. We rely on emails and advice from strangers at blogs. Is it possible that these outlandish preconceptions have contributed to our problems?
At THIS Group, the word "status" does NOT mean sovereignty, common law, postmaster, kingdom of heaven, Turtle Island, or living on the county. Those may be fine concepts , but THEY HAVE NOT RELEVANCE TO THE DESIRE TO RULE ADMIRALTY AND COMMERCIAL, rather than fight them. I'm eliminating all such postings to keep the information concise and streamlined, and avoid confusing beginners even more. No offense intended to the members who posted them.
For our purposes, the concept of status means the prestige to control the admiralty:
- standing developed using the public's own rules and regulations,
- qualifications to cash out entirely if you so choose (yes, it's been done),
and
- mandatory credentials required by the agency to recognize our priority claim and process our setoffs, acceptances, refunds, recoupments, directives, exchanges, dispositions, special deposits, claims, acquisitions, foreclosures and revestitures.
THAT LITTLE LIST OF TRANSACTIONS IS A FORMIDABLE ARSENAL It's all one needs to function in society, control property, and repel trespassers. If you understand the requirements and processes for making them happen, then you don't need to be reading this.
But if you do not, then the significance of these transactions will remain elusive until you do.
THIS IS WHY I SAY THAT UNDERSTANDING IS 98 PERCENT OF THE REMEDY. It's really that simple. You do not become Neo on templates and emails. With mastery of your securities and the trusts they create, it doesn't matter if you are dragged into Court in iron, slapped with a summons, foreclosed, liened, or visited by CID. Each one of those events is another opportunity to teach the public that the price is too high to mess with you. Because, you're in charge and they will know it seconds after you open your mouth. It's the knowledge, the confidence, the look in the eye, the ability to enforce on the fly.
WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING, you are likely to fold your cards at the first challenge when your heart seizes in your chest.
It's the difference between Bruce Lee and everyone else.
As to consensus, I know a handful of people (at most) qualified to teach these things. It easily takes about 20 - 40 hours of discussion to gain a handle depending on intellect and experience, and another 40 - 80 hours of home study and confirmation for reasonable understanding, or substantially more if you intend to read the actual laws in their entirety and the many fine books on admiralty, trust, banking, estate, tax, and contract law. It all depends on one's threshold for mastery. Do you want to master any Court situation? Get annual refunds? Exploit the banking advantages? Master it all? You get out what you put it, until one day the memories of floundering are too weak to recall.
What I've given you is a truthful roadmap to freedom and peace. It may seem like a lot of effort to control a system that belongs to us. But I see it as a tiny sacrifice compared to ten years of higher education or the decades some of us have spent chasing our tails.
For me, the one thing that was most tangible when I finally "got it" was the sense that I was no longer spinning my wheels. At that point, TRUTH BECAME SELF-EVIDENT. And you no longer need a "mentor" to steer you straight. This was the Lord's doing by having blessed me with a wonderful teacher who, for some reason, decided to pull back the curtain he/she had spent years protecting.
See Posting #69 for a bit of insight into the attributes which support the desire to learn. Bill
#102 re. #91
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
joshuasdad100
Mon Jul 16, 2012 5:18 pm
No. Think trust law, not contract law.
Bill
moderator
#103 re. below
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
joshuasdad100
Mon Jul 16, 2012 5:23 pm
Couldn't have said it better myself. I think cseafreak was just pursuing the thread, but your statements demonstrate a wise method of operations for all of us. Bill
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder re. #92
embury111
Monday, July 16, 2012 4:43 PM
It's not a 'process' - read the posts Bill generously pointed out, for those that are interested, to study - did you read the part where he says, it's 98% 'understanding'? Go back and re-read the posts by Peter, and Bill...look up the concepts, and the words, and go more deeply into what has been pointed out as 'key' - what is 'special deposit', for example, look up 'proxy', and read the 1666 act - and figure out why you cannot walk in the bone yard, with corpses (corporations), as a living, breathing man ("LET THE DEAD BURY THEIR OWN DEAD" -Mathew 8:22).
Please don't take this as criticism, because it's not - I care, and that's my only intention here.
Over and over again - I see the same thing happening - people want to take some paper, put their name to it, and call it a 'process' - like 'understanding' can be codified, and turned - from something living, into something dead, and dogmatic....my marital arts teacher used to say to me, "make it your own, that's why they call it martial "arts", and that's what makes you an 'artist'; I can show you the door, whether you choose to open it, or not, is up to you".
Please, please, please - study what was already posted, and ask questions based on what was pointed out - for your own sake.
#104 re. #103
Re: Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
carmel_2_knight
Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:00 pm
I have come to learn that trust law is what we need to live by and the equitable/appellate court judges rule on trust law. I'm just a beginner so I might not have it worded correctly. I have been trying to learn trust law, need a whole lot of direction but it's sinking in slowly.
#108
tougher than I thought !
bobjohnsrepa...
Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:36 pm
Hello Sir--
My name is Bob and I am like most others. Studying everyday and trying to understand the most guarded of secrets.
The angels took my wife home last year, cancer, and we fell behind with taxes on a cottage I have had for more than a dozen years.(med bills and lost work hrs, as I am a self-employed horologist. When the court sent a notice of foreclosure, I returned a NOTICE OF MISTAKE to the Clerk of the court, explaining that I am the donor/grantor and co-beneficiary of the trust created with the State.(My understanding is that the COLB from the State is proof of the created trust) I further explained that as donor/grantor for the estate that claims and/or
charges were being made against, that I have the limited privileged right to ask the Court to name the Fiduciary Trustee so the tax benefits and liabilities could be properly assessed and discharged.
The Judge ignored the notice and moved forward with the foreclosure. I called the Michigan Attorney Generals office and spoke to an attorney and explained my circumstances only to find someone who argued that there even exists a trust and used the best circular logic I've ever encountered to put me off. I threw 18 USC Sec. 242 at him, moaned about never having anything signed by a judge and due process violations, actually hoping that he was there to help me.
Bottom line- the cottage is on the taxman's sale come August 14, 2012. I'm telling you all this because I just don't know what I did wrong with my process, if anything. And now I've come to a point that I have to defend my position and find that I'm not as ready as I had once thought. (does the notice of mistake not constitute a trust between the court and myself?)
I know that sovereignty is a state of mind and not something that a piece of paper grants you. I also know that God has brought me to here. And that I should reach out to you. Thank you for reading this and please feel free to respond. I am not asking you to help me "save" the cottage from the taxman, as I have come to realize that material possessions are a sort of curse from the ego. We leave with what we came with. Maybe a few more experiences, hopefully with love. What does bother me though, is the fact that I can not defend myself adequately in an admiralty, commercial court and am at the mercy of the merciless. Not to mention the principle of honesty which is being totally ignored. I am sure you are being slammed with requests for help already, but I am having a little trouble understanding the argument for Article 4, sect. 401, 402. If all ownership is in the name of the State, am I donating property which I have no claim to in the first place?
I hope I have not made you laugh to much as I suddenly see myself as the fellow you described in a posting who ran out and stopped paying his taxes and mortgage. I can assure you that my circumstances were quite different, as I have been trying to be honorable in each and every step I have taken since trying to stay afloat through commercial redemption, set-off and discharge, UCC, A4V, attempting to express the trust and working my tail off!
Bob Johns
(810)355-6167 cell (anytime)
(810)229-5505 work 10-6 m-f
#109 re. #108
Re: tougher than I thought !
artie2011z
Tue Jul 17, 2012 5:46
Disclaimer don't do anything I say.
You don't have much time you might want to join . Post the state your in and other details and see if Monica can help.
This guy claims a 60 day guarantee to stop foreclosure or money back. ( I think the trick is to file bankruptcy)
This article has a negative tone but some interesting ideas
But he and Janet, a 51-year-old real estate agent, make no apology for using every tactic available to them to stay in their house, including challenging the foreclosure sale in court, requesting mediation and claiming they had a tenant living with them. Their adversaries, they argued, are giant financial institutions with armies of lawyers that are out to make as much money as possible at the expense of homeowners.
When a bank does all it can to save itself, that’s good business, Keith said. When a homeowner does the same thing, he’s called a deadbeat.
Git er done!
#114 re. below
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
joshuasdad100
Tue Jul 17, 2012 8:38 am
Good thinking. However, the executor does not enter into the status equation at all. In fact, the way it's been constructed by some, may actually obstruct their remedy. Bill
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder re. #48
embury111
Mon, July 16, 2012 9:48 PM
OK, what I believe the 'two proxies' are....dead. One of the proxies, is the Secured Party Lienor, and the second one is the Secured Holder. You say you cannot file a UCC as a living man, because it would be 'commingling' the dead and the alive, and they do not mix, like 'oil and water'. The Secured lienor has to be recognized as having a security interest in admiralty, and the Secured Holder (Holder in Due Course, herein, "HDC"..., and has approvals and qualifications to collect on it....also, must be 'constructed in a way', to take away fiduciary status from the 'agency'...
You mentioned, in the opening for the group, about the executor, one of the proxies is an Executor - which is an office, which is dead???
This is just me thinking out loud....
#115 re. #108
TOPIC: CRITICAL LESSONS- PLEASE CIRCULATE FAR & WIDE
joshuasdad100
Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:03 am
THANKS FOR POSTING Bob. There are some good lessons here. Please accept my comments in the spirit of learning.............
The major problem is that you didn't have a process at all, or rudimentary understanding of the arena or the remedy. The Court sees that you are operating on a few scant threads of information. You see, the trust wasn't created by your notice. Notice is a trust directive from the beneficiary. The trust was created by the deposit of the complaint into the Court's books. That's when they issued the Case bond to Fidelity. As I've posted before, the complaint is the initiating security future. You didn't understand how to control that deposit, how to convert the trust from implied to express, how to exchange securities, and how to advise them on the tax reporting. You didn't defeat the presumptions that they are the beneficiary and you are the trustee. There are no proxies in place to enforce. And if you're the Grantor, why would you ask them to appoint a fiduciary? Without knowing it, you turned any possible remedy on its ear by doing that. And so on and so on. A knowledgeable Grantor would have set all of this right at the beginning and demonstrated the dire consequences if they trespass on the beneficiary's funds (it's not pretty, and they now it).
From their perspective, you're a trustee gone bad, seeking to horde funds that belong to the beneficiary. They also know they can walk all over you.
I DON'T MEAN ANY OF THIS TO BE CRITICAL. We weren't born with this information. I was blessed with a wonderful teacher who decided to come over to our side.
But I hope it's clear why I've been saying that UNDERSTANDING IS 98 PERCENT OF YOUR REMEDY.
THE REAL LESSON AS I SEE IT IS THIS....TO ALL THE FOLKS AT ALL THE GROUPS DISCUSSING HOW TO DO THIS AND THAT AND THEN TRYING THOSE THINGS WITHOUT REALLY KNOWING WHAT THEY'RE DOING............
DON'T DO IT!
AND IF YOU DO, BE PREPARED TO ACCEPT FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS. DON'T
BLAME THE GURUS, THE OTHER GROUP MEMBERS, OR LUCIFER. THE FATHER PERMITTED
LUCIFER TO THRIVE IN THE HOPE THAT WE WOULD CHOOSE OUR PATHWAY WISELY.
I admire your attitude about losing the property. In my book, you've already won. Bill
#117 re. #114
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
cseafreak
Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:47 am
Monday, July 16, 2012 8:07 PM
Wow, there has been a lot of thought provoking discussion in this group that has driven me to spend the last few days re-reading UCC codes with regard to security interests, secured party lienor/holder, Commercial law, admiralty/maritime law--delving into banking and the works of those who have stepped before like the Beers, Barton Buhtz, Jean Keene, Winston Shrout, Sam Kennedy, Jim Turner, Dan Meador, and so many others who have given their lives as many of us have done to open doors to understanding and the ability to put knowledge into practice--Wisdom. It is a maze and it has been codified beyond understanding to keep us ignorant of how to operate as sovereigns without being ripped off and victimized by the system. And yes, it is frustrating and one can understand the concepts without being able to put forth the correct procedures---because there is minutia in place to keep us from being successful. Look at how long it is taking Freedom Club to be successful.
So -- yes--we need someone who knows and has demonstrated success in a manner that has consistency--not hit and miss, leaving us to wonder "what was the difference that made the difference this time?" The secrets of the
insiders--so we can get in and work within the system with correctness--something you and I were meant to be excluded from. There is a lot of passion--for many of us it has been a lifetime pursuit with great risk attached. We have had to develop our consciousness in order to live in love and allowance and abundance -- developing the ability to find peace within even though we have failed to find a way to be recognized within the system so that we could operate empowered in that arena. From what I am reading no one has yet achieved this except Bill.
Bill your list of possibilities is the dream. I have tried to put together your clues and come up with the following:
I, as the True Person/General Executor of the Estate must create a proxy to act with power in commerce otherwise they assume I am dead and they are the executors/beneficiaries/trustees of the estate. I have no standing. So Proxy 1--create a secured party lienor-- I'm assuming a trust might be the best vehicle for that. Place the Estate into the trust through a security agreement, including the (BC as a security filled out as on the Home page.)
-Who do I name as the trustee?
-Would a corp. or LLC work as well? How about a Corp Sole?
Proxy 2-- Seems like this must be an escrow account of some sort to hold the lien???
-Is this where the "special deposit account" comes in where nothing is co-mingled?
Now do I fill out the UCC1 with the trust I created as the secured party and claim all assets of the estate including the bonds or credit accounts they set up by hypothecating the labor and assets of the living man? Is this how one would gain access to the DTC???
Perhaps I need to perfect a lien in admiralty through administrative process to access the strawman trust???
So again, too many questions--years of trial and error--trying to find a way through the maze--I need a mentor--someone who knows the inside details—seems like you are it Bill.........I really don't want to guess and end up discouraged one more time,
c
#118 re. #48
Whom do I name?
givb332
Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:13 am
Dear Joshua; below is a question for you to tell me whom do I name?
THE SECURITY NEEDS TO BE PLACED INTO THE HANDS OF A QUALIFIED PARTY WHO HOLDS THE SECURITY INTEREST, a holder in due course. Haven't security interests ruled society for centuries? Whom do I name? and what about the second proxy? whom do I name?
Please respond. Thank you
Glenn Vanden Bosch
#120 re. #118
"THANK YOU MS. VITO. YOU'VE BEEN A VERY GOOD WITNESS."
joshuasdad100
Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:36 am
Glenn - PLEASE SEE POSTINGS #48 & 100. I WISH THERE WAS A PAT ANSWER I COULD GIVE YOU. I'm reminded of the prosecutor asking "Ms. Vito" the correct timing on a 1964 Buick Skylark, and she turned to the judge and said "It's a B-S- question. It can't be answered." (My Cousin Vinnie - dare I admit???) NOT to imply that yours is a B.S. question, but you get the point I hope. I truly wish I could condense 8 - 10 hours of discussion into a one sentence answer. IT’S THE UNDERSTANDING, not the name.
You know who cares about names? The judge who's trying to bake your cookies. HE wants a name so he can play the name game.
Very sorry Glenn I don't have the capacity to answer the question. Bill
#121 re. below
TOPIC: TRUTH ABOUT COUPONS & BILLS aka SECURITIES & TRUSTS
joshuasdad100
Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:30 am
NICE WORK KIM.........THE COUPON IS THE ASSET THAT BALANCES THE LIABILITY represented by the bill itself, keeping the net worth equation balanced on the vendor's books. The bill is a trust indenture containing the terms of the trust being established by the delivery of the coupon security to you (15 USC 77ccc). People have been skirting around this information for years, without truly understanding it because they had no knowledge that it was a security future OR that a trust relationship was being created.
Like any security asset, the coupon is just waiting to be guaranteed by a banker's acceptance, which then becomes the new security future which transfers the obligation to perform to the drawee.
Keep in mind, sending these things to the CEO as recommended by PTK is a joke. Little chance they will process them other than the occasional fluke. The problem is the flukes lead everyone else to false conclusions. What you seek is DEPENDABLE setoff, unit for unit.
The strawman isn't a banker, and neither are you in their eyes no matter what you've been led to believe. To be a banker in their system, you'd have to be a fiction. But we can certainly engage proxies to serve that role.
Bill
Re: Response from Credit Card Bank to A4V
Kim Switzer
Tuesday, July 17, 2012 10:44 AM
I got something similar by mail too. That's when I caught on to this definition:
Coupon
The contractual interest obligation a bond or debenture issuer covenants to pay to its debt holders.
Copyright © 2012, Campbell R. Harvey. All Rights Reserved.
Coupon
The interest paid on a bond. That is, the coupon is the amount that the issuer must pay to the holder of each bond in exchange for investing in that bond. Coupons usually are paid every six months. They are called coupons because formerly they were represented by physical coupons on the bond certificate that
had to be clipped and returned to the issuer to receive the interest payment. With the advent of computers, this has become much less common.
Farlex Financial Dictionary. © 2012 Farlex, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Coupon
1. The annual interest paid on a debt security. A coupon is usually stated in terms of the rate paid on a bond's face value. For example, a 9% coupon, $1,000 principal amount bond would pay its owner $90 in interest annually. A coupon is set at the time a security is issued and, for most bonds, stays the same until maturity.
2. The detachable part of a coupon bond that must be presented for payment every six months in order to receive interest. See also clip, coupon clipping. Wall Street Words: An A to Z Guide to Investment Terms for Today's Investor by David L. Scott.
Copyright © 2003 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
#122 re. below
TOPIC: WHICH IS G-D'S WAY...DO WE TAKE OR DO WE EXCHANGE?
joshuasdad100
Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:37 am
Welcome to the Group. Interesting statement you made: "I have been studying the different methods going on 6 yrs now and still have not found someone who is not charging his brother for the information that the creator has given to his children for free."
Here's some old fashioned farm wisdom. We would never take even an egg from a neighbor without giving consideration. If I had presumed otherwise, my Daddy would have tanned my backside. I consider paying someone who blesses me with their time or knowledge or wisdom to be a loving act in exchange for a loving act. I'm honored for the opportunity to show my appreciation.
No surprise that our core beliefs spill over into the Matrix. Under public policy (PL 73-10), EVERYTHING is supposed to be an even exchange of securities. (HJR 192 is not about insurance or other patriot beliefs.) When we exchange securities evenly with no gain, the exchange is tax exempt and we all sleep better.
If the exchange is uneven, then someone owes taxes. Now why do you think people have problems with the agency and the banks? Uneven exchanges CAUSE OUR OWN BOOKS TO GO OUT OF BALANCE. THIS is why WE owe the tax most of the time.
Everything I've been stating at this Group is based upon even-exchange. That's the Lords plan as I see it. In the Bible, payment was almost always with goods. The only I wouldn't barter with is Him.
I've heard many patriots say "It's all about taxes." In most cases they're simply quoting Jean Keating. I've heard very few patriots articulate why. WE OWE TAXES BECAUSE OUR BOOKS ARE OUT OF BALANCE DUE TO AN IMBALANCE IN THE EXCHANGE. For instance, the Court gives you nothing in exchange for using your credit to issue the Court bond. Then it acquires the bond on a 1099. We no longer have an asset n our books. Presto-instant unbalance.........UNLESS WE CORRECT IT.
I suggest it would be to your advantage to examine your commitment to a one-sided exchange on the premise that the Lord created a system wherein his blessing to one is somehow a blessing to all. If He wanted everyone to understand 1099s, don't you think he would have made that information plentiful like the stars in the sky? Sorry to disagree. Bill
RE: Introduction
UUA1 nou
Tuesday, July 17, 2012 12:47 PM
Hi
I just joined the yahoo group Reclaim_Your_Securities. You say you have a wonderful teacher. I have been studying the different methods going on 6 yrs now and still have not found someone who is not charging his brother for the information that the creator has given to his children for free.(meaning they
need money of exchange) So is there really any truth to the money of account? I know I only owe one debt and that is to my creator for giving me the chance of having this experience. I know the sin of the world in creating debt . I know that the system is set up to entice you to do just that. So if the fictional
entities want to claim ownership how does one get them to pay the liabilities that go with ownership? Is that by proving there claim? Do you perform the roll of proxy for others and do you charge again causing me to commit sin (debt)?
:martin-wilbur: Hanson
#123 re. #115
Re: TOPIC: CRITICAL LESSONS- PLEASE CIRCULATE FAR & WIDE
fdmfghr
Tue Jul 17, 2012 3:24 pm
Maybe I don't fully 'understand', but the reason for asking for appointment of a 'fiduciary'/trustee would be essentially, imo, to tell them to clean up their own mess, as the source of whatever is being invoked by the court in the first place?
I don't quite see this as equal to subservient to their system but simply telling them it's up to YOU to make good on your own creation, and I don't see how it does not still permit me to express my state/status as Grantor/co-Beneficiary to the account so created.
#124 re. #123
Re: TOPIC: CRITICAL LESSONS- PLEASE CIRCULATE FAR & WIDE
joshuasdad100
Tue Jul 17, 2012 5:37 pm
Bob, I had a friend who used to fix his plumbing with a hammer. The last time he was working on a gas heater with a cigarette in his mouth. True story. Asking them to appoint a fiduciary is the hammer. APPOINTING THEM as a trustee would be a wrench, and a good start.
One thing I see all the time. When they give me a bill for $100K, I look at it as 100 units to be offset from one ledger to another. The word "dollar" is an emotional trigger. For all of PTK's faults, he had a good courtroom demeanor: "I'm here to collect the bond." Strictly business. Bill
#125 re. #114 (below)
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
joshuasdad100
Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:14 pm
We keep the executor out of things mostly because it takes the message of track. Technically, an executor is a trustee - he holds legal title - he has the obligation of performance - which means he's screwed most of the time.
But if you're clever, a grantor, the entity that gives the orders to Luca Brasi, can do all the magic tricks you might wish to attribute to the executor AND it holds EQUITABLE INTEREST, if he is also the beneficiary. And as all those folks who lost there houses to MERS can tell you, a security interest trumps ownership any day of the week.
Notice, I did NOT say that we were the Grantor. Here's a riddle:
We are.
And we are not.
Oh what a tangled web...
Bill
#126 re. #125
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
dang_78...
Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:06 pm
William,
I think an analogy to what you just stated is how someone would setup an International Corporation and a Foundation. The International Corporation has a beneficial interest in the Foundation.
#127 re. #125
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
bobjohnsrepa...
Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:28 pm
As I logic this out, the strawman is the grantor, or #1 proxy, and the court (holder of the security future, which is a security interest) would be the #2 proxy.
#128 re. #125
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
apokalypse1...
Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:29 pm
I think I am beginning to understand the riddle...our all caps name is the Lucca Brasi (Hit man...trustee), whereas our name is the grantor, Vito... simultaneously.
#129 re. #125
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
bobjohnsrepa...
Tue Jul 17, 2012 8:55 pm
new logic-real-man is grantor/#1 proxy and beneficiary,(from strawman)through trust modification?---- IRS is #2 proxy, for enforcement
#131 re. #129
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
asiaticmigra...
Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:21 am
This joshuasdad pretty clever. The real man don't figure in at all like you said down below. If he did, why would you need some proxy? IRS ain’t no proxy ever except when you appoint them to do something specific. They a trustee on all social accounts which is how they garnish and levy. That’s the reason you need proxies in the first place so they got no trusteeship in the grantor and holder. Don’t that make perfect sense? gg, down below you is right about some of what you say. We use the strawman as the trustee for some of this. but its not the trustee for the trust the court's been construing against you. We appoint the Court - THE JUDGE TRUST - to do that. Sound confusing but it really ain’t. Like the guy say, if they don’t perform then they put themselves in foreclosure and we get the case bond back. But the part where you say the name is the grantor, that’s ain’t right. The living man got no business in admiralty. See Rule 17 with your eyes open. It ain’t about bringing in the real man it talks about allowing its attorney executor to re-present it.
You guys better be listening to what's going on here cause this guy may not be on planet earth long for what he been telling you. You would be making BIG mistake if you read some of these posts and start doing sh--. I see posts that would take weeks to diagram and explain so you know what you doing and how to get the right enforcement. That would be a bad idea brother.
#140 re. #131
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
bobjohnsrepa...
Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:19 pm
Muhammad- It is making more sense now. The JUDGE TRUST is proxy#1(secured party lienor) and the Court is also proxy#2(secured holder). Is that correct?
#143 re. below
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
bobjohnsrepa...
Wed Jul 18, 2012 6:07 pm
am I confused? Isn't rule 17 discussing 'Settlor" ?
re.#125
"embury111" embury111@... wrote:
(7) "Entitlement holder" means a person identified in the records of a securities intermediary as the person having a security entitlement against the securities intermediary. If a person acquires a security entitlement by virtue of Section 8-501(b)(2) or (3), that person is the entitlement holder.
§ 8-501 (b)(2) or (3)
(b) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (d) and (e), a person acquires a security entitlement if a securities intermediary:
(3) becomes obligated under other law, regulation, or rule to credit a financial asset to the person's securities account.
(17) "Security entitlement" means the rights and property interest of an entitlement holder with respect to a financial asset specified in Part 5.
(14) "Securities intermediary" means:
(i) a clearing corporation; or
(ii) a person, including a bank or broker, that in the ordinary course of its business maintains securities accounts for others and is acting in that capacity.
(5) "Clearing corporation" means:
(i) a person that is registered as a "clearing agency" under the federal securities laws;
(ii) a federal reserve bank; or
(iii) any other person that provides clearance or settlement services with respect to financial assets that would require it to register as a clearing agency under the federal securities laws but for an exclusion or exemption from the registration requirement, if its activities as a clearing corporation, including promulgation of rules, are subject to regulation by a federal or state governmental authority.
#146 re. below
TOPIC: COURT, SECURITIES, CASE BOND & TRUSTS --THE INSIDE STORY
joshuasdad100
Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:12
WHAT REALLY HAPPENS IN A COURT CASE AND WHY YOU can WIN…………….
Joel, every security the public issues to you IS SURELY YOUR security regardless of who issued them. Only you can provide the labor (equity) and credit. Do public corporations have credit or equity to post a bond without authorization from an Estate?.............Here's what really happens:
The prosecutor presents an indictment security to the Court (U.S. trust JUDGE TIM TERRIBLE) which deposits it "generally" in the Court's books and issues a case number which creates the case trust with the United States as the presumed beneficiary and the Court as depository institution.
That indictment is actually an assessment, an option dealing with specific performance in the future, a security future defined under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (15 USC 78c), a bet against future performance. The question is, who's going to underwrite (perform on) the bond?
First, they need a trustee. So they go fishing but they don't cast a line or bait a hook. They issue a summons or a warrant – more futures - more bets against future performance.
Who do they intend to hijack as trustee? Your strawman naturally. Because like any vessel, it comes with a surety, a guarantor………your Estate. That's what they're really targeting as surety for the case bond. Until you appear and declare your name, they can't issue the case bond and start making dividends, right?
WRONG!!! They issued the bond when they issued the case number! So until you enter the Court and grant them the presumption of jurisdiction, THEY are on the hook because they voluntarily committed securities fraud by issuing worthless securities without an underwriter, and they also engaged in conspiracy to obstruct US tax laws because they're liable for the taxes (until you consent) and they have no intention of reporting the gain (the OID value of the bond). How do we know? They don't report any of the case bonds because they consider
them to be original issues, which are NON-taxable under the Securities Act of 1933.
The public can NOT claim your securities or else they would suffer a hellish capital gains tax liability. So they seek to CONTROL your securities by presuming that they're the beneficiary and you're the trustee. Once you sign that appearance bond, they have an underwriter (the Estate trust through the Strawman cestui que trust) so they're off the hook for securities fraud, and they have a trustee (the strawman) who's responsible for paying the taxes, so they're off the hook for tax fraud. THIS IS WHY THEY'LL DO ANYTHING TO GET YOUR
SIGNATURE ON THE APPEARANCE BOND AS A DEFENDANT TRUSTEE.
If you do not consent, they have an enormous problem. The case bond becomes a RE-issue, a secondary offering of the original issue (your Estate bond, the birth bond issued by Treasury and traded for currency with the Fed upon your birth). A secondary offering falls under the securities Exchange Act of 1934 AND IS NOT TAX-EXEMPT, so the entire Fidelity fund where they sold the case bond is in jeopardy. This is a catastrophe for the Court. DO you think this knowledge could mean power? KNOWLEDGE IS POWER when dealing with these people, as the Father told us.
People have trouble seeing that everything the public issues with our name on it is a security future based on the presumption that our Estate will pay in the future. They think that unless WE issue the paper, it's not ours. They don't fully appreciate the difference between ownership and security interest. This is understandable. We weren't born knowledgeable. The Warburg’s intended that we remain in darkness. An owner holds legal title, meaning he's liable for taxes, insurance, upkeep, etc. In other words, he's responsible for performance, for all the grunt work, which means he's the trustee by definition. But he doesn't see this because he doesn't really understand trust law, and after all, "He's the owner!" He's living the American Dream. Think about that. We've been conned into dreaming about ownership – the obligation to perform. The Rockefellers must be laughing all the way to the bank.
In contrast, the beneficiary has a security interest, meaning he gets paid or else. He enjoys the distribution of the trust property or he fires the trustee and all title and parties merge in him which is a foreclosure. That's how he
takes the property. The Courts exist to enforce security interests. That's what admiralty's about. That's why patriots lose in Court. Read the special maritime rules regarding "in rem" procedures.
So if you continue to believe that they are not YOUR securities because you didn't issue them, then you're destined for problems. Here's an analogy that may help. It's like when a husband takes control of his wife's money. He doles out $100 so she can buy him beer. When she returns, he asks her for the change. It's HER money, but HE'S pulling the strings and making the rules, the trust directives (just like the Dept of the Treasury).
Then one day he comes home and finds the locks changed and the cops waiting for him. The wife is still buying the household goods, but now she's back in control of the trust funds because the beneficiary (the wife) decided she would fire the trustee.
In other words, one way or the other the Estate's paying the bills. But either the public controls the funds using coercion, presumption and trickery to get you to consent, or you agree to pay up front and take them out of the loop. This is why it's better to get dragged in and have the burden of proof on them, rather than to show up and volunteer (unless you're completely confident in your knowledge of the information in this email).
This explains why we do a security agreement. When you execute a PROPER security agreement (most of them are flawed unfortunately), a proxy WITH STANDING IN ADMIRALTY (unlike the living man) operating on your behalf agrees to pay the strawman's debts in return for a security interest in its property up to a limit (usually $100B). Once perfected and assigned to another proper proxy, you gain standing to pay the same bills the public would pay, but you will be paying them directly on YOUR authorization (bankers acceptance) rather than being coerced by a third party. Either way, payment is extracted from your Estate funds held in trust at The DTC. Prior to that, they presume to tap those funds on your behalf using pledges, and then they solicit your cooperation in fulfilling the pledges by volunteering your Estate when you sign for the strawman.
Once the security interest, lien, proper notice, status, and credentials are in place, your setoffs will be honored unless you piss someone off. IN ANY SUCH SETOFF, THE FIRST THING YOU DO IS TRANSFER THE ASSET BACK TO THE ESTATE THROUGH YOUR PROXY AND REQUEST THAT THEY CREDIT THE TRUSTEE'S ACCOUNT (THE STRAWMAN). If you're not doing that, you're not getting your setoff other than those flukes that manage to slip through. And how can you do this is you don't recognize that all the securities belong to you as the underwriter?
Check the DTC operating arrangements. DTC (through dba Cede & Co) is the registered owner of most securities. YOU'RE the beneficial owner. THEY have to follow the terms of the trust indenture. One way or the other, someone's paying for the indictment security future. That someone is ALWAYS your Estate.
This is what many of the Estate "gurus" don't really understand either. The Estate AS THE PUBLIC SEES IT is NOT David Clarence's private interpretation. It's NOT the holder of a security interest……
The Estate is the Birth Certificate trust.
The Estate is the surety for the strawman's debts.
The Estate is the debtor on your security agreement in most (not all) cases.
When you take control of the Estate, you also take control of all trusts derived from it such as the Strawman cestui que trust. A cestui que trust is simply the beneficiary of an estate that's held in trust. Your strawman is the beneficiary of the public trust that has been presumed to be a trustee instead.
Sure there's a private estate. But it's useless to try to use it to live in this society other than as a hermit. You must engage commerce if you intend to provide your family with quality of life unless you are self-sufficient on a farm.
So whether you issue the securities or they issue them for you, they are YOUR securities because they're derived from and underwritten by the Estate.
Many people seek simple answers. Who's the proxy? Who do I name as the holder? Tell me the steps to do a setoff. Why do I have to know this? This is natural. We all want to know…BUT I HOPE THIS EMAIL MAKES IT CLEAR WHY I KEEP SAYING
UNDERSTANDING IS 98 PERCENT OF THE REMEDY.
TRUE KNOWLEDGE IS EMPOWERING. They hand you a bill, it's a setoff-in-waiting, an accounting transaction, not a slap in the face. They drag you into Court, it's an opportunity to express your trust, appoint your trustee, claim your bonds if they don't perform, capture the case bond, and demonstrate why they should never ever mess with you again.
Yes, the doctrine of understanding causes fits in some people. But if information in this email is new to you, don't you suddenly feel empowered? STUDYING IS A PAIN IN THE NECK ONLY IF THE INFORMATION IS IRRELEVANT OR THEORETICAL OR YOU'RE RUNNING IN CIRCLES AS HAS HAPPENED TO SO MANY PATRIOTS. BUT Tapping into truth is electrifying. When I realized what I did NOT know, I sacrificed everything to correct my shortcomings. I hope this email demonstrates that the need for understanding is itself a self-evident truth.
If the information in this email is NOT new to you, then please visit the Yahoo Group RECLAIM YOUR SECURITIES and post some of your wisdom. The members will appreciate it.
Understanding securities, estates and trusts is practical not theoretical. When the Court is returned back to the role of Trustee, then ALL THE STATUTES AND CODES WHICH COMPRISE THE TRUST INDENTURE FOR THE PUBLIC TRUST APPLY TO IT instead of the strawman, including the tax implications. Their ability to ignore their own rules goes out the window and they revert to ministerial rather than discretionary duty. Imagine a JUDGE TRUST that must follow the rules.
When the Lord said My people perish for lack of knowledge, it's as if he had patriots in mind. I continue to stress gaining an understanding of securities and trusts. The Reclaim Your Securities Group is the tiniest tip of the iceberg, but at least its something.
Bill
Re: status and setoff re. below
Persona Non grata iamabaldman@...
Wednesday, July 18, 2012 9:48 AM
Bill,
Thanks for your response. I have read through the material, and I agree with what your philosophy states. I too understand that the system is for an even exchange. This goes right back to the Banking Act of 1864...(please read the attached) which was set up as a clearing house for financial transactions. I disagree with your view on the filing of the UCC-1...we have seen to many positive results with the filings. (UCC-1 notices a superior claim) Also, the name of your group is 'reclaim YOUR securities"... how can they be MINE if I did not create them? I know this is a newer group, and you are trying to put forth your ideas....and ideas are great...but I have not read any 'success' stories as of yet... maybe I missed those. Kinda like that Patrick Devine character.....every year he has a new idea and tells it to people and for some reason people go down his road....a road he has not...and get in trouble. Fact is, we should have never been using FRN's...and all 'bills' should be setoff from the get go ...and we become 'no'bill-ity." I have never heard the phrase 'dependable setoff" ...yes it is true that a 'bill' for numbers cannot equal a FRN...but the FRN is the legal tender used by corporations. Maybe A4V (setoff) would work properly if we all closed all our accounts, gave back all the frn's, accepted the CoLB as a contract under seal, and exercise the right to setoff through the director of Vital Stats?
joel
Re: status and setoff re. below
William Robert joshuasdad100@...
Monday, July 16, 2012 7:56 PM
Joel, please see posting #48 at our little group. You have no security interest
in the BC (until you process a lien against it). The strawman is a trustee on it
and has the obligation to perform.
Bill
iamabaldman iamabaldman@...
Monday, July 16, 2012 10:45 AM
status and setoff
Thanks for your posts. I have been working toward the exercise of right to setoff, and the only way I thought it was possible was to file the ucc-1, to show the higher claim, and then to notice any claimant the exercise of setoff from that position. After reading your posts, it seems that a perfected lien is what is needed and NOT a ucc-1 filing. A question I would have is 'if a man cannot be seen in admiralty, who/what can have a perfected lien against the BC or BC name?" also, IMO, the issuer has a security interest in the BC, but really only 10% as the child has the equitable interest of 90% (not ownership)...so are you suggesting that the child must 'assign' his interests to a proxy so the proxy can be 'seen' in admiralty? And then have the proxy set up a 'zero balance' or setoff or closed account at the treasury or a bank to perform the setoff?
Thanks for taking the time in reading and hopefully answering this have a great day
a man called joel
#154 re. below
Re: Changing my name...help appreciated
still.christ1
Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:26 pm
Ok, thanks Sovran(s).
So, when I fill out the forms to go into court, I sign with the name I am now using? And when I get into court, I announce my title/address as "Sovran"?
I'm ok with the idea that the result is a new fictional ID that is not unduly burdened any more than the free-est ID on the planet. Would it also be a debtor? That is the domain of fiction, imo. But that is not something I would accept long-term and wish to work toward as much "discharge" as possible under the prevailing/ruling system. Primarily, I’m looking first toward uniformity of appellation across all forms of ID referencing the individual person. If someone is surprised about my name, I want to pull out a drivers license or other suitable ID...for fun. I would prefer to do that through the system, than through China or whatnot ("fake" ID). I understand its a bit of a game, and have no intention of bowing down any more than what seems absolutely necessary. I want to be able to go to the bank and open an account under the new name, even have social security administration notified. But I don't want to make new contracts that enforce old notions of law.
So any help is appreciated. How about help on just what is the very next step; going to court to notify the system of my intentions. How do I sign the court documents going in, how do I justify being called Sovran, and how will that affect the court proceedings. How will I conduct myself according to my title?
Last but not least, how do I get the exclamation mark included!
Thanks again!
Still Christ!
private sovereign people wrote: re. below
What is being overlooked when in court the judge specifically is calling you Mr., Mrs., Miss, or Ms, as if you do not correct him that your title is Sovran to gain jurisdiction. The judge needs both Subject Matter Jurisdiction and In personam Jurisdiction to move a court forward. Mr. is the lowest civilian militia title to-be court martialed if for a crime, while Sovran the judge is your servant with you as king of the courtroom with you as judge being the source of the law by being one of the absolute sovereign people. On my Driver License
when I sign it I do so as: Sovran: Dennis-Allen with no last name so there is no mistake they know and I know what my status in law is. The last name is a fiction called in Latin according to Black's Law Dictionary is the Nomen. The Christian name given to you by your parents is your appellation. As an American you are defined as a "Foreign Government" per 18 USC 11, and the definition of an individual is 5 USC 552a(a)(2). The administrative judge in fiction under color of law has not jurisdiction over an individual per Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure under Applicability - Rule I(b)(7), and 18 USC 18. Definition: Mister
2. 2) noun, naval a) the official form of address for subordinate or senior warrant officers b) the official form of address for all officers in a merchant ship, other than the captain c) navy the official form of address used by the commanding officer to his officers, esp. to the more junior Source:
Changing ones name to a complete new fiction is your sovereign birth right to be called anything you choose.
As a sovereign you have full immunity per 28 CFR 1604, 22 USC 288, and 18 USC 112.
Re: Changing my name...help appreciated re. below
eponymous_680
Thursday, July 19, 2012 5:09 PM
In my opinion, a new name is just as much a legal fiction as your 'old name', it's just a title, in which you are construed as being trustee, via an implied trust. You will be just as liable for the title, 'Still Christ (with or without an "!", as you are for the name you already use....in my opinion. It's still a debtor, through and through....poor thing.
A name is just a legal title, into which you pour all your equity - and it's converted into FRNS, in which the 'agency' has exclusive jurisdiction over. We do not own that name, and neither do we want to, because, as Bill has said, in ownership, lies full legal liability, and we don't want that, obviously. And, again, sovereignty, as Peter has pointed out, in the earlier posts, means nothing to the 'dead' world, of 'corpse-rations' [sic]. If I'm wrong on any of this, please let me know!
still.christ1
Changing my name...help appreciated
Reclaim_Your_Securities@
Thursday, July 19, 2012, 1:26 PM
Hello good ones...A year ago I decided to change my name starting with the way I introduce myself to people. This had nothing to do with the sovereignty movement and everything to do with philosophy, which for me, boils down to I/identity. I procrastinated with the "legal" side of it for lack of funds. Meanwhile, I have felt the heavy weight of needing to use the old legal name for various kinds of transactions. I want to completely clean up this mess and am now ready to do the "legal" deeds, but in the meantime have discovered that there are potential hooks involved in that. Up until a couple months ago, for example, I would not have been able to tell you what a straw-man was, the way it is understood here. So I want to finish this process right, redeem the straw-man and eventually discharge it...or whatever it is I ought to do with it to reflect my philosophy, which, coincidentally does involve the concept of sovereignty. I see that I have more work to do than I anticipated. I see that the mere act of filing in the court system for a new legal name could be fraught with temptation. What does it imply? I would rather tell them what my new name will be, rather than ask them. Another issue; I want to include an exclamation mark in my name: Still Christ! I sometimes tell this joke; I'll stop saying I’m Christ when people stop saying I’m not!' I'm not trying to be special. I also recommend everyone change their name to this one name! Kind of like in that movie Spartacus where everyone says, 'I am Spartacus'. It would really confuse the Committee of 300. It would force them to use purely numbers to identify anyone...unless that's what they are already doing! The exclamation mark is problematic when signing up for web services. The little box simply won't accept certain types of characters (pun intended). How much less when it comes to, say, a drivers license...which
#159 re. #143
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
joshuasdad100
Thu Jul 19, 2012 10:54 pm
Fed Rules of Civil Procedure. Bill
#160
How to stop a third party debt collector - Mortgage Deed Successor in Interest
craigboening...
Fri Jul 20, 2012 1:04 am
I have survived a long administrative battle with the "original creditor" and REMIC. Back in 2010 the REMIC/Creditor voluntarily dismissed a state law suit for slander of title and could not foreclose.
I now have a third party debt collector attempting to contract with me and is making settlement offers as low as 12K on an original 96K debt.
How can I utilize these techniques to make the third party debt collector disappear?
Advise is welcome and appreciated.
#162 re. #95
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: FINAL WORD ON STATUS, STUDIES, CONSENSUS---for this Group
surprized_daily
Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:35 am
Hi Bill, I want to start by saying Thank you for putting the group together and sharing your experiences with us! I too can sense this is the group I've been chasing my tail to find! I've NOT acted on any of the past 4 years research I've came across......why? Because I couldn't feel it, in the heart, I think you'll totally comprehend what I am meaning there?!? I immediately felt it in the heart when I found this group the other night. Then to my surprise when I went to check my email, I found where I was sent both the files, I'd already downloaded the Uniform Trust Code manual. Why do I bring this up? No other group I've joined until this one has ever done such! That just confirmed a little more to me this was the group I'd been chasing the tail to find! I've eyes to see & ears to hear! I sense those who know how to crack the code of the "Matrix" are on this group and have set my sights on those few, in hopes one or more of them will be willing to tutor me ......privately of course! Eager and willing student available 24/7...... Glad I was led by the spirit to find the group
Geo aka Surprized Daily :o)
#164 re. below
Re: TOPIC: WHICH IS G-D'S WAY...DO WE TAKE OR DO WE EXCHANGE?
givb332
Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:01 am
Where do I receive this information to fill out and retain for I have a summons to appear before Aug. 13th, 2012 @ 10:00am. Please forward this information to me so I can have ready by that date. I thank you and I do appreciate all you information.
God Bless.
Glenn I Vanden Bosch
for mankind is naked owner of his image and usufruct
On 7/19/2012 10:53 PM, Some Dude wrote:
Greetings
all ... new to the group and I do hope the experiences and viewpoints I have will assist others..
I hold to the self-evident truth, the Armageddon will occur in between the ears wherein the light of truth will burn away the crap held as truth. As everyone must go through this process, the only thing to determine is the degree of the burn.
As such, I do not believe one must spend thousands of hours studying securities and trusts.... I personally rely on intuition and what is revealed to me by way of firsthand knowledge, experiences, and a huge helping of divine inspiration and guidance. Most of this is simple common sense and comprehension of one word; usufruct. After all, when in Rome, right?
In layman's terms, one has already invested in the restaurant, so why does one pay for the meals? The only thing is, in this restaurant, the patrons also supply the ingredients the chefs and servers (governments and corporations) use to prepare the menu items.
.for mankind is naked owner of his image and usufruct with respect to the fruits of his image because his nature is his fruit; on an individual level as well a collective and as one can tell a man by the god he worships, the god mankind worships is self-evident by the fruit he produced in service of the image of his nature; change the fruit
tendered into the usufruct, change the direction of man .. And right now, what god is self-evident with respect to the direction of man? ..Mankind was created to evolve into whatever mankind is to be; creationism and evolution are mutually symbiotic.
I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;"
that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it.“ Letter from Jefferson to Madison Sep. 6, 1789
"Usufruct" is a "duality trust" ... it consists of an "account receivable and an "account payable"
....the "beneficial interest holder" of the "account receivable" or "user of the fruit" is "the public trust" and licenses or grants usufruct to others via adverse possessionary system or statutes, codes, rules, and regulations, etc : nested usufruct upon usufruct
....the "beneficial interest holder" of the "account payable" or "the one to whom usufructuary duties is owed" is
"the one" or "live birth receipt holder" or "spoliated (plundered, robbed, or ruined) owner" or "fee owner" or naked owner
... both account payable and account receivable are just "interests" or "all the estate" ....held "in trust" or abeyance
I have found thru personal experience, ownership is adverse possession for it is slavery a claim of ownership is a claim to be owned and freedom is sold or advertised or adversely enticed as slavery or socialism (for lack of
a better word) while slavery is sold or advertised or adversely enticed as freedom or capitalism (again, for lack of a better word).
from the book .... practice and proceedings in probate courts page 122-23
"Upon complaint made to the probate court by an executor, administrator, heir, legatee, creditor, or other person interested in the estate of a person deceased, against any person suspected of having fraudulently received, concealed, embezzled, or conveyed away, any money, goods, effects, or other estate, real or personal, of the deceased, the court may cite such suspected person, though he is executor or administrator, to appear and be examined on oath, upon the matter of the com- plaint. If the person so cited refuses to appear and submit to examination, or to answer such interrogatories as are lawfully propounded to him, the court may commit him to the jail, there to remain in close custody until he submits to the order of the court. The interrogatories and answers shall be in writing, signed by the party examined, and filed in the probate court.
Like proceedings may be had upon complaint of a guardian, ward, creditor, or other person interested in the estate of a ward, or having claims thereto in expectancy as heir or otherwise, against any one suspected of having fraudulently concealed, embezzled, or conveyed away any of the estate of the ward. The suspected person may be cited, though he is the guardian.
The authority given to the probate court by the above provisions extends only to an examination for the purpose of discovery. No other power is given. The examination is not to be controlled by other evidence; nor can relief be directly granted upon it by any decree of the probate court. The process can only result in a disclosure of facts to serve as the basis of other proceedings."
The above 3 paragraphs describes every single "court case" or "bill" or "collections notice" ... "the
presumption" is "the one" currently using "NAME" is in "adverse possession" or "trustee de son tort" the one
using NAME is a "trustee" or "fiduciary" of the "public trust" whose "functional operational disclosure" is vested within the last line of the "Declaration of Independence"; whose "functional operational administration" is vested within the "Lieber Code"; and whose "functional operation" is vested within Job 32: 21-22 .unless the trust receipt or live birth certificate or revenue receipt has been redeemed by the one entitled or authorized;
evidenced by footprint .but since one was not present at birth, the contract or gift is incomplete, so why not complete the gift?
"...and with a firm reliance upon divine providence and in support of this declaration we mutually pledge "our life" (to a purpose higher than ourselves), "our fortunes" (for our kingdom is not of this earth), and "our sacred honor" (we will adhere to this pledge for this is the will of the creator; surrender ownership)." This is the basis of the "public trust"; if only we live up to the intent.
Lieber Code article 2 works in conjunction with Hague Article 43; restoration of public order and safety ... wherein there are 3 essential tasks to be carried out;
1. Peaceful inhabitants live their lives day to day ...
2. Establish an agreement mutually beneficial to both occupant and peaceful inhabitant....
3. Government exists to administrate the agreement and since the occupying army must exist as a condition of the peace agreement per Article 2 of the Lieber Code, the occupying army becomes the government administrating the agreement or servicing agent or United States and since the United States or its army also appropriates from the titles held in possession via Article 38 of the Lieber Code, it also is usufructuary of public
buildings and agricultural estates via Hague Article 55 and natural operation of law, which apparently those live birth certificates represent; an agricultural estate or land which is people or inhabitants.
Now, the "agreement" is already in place via Article 31 and 38 of the Lieber Code which works in conjunction with Article 55 of The Hague; occupying army is regarded only as administrator and usufruct of all public buildings, agricultural estates, etc and must operate them in accordance with the rules of usufruct. Article 38 of the Lieber Code is the issuance of "receipts" to the "spoliated owner" which will serve to "indemnify" the owner should the owner not have fled and this is where the "presumption" resides.... the "live birth certificate" IS the receipt demonstrating "LABOR and DELIVERY" or "usufructuary interest" or "letter of credit" has been "deposited" with "the State" via "special deposit", however, the gift is incomplete; delivered by way of seisin (possession or right to possession of an estate of freehold) in law; livery.
"Livery" (or delivery) by "seisin in law" occurred when the parties to the transaction went within sight of the land to be conveyed and the transferor declared to the recipient that possession had been granted. This constituted however only an incomplete conveyance and as "equity will not complete and incomplete gift and as "one must do equity to receive equity", why not just complete the gift and receive the promise for all the title or value or tithing has been delivered, nothing withheld; give everything, take what you need.
Remember King Solomon, the little old lady, and the rich businessman? Who was protected?
Remember King Solomon, the two women, and the baby? Who was delivered the baby and why did the delivery occur?
If one has not redeemed the "revenue receipt" or "trust receipt" or "live birth receipt", then the "presumption" is "the one" "associated" with the "live birth" has either "fled" or "abandoned" the "estate" or "interests" and under "operation of law", those "interests" are "held in trust" with "the issuer" of "the receipt" ... Those "interests" serve as "collateral" for "first lien security instruments" or Federal Reserve Notes or evidence of indebtedness or "contractual obligations to pay in the future for considerations presently received" to "the one" for the "use and benefit" of "the fruit" or "credit" of "the one" .... Creating a "usufruct" by way of "operation of law.... when "the one" "redeems" "the receipt", then "the one" "creates exception" of "trust property" from "trusteeship" by the "administrators" and "executors" of the "public trust" .in essence, a naked trust within the public trust.
The "contract under seal" also serves as the "delaying tactic" mentioned in earlier post because the only way one can ever perform on an obligation is to trespass upon the original contract. I personally have used "Why do agents of an entity whose motto appears to be "in god we trust" keep demanding I trespass on the claims of "god" by committing an act of idolatry"? As to demand otherwise would be "impairment of obligation of contract" and the "contract under seal", being a "usufruct," means the "one with claim" or "usufructuary" has
"exclusive" "right, privilege, and duty" to fulfill the "obligation" in service of the usufructuary duties or "account payable".
Get ready, because this is where mental health will come into play and I am of the belief mental health exists as a safeguard or check and balance one can use to one’s advantage. It appears the qualifying of mental health or competence is can one provided assistance to defend? and does one appreciate the charges? Can either occur if there is a contract or covenant in place preventing one from doing just those actions? So, one would be incompetent or lacking in the skills necessary and in my experience, the holy grail of incompetence is irrecoverable which means one should never be subjected to drugs or confined to mental health hospital
because it serves no benefit.
Since, NAME is an "idol" or a "graven image" and if one claims to be as such, would one violate the 1st Noahhide Law and 2-4th commandments? What is the punishment for "idolatry"? One is beheaded ever look at a driver license? And becomes the blood sacrifice by way of capital-ism or capitalization on the sin or bonded in stocks and traded on the market as commodities and securities while the body, bonded by word and deed, is warehoused for safe keeping.
NAME = "Jesus"
STATE = "god"
One then plays the part of "Judas" and "offers" "Jesus" to "Pontius"; the pieces of silver paid to Judas serves to indemnify one from the civil suicide.
or
NAME = "Isaac"
STATE = "god"
One then plays the part of Abraham and offer "the gift" to the "altar" have "full faith and credit" "god" will not destroy "his gift"
This is where "Job 32:21-22" comes into play because then one does not give flattering title to his brother; neither does one accept another man's "person" or "trusteeship"; for to do otherwise would surely be "taken away by one's maker", all of it serving to "honor god" "on earth" by "giving the glory" to the "god of this world" or "satan" and fulfilling "god's promise" to "satan" to "give him a kingdom to rule over" which in turn "gives glory" to "god" in "heaven" because you "honored" god "on earth". "satan" is STILL a servant of "god" but is bound to "not disturb" "free will". Which is why there is "advert - tisements" or "adverse enticements"; "satan"
can never "de-liver" or "free from wardship"; "satan" can only "promise de-livery".
The "federal reserve note" is nothing but a first lien security instrument; "evidence" the "recipient" of the
"parcel" "delivered" "at birth" has made "beneficial use" of the "parcel" and all that is left is the "reciprocation" of the "indemnification" which IS the public debt obligation referenced in the 14th Amendment and the "live birth certificate" is a "contract under seal" of which the "public trust" "services" via "usufruct" and whomever makes a "claim" is doing nothing but claiming to be a "usufructuary" for the "live birth cert" which is nothing but a "survey of land" and even the military JAG manuals state "one is said to enjoy a usufruct or be a usufructuary if one has a claim of a special kind for life or some lesser period." (see: Law of Belligerent Occupation)
The live birth certificate is basically a receipt for the accomplished act to sue one’s livery which refers to the formal recognition of a noble's majority, in exchange of payment, for conferring the powers attached to his
title, and thereby freeing him from dependence as a ward. So, complete the gift thru the usufruct and fulfill the law as all men and women who pledge or agree with this idea called Declaration of Independence are kings
and queens in their own right with their persons secured.
When "the one" "redeems" "the receipt", why would "the one" seek to "destroy" what is already been "created" for the "benefit and advantage of all" instead of "fulfilling the law" per "the contract under seal" or "birth certificate" or "revenue receipt" of which the "beneficial interest holder" of the "account receivable" has "already exercised beneficial use"? Use what is for the foundation of the next kingdom, why remake the wheel?
What is so wrong with using "forgiveness" of "contractual obligations to pay in the future for considerations presently received" or "first lien security instruments" or evidence of indebtedness or Federal Reserve Notes or obligations of the United States as "set-off" for any "claim" of "duty or performance" brought against "the one" by and/or through "the NAME" provided, which appears to be nothing more than a "trust transmitting utility" ..... "the energy" or "fruit" of "the one" is "transmitted" to "the public trust" while the "disposal rights" or "exceptions" are retained by "the one" as a result of the "operation of natural law" within the "environment"?
"the one" is NOT the "beneficiary" of "the public trust" ... the whole of mankind is ... "the public trust" was
"created" so one could observe "Job 32: 21-22" for it seems when "man" is given unto "flattering titles", it seems "the head" gets "swelled" causing "the body" to become "ungrounded"; "the maker taken him away", a way to operate without worshiping false and graven images or idolatry and the other deadly sins in the commercial world; free will maintained.
Now, the trustees and fiduciaries are not trustee and fiduciary with respect to the one, but of the usufructuary duties, which is in the best interests of the trust or state for the life blood are those interests held in trust.
Why do people wish to live in a world where only one party benefits? Why not benefit everyone?
It is all waiting for us to come "claim" our "birthrights" or "no bill ability" has already been "secured" and anyone getting in the way is in breach of fiduciary duty for those acts are act of adverse possession with respect to the estates or "interests" held in trust for the peacemakers.
"The trust" or "state" has already made "beneficial use" of the "value" or usufructuary interest so the trust or state invoked the rule of usufruct when the event occurred, evidenced by the issuance of a first lien security instrument or Federal Reserve Note, and "the trust" or "state" is now the "usufructuary" with respect to "the people" and "the people" provide "the trust" or "state" with everything "the trust" or "state" needs and requires to survive and evolve into what "the people" wish it to be; "self-evident" "image" of "the god" "the people" "worship," just as a good creator does and one fulfills the law, not destroys.
And all in harmony with Law of Nations for the host nation has extended its hospitality to the "stranger and sojourner" and the stranger only need observe the customs of the host nation which is found within the last line of "Declaration of Independence" and as insurance against "presumptions" or "assumptions" of "adverse possession""complete usufructuary interest" is "surrendered" by way of "special deposit" at birth with the "spoliated", "naked", "fee", and "bonitary"(beneficial, as opposed to statutory or civil) "ownership interests" retained by "the one" as those "interests" still constitute part of the "aggregate wealth of origination" and just because a "stranger" or "foreigner" or "alien" "visits" the "host nation", the same remains a part of the nation of origin ....
I do not know about anyone else, but I do not recall ever surrendering allegiance to my maker and it appears, as Blackstone so eloquently stated, "And consequently as man depends absolutely upon his maker for every thing,
it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his maker's will"
2Co 5:20 Now then we are Ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ’s stead, that be ye reconciled to God.
#165
help getting started
mancalledman...
Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:13 am
I'm new to the forum and skeptical about many of your statements that come across as absolute fact, with little or no substantive information being supplied with them.
Please understand that I am also enthusiastic about learning and it is my desire to better appreciate what you are promoting, and in this manner, I ask the following;
In a recent post (July 17 to Bob Johns) you mentioned you were "blessed with a wonderful teacher who decided to come over to our side."
With all respect for privacy and protecting this party's identity, could you enlighten me as to the specifics of this party's prior experience and why we would accept that this party's knowledge (or your knowledge)is as you say?
#170 re. #165
Re. help getting started.........CULTIVATING THE "BEGINNER'S MIND"
joshuasdad100
Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:07 am
Dear help getting started: Skepticism is healthy. It means you won't try anything you don't understand.......Some things are self-evident. A trust's a trust. A security's a security. But please do not accept anything that violates
your sensibilities. Better that you experience the indescribable joy of pursuing knowledge, information and wisdom on your own terms. I wish you all good fortune on your journey. Bill
#172 re. #164
Re: TOPIC: WHICH IS G-D'S WAY...DO WE TAKE OR DO WE EXCHANGE?
givb332
Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:22 am
Dear Sir of Ms; I have read and re-read. You still have not told me WHERE to get the information from? Please either supply or tell me where I can receive this information. Thank you.
Glenn I Vanden Bosch
#174 re. #172
Re: TOPIC: WHICH IS G-D'S WAY...DO WE TAKE OR DO WE EXCHANGE?
joshuasdad100
Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:40 pm
Not sure what information you're referring to, Glenn. There are a handful of people who possess the knowledge of how to handle the summons you mentioned in the manner described in this Group. I wish I could say that gaining a mastery of commerce as it actually works in time for a hearing on August 13th is humanly possible. Perhaps Aug 13, 2013 if the Lord is willing. As you know, the Lord delivers on His own schedule, not ours. My experience is that when we finally reach bottom and our sincerity is unbridled, Yehoshua makes his presence known. You might search the web for an interview of Dan Baumann, the fellow who survived an Iranian prison by offering friendship in the name of Jesus to his torturer. Bill
#178
CESTUI QUE VIE = BENEFICIARY
ladyfairfax3...
Fri Jul 20, 2012 3:38 pm
Hi everyone,
I'm new and I just want to throw this out here and see what response it gets. It seems to me all the uproar about "1666 Cestui Que Vie Act" is just smoke and mirrors. In my research, it isn't really a bad thing that was done on the face of it. What was bad is the lack of disclosure to the general population that it affects. The term Cuestui simply means beneficiary. Sure they legally declare dead the beneficiary and don't bother telling us we are supposed to claim something, but they are managing the assets for us. Here are a couple of examples to take the emotional charge from the term. I just found this one... and have been reading this one for about 2 weeks now. \AAIAAJ
Anyone who has followed Clint Richardson's work "Corporation Nation," will have heard of the CAFR funds held by all the counties and municipalities. Those are the unclaimed estates. We just have to figure out how to re-express the trust and claim our proper role in the management of the assets. We keep being made the negligent trustee. Sure that's what we act like, but no one told us the rules. It's not so hocus pocus and esoteric once you are aware of who you are and they are notified to correct their presumptions.
#180 re. #160
TOPIC: TOUGH LOVE FOR ALL WHO HAVE IMPENDING ISSUES:
joshuasdad100
Fri Jul 20, 2012 5:58 pm
Craig, I'm glad you sent your email. Obviously I've been receiving more requests for help than I could address in ten lifetimes. Your email has crystallized my thinking
Here are people's choices:
1. Take the red pill and stay in Wonderland (hire an attorney, pray, work within the system);
2. Take the blue pill and learn how to devour the Matrix. Unfortunately, there are no program routines to teach you Kung Fu. It will probably take six months or more to move from present levels of grab-bag education to Neo.
3. Or you can...........
Heck, there is no number 3. I WISH I COULD TELL EVERYONE WITH A HEARING NEXT WEEK, A FORECLOSURE NEXT MONTH, A SUMMONS ON THEIR DESK, THAT HELP IS ON THE WAY. That somehow they can be programmed to instant expertise.
The fact is, with few exceptions, NO AMOUNT OF PAPERWORK will overcome the deficit in knowledge, experience and confidence. Many judges have seen it all before. They're experts. They will blow it aside in the first minute; the moment he asks your name or threatens contempt or other coercive weapons. At that very
moment, there's nothing you can say that will turn things around if you don't truly understand the intricacies of the Matrix and the potent remedies available to a full status creditor or a true Christian sovereign.
This is the world of commerce the Father has permitted Lucifer to construct to give us a clear choice. No magic bullets, No shortcuts. One needs to grow into a deep rooted oak tree if (s)he is to resist the winds of commercial fascism, aka trusteeship.
When dealing with public officials, always remember THERE IS NO HARD TOO HEART FOR JESUS TO LOVE HIM. Showing His love can, indeed, stay the executioner's hand. More than anything, your remedy is your Faith.
Bill
#181 re. #180
Re: TOPIC: TOUGH LOVE FOR ALL WHO HAVE IMPENDING ISSUES:
artie2011z
Fri Jul 20, 2012 6:13 pm
You mentioned a "bevy of tax forms and filings needed to make it happen" over at the a4v forum. It should not take 10 lifetimes to cut paste the list of forms and filings so we can study them and submit. Any else think Bill should do this?
What would Jesus do? Peace
#182 re. #181
TOPIC: BRAIN SURGERY ANYONE?
joshuasdad100
Fri Jul 20, 2012 6:55 pm
TO ARTIE: See posting 180, 174 and 100. How about I give you a copy of Grays Anatomy and you can do some quick brain surgery this weekend?
Artie, if I was to give you even one form, you wouldn't be able to hazard a guess as to what to enter in boxes 2 - 12. If I pasted in the answers, you wouldn't have a clue as to what they mean. Even if I explained the answers,
which would take many hours, you wouldn't have the foundation to understand how they interrelate. I don't imagine Jesus would give you a loaded gun to commit suicide.
No, it shouldn't take 10 lifetimes, Artie. I understand your impatience and sympathize. That's just the way it is. The first understanding, is to just understand. Bill
#183 re. #180
Re: TOPIC: TOUGH LOVE FOR ALL WHO HAVE IMPENDING ISSUES:
ladyfairfax3...
Fri Jul 20, 2012 7:05 pm
I am so glad to hear the 6 month training estimation. It just so happens that is just how long I have been obsessively studying everything I can get my hands on that addresses this subject.
#186 re. below
Re: TOPIC: BRAIN SURGERY ANYONE? 2nd Notice
joshuasdad100
Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:21 pm
You are so correct embury111. I'm afraid that Artie's a tragedy in waiting. He'll have to find another Kevorkian. Bill
P.S. My wish for all patriots is that they will cultivate the ability to learn from other people's mistakes.
Re: TOPIC: BRAIN SURGERY ANYONE? 2nd Notice re. below
embury111 embury111@...
Friday, July 20, 2012 11:09 PM
And...this is pretty much why prisons are full of patriots....
Re. #182
Artie Ada wrote:
"bevy of tax forms and filings needed to make it happen"
Just post the list. I am a big boy.
#187 re. #180
Re: TOPIC: TOUGH LOVE FOR ALL WHO HAVE IMPENDING ISSUES:
locomotivate
Sat Jul 21, 2012 5:08 am
You could go the route of asking the third party to provide the contract. We have a questionnaire we use to get rid of third party interloper debt collectors, that are fishing. or you could go before a judge, if you feel confident, and set off the debt, or you could do a negative averment, which they cannot prove, asking them to prove that you are not the beneficiary of the DOE, JOHN H., trust, or the name in ANY derivative all else fails and certain parties did not perform......writ of mandamus that is in Kanuckistan. I am not at the level in commerce to do the estate duck walk yet, we have successfully gotten rid of many debt collectors for people, they are one of the easiest, but it's still not in honour or remedy we are all about remedy.
#188 re. #182
Re: TOPIC: BRAIN SURGERY ANYONE?
locomotivate
Sat Jul 21, 2012 5:25 am
It is my understanding that God owns it all through the Vatican trusts. The thirteen banking families were to administer the trust. They were also to help the men and women that know who they are and stepped forward, regardless of how, but especially through scripture. Luke 11 and 22 come to mind here.
There is no money, only bills of exchange and paperwork. Yes everything is a trust, and when trustees get negligent, the whole world gets into a mess like it is now.
Agree with them. The whole system is bankrupt so you can do set off and adjustments, that is my understanding. At least that is the fact here in Kanuckistan. Although we have been blocked all the way by the Bar associates. Not been in front of a judge in a while, but that may be the next step for us.
Agreement and doing the right paperwork to convey your understanding and message are the keys. If you argue, toast. As God is all about love and facts. Living men and women are beneficiaries. Period. When you understand that, and do not go in pro se, certain things are supposed to happen. They have not happened for us yet.
Just stand your ground and there is basically nothing they can do. A beneficiary to a trust has no liability, zero. The Vatican, took on the responsibility, through it various agents, the bank of England, the bank of Canada, and the rest of the ilk in the public to do certain jobs for the sons and daughters, their agents are not fulfilling their duties. To my understanding there needs to be a good house cleaning, especially here in Canada, so that sons and daughters can be honoured, and certain individuals told what is really going on and how the trusts agents are blocking people.
Beneficiaries are not supposed to know how to do paperwork. They are to be taken care of....they are not.
All of the above, I have the paperwork to prove. Maybe what is happening right now on the planet is biblical, in end times the tribe of David is to be resurrected, maybe this is happening, through them collapsing their so-called system, and putting everything under one planetary govt., maybe it is to give sons and daughters the remedy....but so far it has not happened for us.
Has anyone/body has made their trust work here.
Are there places in western New York one can make a special deposit on a trust instrument, so the agents can perform their duties for a son?
Are there Trustees there that actually have honour and know their duty?
We have not been able to find them in Ontario.
Dishonoured all the way, using Gods Laws, the scriptures.
For a little more on what I am saying here see: Christian Walters - Moving Titles (not exactly sure, not at home to look up the papers), Alfred Adask, Dean Clifford , and Santos Bonacci (describes the timeline of how the trusts were formed, etc.), they come at this from different perspectives but have good information, all of them, especially CW.
Thank you for putting this group together!
love to all
T
#189 re. #187
Re: TOPIC: TOUGH LOVE FOR ALL WHO HAVE IMPENDING ISSUES:
zykue3
Sat Jul 21, 2012 6:11 am
My question here is - before you got rid of that pesky debt collector, did you collect all the funds due you for all of his FDCPA or FCRA violations which racked up??? There are not only the federal violations but for most of the states of the union there is the state equivalent amount that the victim can collect on top of the federal. Before you run the fox off from stealing your chickens, make sure he pays you for the damages he has already caused! It is one thing to get that monkey off your back, but a whole other case to make sure he pays you before he leaves.
#193 re. #187
TOPIC: GETTING RID OF DEBT COLLECTORS....PERMANENTLY.
joshuasdad100
Sat Jul 21, 2012 6:52 am
the one sovereign sentient is correct. Getting rid of debt collectors is easy. ASK THEM TO VERIFY THE DEBT by exhibiting Schedules RC-Balance Sheet, RC-E--Deposit Liabilities, RC-C--Loans & Leases, RC-L--Derivatives and off-balance sheet items, RC-S--Servicing, securitization, and asset sale activities. Those are part of the quarterly call reports required under 12 U.S.C. 1817(a)(1) (Federal Deposit Insurance Act). You can actually download them yourself for the period of the loan origination at
Analyze the information if you understand double-entry bookkeeping, and ask them to disprove this, that and the other thing.
You can also ask them for the tax reports on the capital gains when they re-issued your securities, an unaltered copy of the original security, the cash receipt required under UCC 3-501(b)(2)(iii) and FASB Statement of Financial Accounting Standards Number 95 disproving that the bank enjoyed accord and satisfaction of its claim(s) thereby discharging all of its rights of recourse pursuant to N.Y.U.C.C. 3-311, and so on and so on.
THEY WILL IMMEDIATELY BACK-OFF BUT SOMEONE ELSE WILL BE BACK. THE ONLY WAY TO
ELIMINATE THE DEBT IS TO HAVE THEM FULFILL THEIR TRUSTEE OBLIGATION TO EXECUTE A PROPER SETOFF AND RETURN THE RELEASE TO YOU, OR RETURN ALL OF YOUR SECURITIES
INCLUDING THE BANK NOTES ISSUED AGAINST YOUR ORIGINAL SECURITY AND THE DERIVED PROFITS. IF THEY REFUSE, THEN THEY NEED TO EXHIBIT THE TAX DOCUMENTS ON THE CAPITAL GAINS AND OTHER TAXES, OR WE ARE HAPPY TO DO IT FOR THEM. Bill
#194 missing
#195 re. #
CRITICAL READING-POSTING #194-LEARNING v BLOCKING
joshuasdad100
Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:15 am
Suggest visiting the group to read Posting 194. It's not technical. It's about the true art of learning instead of chasing your own shadow indeterminably. Bill
P.S. Thank you embury111
#196 re. below
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
joshuasdad100
Sat Jul 21, 2012 12:11 pm
Yes to all. Fictions all, but not under their control. Simple formula really.
Bill
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder re. #125
embury111
Wednesday, July 18, 2012 8:53 AM
Well, we are not the grantor = "we are and we're not", because we cannot 'appear' in admiralty, as you've mentioned. The grantor is the Godfather, so 'he's, got some authority. Luca Brasi is the one who follows orders...both are not 'us', and that's where the 'proxy' - the stunt man for the principal, stands in....and, my head hurts.
#197 re. #129
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
joshuasdad100
Sat Jul 21, 2012 12:13 pm
To reiterate, Yes to the first; Double No to the second.
Bill
#198 re. #77
TOPIC: COLLAPSING A TRUST
joshuasdad100
Sat Jul 21, 2012 12:18 pm
Peter is right on the money. We are not seeking to collapse anything (in most cases). The closest most will get to a collapse is in foreclosure, a bank against you, or when a Court defaults on its obligations after being appointed Trustee, and the trust collapses from the merger off all titles and roles back in the grantor (your proxy). Thank you, Peter. Bill
#199
ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
joshuasdad100
Sat Jul 21, 2012 2:41 pm
THIS IS LIKELY TO BE THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT EMAIL OF YOUR ENTIRE PATRIOT
EDUCATION. When it's done, you'll understand what it is you've been doing....and what it is you've been missing.........
DOES ANYONE KNOW WHY WE MARK THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE: "CHARGE THE SAME TO JOHN
HENRY DOE # 123-45-6789?" I have yet to meet anyone who understands the process of filing the BC and BC Bond at Treasury.
The BC and BC Bond accomplish completely different tasks. The banker's acceptance noted on the BC effectively says: "I never abandoned my claim. I realize I'm a bit late, but here's my acceptance signed by a bona fide admiralty proxy. And to prove my claim, I've attached copies of UCC-1's demonstrating my lien against the strawman trust and the assignment to another admiralty proxy."
We can express our claim this way because the public only presumed, but never expressed, a claim against our securities. It can never make such a claim without filing papers with the agency that confesses a capital gains tax liability for the gain. You take my securities; you pay the tax.
Did you know that the banker's acceptance SHOULD IDEALLY BE BACK-DATED to your 18th birthday? If you did not, then the BC security was not claimed timely, and you cannot venture retroactively to settle liens, loans and the like. (And you wonder why your acceptances fail?) If you accept it as of today, then you are
stuck with any bills which pre-date today. Does that make sense?
The reason we mark the acceptance "CHARGE THE SAME TO JOHN HENRY DOE # 123-45-6789" is simple. WE ARE NOT PAYING ANYTHING AT THIS TIME. Read your B.C. Bond. It does two things, and neither involves paying the accumulated debts of the strawman in the Individual Master File. (For all the people who malign Winston and the other gurus, can you see that Winston knew exactly what he was doing?)
First, the BC Bond directs the Secretary to open an account for the purpose of offsetting future bills. Basically, you're opening an account to leverage future securities.
HEY, ISN'T THAT WHAT THEY DO IN COURT as I explained in posting # 146 (Court, Securities, Case Bond & Trusts--The Inside Story). They file the complaint or indictment and open a Court account to leverage securities. The first security issued is the summons (civil) or an arrest warrant (criminal) - both of which
comprise an arrest of the vessel in admiralty. (Like everything else in the public, the term "criminal" is merely a delusion to stimulate fear.) In both cases, they arrest the vessel to entice an owner, banker or creditor to appear
and post bond. THEY ARREST THE VESSEL TO GET TO THE SURETY. And who's the surety? THE ESTATE, of course. That's the Admiralty Game.
AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE DO WITH THE B.C. BOND AND OUR BANKER'S ACCEPTANCE. If you read the BC Bond you will see that it is "funding" this new leveraging account in the amount of 100 billion dollars........
Who's the surety for the funding?......THE ESTATE, of course. We are accessing the Estate through the strawman, just like they do in court.
And where do the funds come from?........OUR LIEN AGAINST THE ESTATE, duh. That's why we include copies of the UCC-1's.
So now you know that the UCC-1 notices of lien are serious business (IF you did them correctly which almost no one does).
And now you know why we "CHARGE THE SAME TO THE JOHN HENRY SMITH # 123-45-6789."
We do it to access the Estate just like the Court's do. We charge the strawman account through the maritime lien to access our funds in the Estate to fund the BC Bond account to pay future bills. Simple. One, two three.
One more thing. WHY ARE YOU MARKING YOUR SETOFF ACCEPTANCES "CHARGE THE SAME TO....???" When you pay a bill by setting it off against a pre-paid account (the one you established with the BC Bond), shouldn't you note the acceptance: "FOR CREDIT TO ACCOUNT # 123-45-6789?"
After all, the amount has already been charged against the account for taxes, electricity, debt service and such, which is why they're sending you a bill.
Which means that thousands of patriots are DOING IT ALL WRONG. They are sending in a security to pay the strawman's bill (banker's acceptance), and instead of telling the vendor or Treasury to credit the strawman's account, they're telling them to charge the strawman again. Is it any wonder Treasury thinks we're all crazy?
Even worse, the blogs and groups are filled with people giving terrible advice. I have watched entire reputations being built on bad advice. NOT BAD INTENTIONS, just your basic guesswork blossoming over the anonymous internet into a culture of error upon error. No wonder commerce has a bad name among advocates of sovereignty.
So if you accepted your BC as the living man, your Treasury process is defective.
If you charged instead of credited any bills, they're dead on arrival.
If you did Tim Turner's process you have no standing to make a claim (Treasury views it as nonsensical), so be very careful about trying anything.
If your acceptances were signed by the living man, the odds of success are very small.
If you did ZYA, you did things backwards (among other problems).
How do I know? The same way I knew about the Treasury process. I've paid my dues...I've listened to the right people...it's in my heart.
So tell me again how success lies in the paperwork rather than the understanding?
I'LL SAY IT AGAIN.......WHAT YOU NEED IS BASIC COMMON SENSE FOUNDATIONAL
UNDERSTANDING LIKE THIS, AND THEN YOU WILL KNOW IN YOUR HEART IF YOU ARE DOING
THE RIGHT THING. That's when you can tell Agent Anderson to take a hike.
Please feel free to direct your friends to this posting if it may serve their needs.
Bill
#200 re. #160
Re: How to stop a third party debt collector - Mortgage Deed Successor in Interest
eastlahye
Sat Jul 21, 2012 3:16 pm
How long have you not paid, check the statute of limitation on a promissory note for your state, they may be going after zombie debt.
#201 re. #160
Re: How to stop a third party debt collector - Mortgage Deed Successor in Interest
fdmfghr
Sat Jul 21, 2012 3:24 pm
Craig,
You need to remember the basics of WHO has any contractual claim! Why are you even considering anything to do with such DC? A simple Refusal for Cause due to NO CONTRACT should suffice here.
#202 re. #199
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
cseafreak
Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:12 pm
Wahoo! Fantastic!! Electrifying! Thanks man!
C
#203 re. #199
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
hotmercury1960
Sat Jul 21, 2012 5:14 pm
Bill this is great, if all of us could understand exactly what you are saying. I went through the recommended past posts and looked at the files, I must admit, I am still confused as to what exactly you are saying. I study many hours a day on this stuff and it only gets more confusing. Maybe there are agents that help confuse the issue; Nonetheless, I fully agree that WE must learn and fully understand what we are doing. Copying without understanding will get us in a bad place.
Please advise specifically what book(s) or other information we should look at. I skimmed over the UTC in your file section and then went searching on the internet for more info.
Thanks
Tony
#204 re. below
Re: TOPIC: BRAIN SURGERY ANYONE? 2nd Notice
surprized_daily
Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:45 pm
Very well said embury111.....
I loved your analogy & sharing of your experiences with your martial arts teacher/Master. Totally can relate to an extent with all you've posted here.....I also agree with you 100%! I've been at this 4 long years now & sure I'm eager to get it done but, as I was taught growing up, if you're going to do it, make sure you do it right!
(hopefully the first time around) I've been a carpenter/home improvements specialist most my life! Started out with my grandpa at about 7 years of age & have been at it ever since. Thing's have been slow here work-wise since 2008, due to the economic crash/disaster. I bring this up only to say, in all my years of building & doing home improvements, I've only had to go back on 2, maybe 3 jobs at most to repair minor things that were NOT right! Due to the fact that I was RUSHING myself to get done! The 2 times I recall right off hand I allowed my helper to rush me. Am I blaming the helper? NO, I take full responsibility in both instances! I shouldn't have allowed Myself to be rushed! Grandpa taught me to do it right the first time, so I wouldn't have to go back to redo or fix mistakes that shouldn't have been made to begin with. Grandpa's turned 90 this year & is still building something dang near every day! Hopefully, I'll be blessed to be around that long to share all I've learned & will be learning, with those wanting & willing to learn what I've been taught & learned along the way....couple more years will be 40 years experience in the building & remodeling of homes......
If it takes me 4 more years to learn the proper ways of going about all this (which I hope it don't take me that long) but, if it does, so be it! I hope to be able to Master the solutions we're all seeking here, so I can pay it forward! If, I'm blessed to have the time to be able to that is. For none of us are promised we'll see tomorrow. With all this said, I truly hope I'm blessed & deemed teachable by those here that 'know', the who's, what's, when's, where's & why's....am I in a hurry to get it done? Yes! But, not in such a hurry that I'm going to make critical mistakes! I have been blessed to have all day everyday to spend reading, studying, being taught/pointed in the right directions. Only a few more posts to go and then I'll have read every post....unless folks keep posting them faster than I've been here to read..... LoL Just when I think I've almost caught up, I click next only to find several more new posts have been posted. Am taking notes here & will be putting them into a Word doc. Perhaps when I'm done, Bill will have a look at what I've felt were the most critical posts & put up the doc I've created in the file section for all to have easy access to, so folks won't have to wade through all the messages to read the critical ones....what I also call 'the nuggets'
eponymous_680 embury111@... wrote: re. below
I can name 6 people off the top of my head, who were where you are at, 6 years ago, who are enjoying all the comforts of the grey bar hotel, for expressing exactly your sentiments. No offense to you, and this is the last I'll say on this subject, as there is spreading fear, to keep people from the truth, and then there's being truthful, in order to protect people from their own best intentions...pick whichever scenario you wish to think this is about....are those that know better than you, trying to spread fear in you, or are they trying to help wake you up, so you don't go down that same road those other eager beavers did?
I've been at this quite a while my friend, and I can tell you, Bill knows his stuff. It has connected the dots, in many ways, for me, for what I already know, and have studied, and experienced, and have been through.
I don't fully understand, or grasp what he's trying to get me to understand, but I'm open to receive...open to HUMBLY receive. Go back, and read over the posts, all of them, again and again - take notes, and study up on what is suggested. That's what a good student does.
I'll throw another martial arts analogy in here, because this is my background - my teacher once told be, it is the OBLIGATION of each master, to make sure his students, surpass him, so that the lineage continues on, in perpetuity, unbroken and strong. The Master I train with, only teaches to the top of the class, and this is foreign, to the Western mind, which is spoiled, and wants instant gratification, right here, right now - no discipline, no understanding, no respect. What did Christ say? "all these things and more shall Ye do"? Wonder why he said that????
This just will not do, as the Master, does not bow to the ego, will not submit to it, and those that do not like it, or are offended, because they do not get 'special attention', or their money's worth, can leave. See? To be called out, in my Master's class, to be chastised, in front of a whole room full of your own peers, in my eyes, is an honor. Because the truth is non negotiable, G-d is non negotiable. If that elicits fear in you, then so be it. Me, I've got my head down, and, most humbly, know that the must sought after 'UNDERSTANDING', will come, by grace, or by some thunderbolt that strikes the ego dead, will come. If I have to wait 10 years to 'get it', then, so be it.
My advice to you, as this is the last time I will comment on this subject is: drop the bad attitude, and study.
- peacemaker -
Re: TOPIC: BRAIN SURGERY ANYONE? 2nd Notice re. #186
Artie Ada
Saturday, July 21, 2012, 6:25 AM
Any evidence the jails are full for filling out your bevy of tax forms? Will you post the bevy of tax forms and other people's mistakes? Or is this another 10 lifetimes?
Could clarify whether or not your real purpose is spread fear and hopelessness in those seeking to "reclaim their securities?"
#205 re. #199
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
nodoubt4u269
Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:51 pm
So the private side and public side balance! That is why you charge the same to the strawman
john
#206 re. #205
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
peterpapoulias
Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:58 am
Correct - Remember the following
The public is bankrupt so it can only set-off and discharge. So in the public we only have paper (that is why its dead). When you get a paycheck its just a piece of paper with ink on it. It holds no value, it represents a DEBT borrowed from the estate paid to the BENEFICIARY (SSN) of the BC.
So our labor stays in the private (just like our house and car) NO VALUE CAN COME INTO THE PUBLIC only evidence of value and debt. So TITLE is evidence of an interest in a thing - like your car or house.
So when evidence of debt comes into the public from the private (the living side) the debt must be ledgered. The commercial banks take the evidence of our labor and monetize it (suppose to be 9 times but they have been doing it over 10-12 times). This new money is public debt. So now the public owes more to the living (private side).
One mistake mentioned below. We DO NOT CHARGE THE SAME TO THE STRAWMAN.
Look its all admiralty. So think..
In maritime law in order to identify a vessel we need to give things a name and a number.
So look at the paper you hold
SSN
BC
DL
those 3 things may all have the same name BUT different numbers – separate vessels
ALL VESSELS ARE TRUSTS!!!
And in trust law one trust may be a party to another trust
You have been given the BC trust (Debtor as it borrows from the estate) the evidence of value and debt come through the beneficiary (SSN) so we charge the same to the beneficiary because ALL PUBLIC debt is ledgered against the Beneficiary of the BC.
How do we know this? Well next time you receive (assignment, transfer) paycheck there will be a name and number identifying who is getting the title to that debt (title of the debt is the paycheck). I guarantee the vessel identified is the SSN.
So the SSN account at the fed is holding your portion of the public debt. Think of it as a prepaid credit card. Anytime evidence of value is brought into the public from your estate through the BC it is ledgered in the SSN account at the fed. So we charge debt against the debt owed to us.
So think of it this way...
Anytime you get a bill in the mail it is evidence of a debt owed to the estate and we can use the SSN account to do the setoff. So the BC bond is a charge against the debt owed to the estate. We do this to access the SSN account and BLOCK the funds so we can use them.
In the public ITS ALL IN THE LEDGERING.
Peace
#207 re. #170
Re: Re. help getting started.........CULTIVATING THE "BEGINNER'S MIND"
peterpapoulias
Sun Jul 22, 2012 8:01 am
The cestui-que vie act of 1666 has been codified in US statutes for ALL states.
here it is in Georgia -
But remember the public is dead so we need to look at debtor/creditor instead . We need to be the highest creditor so we can hold ENTILEMENT
#208 re. #206
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
derrickwayne...
Sun Jul 22, 2012 8:51 am
I pre-apologize for not studying more. If questions are okay here goes. If no questions allowed. Sorry.
One and three say don't charge the strawman. Number two says charge the strawman.
1. One mistake mentioned below. We DO NOT CHARGE THE SAME TO THE STRAWMAN.
2. And now you know why we "CHARGE THE SAME TO THE JOHN HENRY SMITH # 123-45-6789." We do it to access the Estate just like the Court's do. We charge the strawman account through the maritime lien to access our funds in the Estate to fund the BC Bond account to pay future bills.
Simple. One, two three.
3.One more thing. WHY ARE YOU MARKING YOUR SETOFF ACCEPTANCES "CHARGE THE SAME TO....???" When you pay a bill by setting it off against a pre-paid account (the one you established with the BC Bond), shouldn't you note the acceptance: "FOR CREDIT TO ACCOUNT # 123-45-6789?"
#217 re. below
Re: Funds in treasury come from a conversion, NOT liens upon estates.
joshuasdad100
Sun Jul 22, 2012 1:11 pm
m,
I appreciate your participation and attitude of sharing. Welcome to the Group. I'm hesitant to comment on your first point publicly, but...
1. As you know, even commercial banks can deposit all kinds of securities. From personal experience I know that you can deposit receipts. They must be annotated as securities, same way the Court deposits an indictment. And of course, so can other departments at Treas.
2. Cash collateral only exists if they have a Federal claim of course. You can request the assessment by phone to see if the account was credited. The 1040-v acts as an inter-bank draw, however the strawman has no status to authorize any draw from the private side of the ledger (setoff), being a lowly bottom dweller debtor. The assessment should show if you got a setoff. There's a tendency to equate a pause with progress, but I hope you did.
3. In a twisted way, the state IS the beneficiary. The strawman is the beneficiary of the Estate. That' why it's listed on the face of the B.C. The Estate is it's surety, the one they wish to assess when you appear. Which agrees with what you observed that the state is the beneficiary because the strawman is really nothing more than a U.S. employee under IRC 3401.
But no matter how it's sliced and diced in admiralty, ultimately the public trust serves people, the heirs to the original grantors and beneficiaries, and we are mere servants of the Father. A public corporation can never be a beneficiary, other than in a capacity as holder for the real man beneficiary, who is also holder for the Divine beneficiary, the Father.
4. YOU ARE SO RIGHT ABOUT NOT LIENING OUR BROTHER. But UCC 9-311(a)(3) makes it clear that the holder of a certificate enjoys the presumption of a perfected lien. The BC is the evidence of our lien against the strawman. It exists whether we claim it or not. It was born by our actions. The BC treasury process just
makes the lien digestible in the public. We're not liening our neighbor; we're expressing the pre-existing lien against our own assets, beginning with our own body which is the surety they really want to capture, our movable land, as advocates for the Father. If we do not express it, then we abandon our divine inheritance (our estate), the Father's property, to Lucifer. I really think it's that important to give public notice that I am not public properly; I am not your bondservant; that my allegiance is to the Father, that I serve Yehoshua, my Savior and surety who has pre-paid my debts with his blood
Hey, thanks for the great postings and the spirit of experimentation and courage. Would love to hear of any further developments with the receipts process. Bill
"motla68" wrote:
Something does not come from nothing, you have to put something in it to get something out of it. Based upon my research of the Internal Revenue Manual and Treasury finance policy, technically speaking, when we deposit equity receipts, those are then converted to what is called Cash Collateral, it is this which is held in treasury to pay the bills.
I did a test for a couple people including myself, for year(s) there were current claims on by I R S , I sent in copies of cash receipts and copies of CC and debit statements, totaled them up and put that total on 1040-V, followed the instructions of where to send it because that form is a return. This past week is the third or fourth letter received so far over the course of the past year from I R S stating that " no further actions was necessary " to which it was never heard of again that there was a problem for those years.
You all might want to check out " Cesti Que Use " being that you have been studying Cesti Que Trust law. It is in my opinion that the state is the beneficiary not a living man. How can a living man be a beneficiary of dead law instruments?
Think hard about this lien stuff too, how is it that placing a lien upon your neighbor can be called love? This UCC was created by attorney's / lawyers and biblically speaking " woe unto you lawyers ", do you really want to be like them ?
'm
#219 re. #206
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
joshuasdad100
Sun Jul 22, 2012 1:34 pm
Peter - Excellent stuff. People should pause to understand that the strawman (SSN) is a pre-programmed debtor. It exists for no reason other than to transmit (or as you said "hold") our portion of the public debt. that's all that happened in '33 when our great-grandparents walked into the Fed and gave up their gold. Here's my asset to pay the public debt. Basically the public debt was charged to us through the straw accounts. Everyone should read your posting........
As to what we're charging with the BC Bond, I think we said the same thing. You said, "So the BC bond is a charge against the debt owed to the estate," and I say that the SSN is nothing more than a manifestation of that debt. It IS debt, nothing more. If you remove debt, it's an empty account. When I visualize the strawman, I don't see paper or even book-entries anymore. I see an amazing sight, a shimmering ball of debt energy - the reflection of my commercial energy - just waiting to be reclaimed. Perhaps there's a subtle difference in what we said, but not much.
Helluva thing to be pondering on a Sunday. Great post, I hope the members appreciate the insight. Bill
#220 re. #219
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
rhs8963
Sun Jul 22, 2012 1:51 pm
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm ready to flip cartwheels!
I am grateful and appreciate this information; I said days ago that I firmly believe there is remedy to be found in this group.
Going back to lurking now......please keep up the awesome work!
#221 re. #217
Re: Funds in treasury come from a conversion, NOT liens upon estates
trooper753
Sun Jul 22, 2012 2:04 pm
So could a person deposit an original court to the IRS to get rid of IRS debt? Court order against them.....? Its a commercial document. A receipt though and you have interest in the contents. Just thinking out loud I guess.
#222 re. #199
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
nodoubt4u269
Sun Jul 22, 2012 2:12 pm
I have many bonds placed at the treasury! I understand it very well!
John
#230
Burning Question
trooper753
Sun Jul 22, 2012 4:53 pm
On the homepage for the group the pic of the BC has a stamp on it. It looks clear that the signature line is microprint (sorta), but what does it say?
#232 re. below
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
trooper753
Sun Jul 22, 2012 4:59 pm
Lets not forget a ship being birthed gets a registration number so it can be identified, sold/owned, and know who is traveling upon the seas. In human cases seas of commerce. I used to live near the place where Hatteras Yachts were built. They built them, but they didn’t give them the numbers on the side. That is through the state. And now that I think of it- its often one letter and a bunch of numbers, kind of like the back of the SS Card.
"motla68" wrote: re. below
How can that be if more then one registrar has said "we register events not people"?
eponymous_680 wrote: re. #222
Yes, but we're the bonds in the strawman's name?
- peacemaker –
#235
Re: AMAZING-THE TRUTH ABOUT OUR TREASURY PACKAGES!!!
william.jeff...
Sun Jul 22, 2012 5:54 pm
Shalom! How are you? My name is william blake: family of jeffrey. I recently received an invitation to join this group from someone that I do not know. I too was led astray by Tim Turner's faulty process back in 2009, having filed the requisite documents and bonds, all to no avail. I have studied various other processes, including much of Jean Keating and david clarence's estate/executor process. Of course, david clarence would label this all as more Commerce Guru Nonsense.
Do you have any of the Tim Turner type sample templates that have been corrected and updated according to the new understanding that you now have? Do I need to correct what has already been filed, or simply refile the documents again as if nothing had gone before? Do you know of any sources where one can download the free TT document templates, since I deleted them from my computer? I'm hoping that you will soon have an entire package of templates with instructions on how to fill them out correctly.
Are you familiar with Tami Pepperman, and what do you think of her process? Recently I was introduced to some of her material, but it seems like she has more of an adversarial "Going To War" mentality with the Criminals in government, rather than using the IRS, for example, to access the Estate. She has some interesting insights, but I want to live at peace with all men rather than going to war with anyone. This is why I could never complete the TT process which included filing Maritime Liens against government officials. Bad mistake, so I dropped out without completing the process, because I couldn't follow through with that for religious reasons. I'm glad I did, as many people got into big trouble doing that. Thank you very much for all your help. May Yahweh be praised!
william blake
Expressly Reserving All Liberties
#237
TOPIC: REPORT OF A PRIVATE MEETING WITH A FRIENDLY JUDGE...
joshuasdad100
Sun Jul 22, 2012 6:32 pm
THOUGHT YOU MIGHT ENJOY HEARING FROM THE JUDGE'S MOUTH...This email was sent to
me by a Group member yesterday.
Hello, this _______________. I'm writing you from my private email to ask if there's a way we can communicate on a more private level than the group forum? Unlike many of the people posting in the Yahoo group forum, I don't have a pressing issue and I want to take the time to learn the S_P_L_A_S_H way properly.........As I've said before, I've seen many different methodologies on this subject, but the few things you've mentioned in the forum make more sense to me than all the other B.S. I've seen, read and heard over a 5 year hunt.
HERE'S WHERE IT GETS INTERESTING...
A little less than 2 years ago, a close friend of mine and me had the pleasure of speaking with a retired judge about our system. The exact same thing he told us about how the system is set up is exactly what I just read on one of your post in the forum. Unfortunately, he wouldn't tell us how to navigate properly. Funny thing though, he told us when we do find out how to navigate properly, to do right by it. We gave him our word we would and left. Naturally, him assuming that we would get the proper info spoke volumes to me. But, here I am seeing and
hearing the same thing that was explained to me from an insider on one of your post in the forum. I CAN'T BELIEVE there haven't been more postings and remarks from that post. It's like the people in the forum can't see the forest for the trees. It also seems like all they want is a cookie-cutter process. But I digress. I haven't told anyone about our chance meeting with the retired judge because I've used it as a way to see who really understands the matrix and who doesn't. It's about all I had that I knew was true. All the other so-called Guru's were never able to explain in full how the system is set up when asked. But you did it without me or anyone else even having to ask. So, as you can see, I've had a pretty rough go at it.........Thanks again for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.
THEN A JUDGE KNOWS THE TRUTH AND THE REMEDY POSSIBILITIES, HE WILL STEP ASIDE
WHEN YOU PRESENT IT. AND THOSE JUDGES WHO DO NOT, QUICKLY FIND OUT BECAUSE
THEIR BOND WON'T COVER A FRACTION OF THE TAX LIABILITY THEY CREATE WHEN THEY
HOARD YOUR SECURITIES AND DON'T REPORT THE GAIN. Bill
#239 re. below
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
embury111
Sun Jul 22, 2012 6:55 pm
In my opinion, because I care? I mean no offence when I say this, because we're all brother's and sisters here: It's time for another hard drive wipe.
- peacemaker -
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED re. below
motla68
Sunday, July 22, 2012, 6:46 PM
Yes, all this is definitely an uneducation then reeducation. It is a simple method, but like most here I had a lot of crap in my head and on the hard drive. Eventually I had to wipe out most of that stuff in both places to nearly start from scratch then it all started coming together.
" I came to fulfill the law, not destroy it "
'm
"embury111" wrote: re. below
Here's a Zen Maxim of law, for you in return, I know the maxim you point out, you've mentioned it a thousand times, One of my favorite stories concerns a Buddhist scholar and a Zen....
"The scholar had an extensive background in Buddhist Studies and was an expert on the Nirvana Sutra. He came to study with the master and after making the customary bows, asked her to teach him Zen. Then, he began to talk about his extensive doctrinal background and rambled on and on about the many sutras he had studied.
The master listened patiently and then began to make tea. When it was ready, she poured the tea into the scholar's cup until it began to overflow and run all over the floor. The scholar saw what was happening and shouted, "Stop, stop! The cup is full; you can't get anymore in."
The master stopped pouring and said: "You are like this cup; you are full of ideas about Buddha's Way. You come and ask for teaching, but your cup is full; I can't put anything in. Before I can teach you, you'll have to empty your cup."
"motla68" wrote: re. below
Even if by proxy how does that past the test of Maxim of law which states; "Disparata Non Debent Jungi - unequal things ought not to be joined"?
Then there is the biblical scripture that says not to regard the person as yourself.
I have also found statutes that say a presumption of persona creates a trust. That instrument is just something used, we are not bonded to it or adhesioned to it unless by consent or tacit.
Why would I want to work through it and create that presumption ?
The only reason i would carry anything like that is to show evidence of who is making claim of title on the name and at that not even a certified copy be carried.
eponymous_ 680 wrote: re. #232 2nd
...that's not what I was referring to, I was referring to working through a proxy, a dead thing that only the dead paper world can deal with - one that has standing in admiralty.
- peacemaker -
#243 re. below
Re: TOPIC: REPORT OF A PRIVATE MEETING WITH A FRIENDLY JUDGE...
rhs8963
Sun Jul 22, 2012 8:45 pm
Oh my goodness.......I just had a revelation!
Reprobate........vs. re-probate!
I'm so amazed that they put this stuff right in our faces and we completely miss the boat......so to speak
I'm lurking again.......keep the information coming! This is PhD coming at you....amazing!
Re: TOPIC: REPORT OF A PRIVATE MEETING WITH A FRIENDLY JUDGE... re. 237
motla68
Sunday, July 22, 2012, 10:12 PM
Yes, for a case to even exist it needs to be funded. If funded then a receipt exists. If all has been prepaid for by the Christ then it is all a tax, thus there is a tax receipt somewhere. Questions need to be asked of the clerk before court and within a few days after the case is created, I would also ask them how is it they are attempting to reprobate a probated estate. If silence after all that then the jig is up they are charging themselves and abracadabra move has been played on you for your consent or tacit agreement, go bust them for it.
Watch for the mental competency move to , it is a medical condition:
ABRACADAB'RA, The name of a deity worshipped by the Syrians: a cabalistic word. The letters of his name, written on paper, in the form of an inverted cone, were recommended by Samonicus as an antidote against certain diseases.
1828 Webster's Dictionary
American Juris Prudence states that jurisdiction can only be challenged if there is a Special Appearance and not in General Appearance.
'm
#245 re. #180
What is the quickest way ??
sawasinc
Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:27 am
What is the quickest way for the remedies available to a full status creditor ??
Sharon.
#246 re. #180
Re: What is the quickest way ??
sch704
Mon Jul 23, 2012 8:01 am
Greetings all. I am new to this group; but I’ve been around for quite awhile. I'm with Sawasinc on getting to the quickest way to hang this dog. I'm like the guy who wrote how angry he was at himself for hanging around the likes of Tim Turner and "Pastor" Tony King looking for remedy. I also thought Tim was for real, actually considered him to be a very good friend for a long time. Now I think he may have been playing me for my Montana connection, like Sam the Sham did. Point is: I've been searching and DOING for many years. I don't just read and think. I ACT on what I’ve learned. The problem with that "Babe Ruth" approach to things is you end up striking out more often than you hit home runs. I spent six yrs. in federal lockup. Swing and miss. I lost my wife's Suburban and my new pickup when I challenged the bank. Swing and miss. I lost our house to foreclosure after paying for it seven times! Swing and miss. Evicted from our
own home with our daughter's family living with us and me and my wife seriously ill. So, yeah, an answer to a fast way to get to the next chapter would really, really be appreciated. I feel like Ronnie Dunn of Brooks and Dunn fame when asked how it felt to be an overnight sensation. He just laughed and said, "Yeah, it took us twenty years to become an overnight sensation"!
So, Bill, come on. Pleeease. Gimmmeee. I neeed. I neeed.
Sincerely yours;
Steven Charles Hance
#247 re. #70
Re: Does this apply to Canada or the US? - BOTH
takingmytime...
Mon Jul 23, 2012 8:02 am
Howdy Bill,
How do these remedies you talk about in this group affect the Canadians? More difficult? Less difficult?
Are there any major hurdles Canadians need to overcome and what are the hurdles in your opinion?
Can you provide some examples of what you mean please.
What about Canadians who have green cards (permanent residents) living in the States now?
What about Canadians who are now US Citizens?
We look forward to your reply. Thanks.
#248 re. below
Re: TOPIC: GETTING RID OF DEBT COLLECTORS....PERMANENTLY.
wingjockey...
Mon Jul 23, 2012 9:02 am
Are taxing bodies not required to do the same....that is...verify the debt?
Aren't taxes capital gains for the collectors?
They're private corporations too, are they not?
This is funny. They must be 503C not for profit organizations.
Re: TOPIC: GETTING RID OF DEBT COLLECTORS....PERMANENTLY. re. #193
motla68
Sun, July 22, 2012 4:31:55 PM
if they want to charge themselves, don't stand in the way.
Trustee De Son Tort, claiming a persona creates a trust.
#252 re. below
Re: Does this apply to Canada or the US? - BOTH
givb332
Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:55 am
Motla68; I have nothing to give. They [the Cabal] took everything except my house. And now I'm paying for this sucker the third time. So get back to me what I can and cannot do. Seems strange for a person to take 6 yrs
for something that should be done in much quicker response.
Thank you.
Glenn Vanden Bosch
On 7/23/2012 11:40 AM, motla68 wrote: re. #247
If your going down the natural law path, it all applies Universal, International, National, county wide. It does not matter what country your in.
In the words of Gandhi " be the change you want to see ".
I took that literally and started helping make changes not just in my life but the local community. As stated in another recent post, look in the mirror first and forgive yourself, forgive others, then give, give, give You just might be surprised what comes in return.
'm
#253 re. #239 2nd
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
camille.humble
Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:46 pm
I am in the same boat. I have so much stuff that I have learned over time and things saved that I just don't know where to begin at this point. I had all of the Bonds at one time and I have deleted them, but now there is talked about the Bonds. I guess I need more assistance than I thought. I guess my question is where do I start I have my birth certificate now what?
#254 re. #221
Re: Funds in treasury come from a conversion, NOT liens upon estates
joshuasdad100
Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:49 pm
YES AND NO. Not the order itself, but the security written on it, which is what people have been doing with money orders and bankers acceptances all along but in the wrong person and with the wrong paperwork. The key is in understanding securities and their baseline purpose, and the use of trusts. Bill
#256 re. #235
Re: AMAZING-THE TRUTH ABOUT OUR TREASURY PACKAGES!!!
joshuasdad100
Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:07 pm
Hello Anon - Sorry, but you won't find any Turner docs here. They're a bit too nonsensical to be taken seriously. Please see posting #199 if you'd like a better understanding of the Treasury process. Bill
#258 re. #254
Re: Funds in treasury come from a conversion, NOT liens upon estates
apokalypse1...
Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:16 pm
Hi Bill,
When you say "the wrong person" are you referring to the strawman v. the real. Because it seems to me if it all goes back to the BC then that's where our remedy lies, because that is the "origin" and then , by extension, the SS#. BUT that being said, how does that play out in practical terms as far as paying debt and/or "reclaiming your securities"?
After one begins to "know", it seems that the IRS must be put on notice that they are our Trustees and they are to be held accountable for retrieving and supplying our "funds" and remedy. Would this not be the case?
#260 re. #246
Re: What is the quickest way ??
joshuasdad100
Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:26 pm
Dear Steven, I sympathize with your sacrifices, but WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, WE WILL NOT BE SLANDERING PEOPLE AT THIS GROUP. Thank you for understanding.
We may report that documents are defective, flawed, nonsensical, we may provide learned analyses of other procedures, but we will not be attacking the intention of our colleagues or violating G-d's prohibition against loose tongues.
If we are truly sovereign, shouldn't we first acknowledge that our lives reflect OUR OWN decisions, before we blame others? What I hear when people say such things is their cry to be forgiven for whatever they believe are their own sins. In the name of Jesus, remembering his words while being crucified, I pray that every member of this group will embrace forgiveness. And I pray for you, Steven, to receive this with an open heart.
Thank you for understanding, and please forgive my preaching. Bill
#262 re. #247
TOPIC: O CAN-A-DA; GLORIOUS AND FREE....well not really
joshuasdad100
Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:43 pm
TO OUR CANADIAN MEMBERS - COME ONE, COME ALL because it all works N o the border with few changes. A security's a security; a trust's a trust. The concepts are the same, the implementation has some peculiarities (like the dispensing of a tax ID number) but nothing that modest common sense can't overcome. Canada has all the forms to support your commercial procedures. Rev Can knows how to process them. Canada's Personal Property Security Registration System is analogous to the UCC filing system in the States.
Those who have U.S. citizenship can operate down here also. U.S. bills can be processed through the States.
To show you that the conversion is easier than the wacko formula to go from G-d's temperature (base 8 Fahrenheit) to Lucifer's metric (base 10 "units" - just like money of account), here's a little homework:
Who would like to venture where you would file the "treasury process" in Canada, and justify why??? Have fun. Bill
#265 re. #248
IF IT'S LEGAL, IT AIN’T TAX FRAUD, is it?
joshuasdad100
Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:58 pm
GOOD QUESTIONS RANDY. NO, taxing bodies do not have to verify. there's a presumption of accuracy. The prevailing doctrine of admiralty is Guilty until proven innocent. How can that exist in a republic? Presumption of regularity. If no one protests after three times, then it's presumed to be normal business practice.
Ditto for the rest. But yes, if they receive without giving equal value, it's an uneven exchange, a DEEMED DISPOSITION, and capital gains applies. But regularity overcomes tax fraud because no one asked the collector or his Gift Tax Return.
VERY ASTUTE OF YOU. YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO SEE THE OBVIOUS. Bill
#268 re. #253
TREASURY PROCESS - WHERE DO I BEGIN? - Right here
joshuasdad100
Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:13 pm
HI CAMILLE - YOU HAVE ALREADY HAVE. You're here, climbing the ladder. If you read my earlier email on the process, you already know more than I knew or my first four or five filings.
The biggest part of what you face is the understanding (as I've said time and again until even I can't stand to hear it anymore). The Treasury paperwork is easy, streamlined and simple-minded. Four pieces of paper. Not a shred of nonsensical patriot mumbo jumbo garbage. Unfortunately, people got side-tracked by Turner's effective sales pitch. I hope this Group will awaken people to the need to TRAIN THEIR POWERS OF DISCRIMINATION. The government's got you believing that discrimination is evil. DISCRIMINATION IS ESSENTIAL if you direct it to the crap that crosses our inboxes everyday instead of towards other children of G-d.
BUT IT'S GOT TO BE DONE RIGHT. Send me a private email please if you're of a mind. Bill
#270 re. #222
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--BONDS AT TREASURY
joshuasdad100
Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:19 pm
Jack, thanks for sharing. HAVE YOU CONFIRMED, VERIFIED OR DRAWN ON THEM? Most of the bonds that have been "placed" with the Sec of the Treasury are defective. In most cases it's a question of the proper (or improper) person. The ones promoted by Tim Turner in particular are pretty bad across the board. To have Treasury honor them requires that the issuer is a recognized admiralty entity. Basically, its like a parent ignoring their children's ideas until the kids hit majority and start paying the bills. Then suddenly the parents are all ears. Bill
#280 re. below
Re: TOPIC: O CAN-A-DA; GLORIOUS AND FREE....well not really
fdmfghr
Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:35 pm
Re the last part of this, and treasury process, yes, the mentioned 3 seem to be the best sources, but can you or anyone else confirm anything of use coming of dealings with any of these?
I have yet to hear of such! It should by logic be the Receiver General, but has anyone ever gotten a useful reply from that office?
Re: TOPIC: O CAN-A-DA; GLORIOUS AND FREE....well not really re. #262
eponymous_680 embury111@...
Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:28:43 PM
OK Bill, I'm game. I know what forms are analogous from CRA to IRS - i.e., the T5008, is like the OID form, correct? CRA has about 1/100 the amount of forms the IRS has, so that's a bonus...
The PPSA filing system, is very easy to use, , one can file in each Province.
You're right about metric, I anecdotal heard that to hide the sacred measurement system (feet, pounds, Fahrenheit, etc), they switched the system up here to metric.
Where to specially deposit the "treasury process"? OK, this is what I think, you would either deposit it with the Minister of Finance (), or the Receiver General of Canada (he's the 'treasurer'), or - with the Bank of Canada - our 'federal reserve' - those are my answers - any one else?
- peacemaker -
#281 re. #280 2nd & below
Re: TOPIC: CANADIAN GOVERNOR FOR IMF
joshuasdad100
Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:50 pm
You're both correct. The Treasury package in Canada goes to Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance. And the reason we know is:
1. As embury111 pointed out: he oversees the Bank of Canada. But also,
2. He's the Canadian Governor for the IMF...
As with so many things, basic common sense is our guide. Welcome Canadian Members. Bill
"motla68" wrote: re. #262
FYI, my connections in Canada tell me it is the minister of finance is who you start with.
peace, brother.
#282 re. #245
Re: What is the quickest way ??
embury111
Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:52 pm
What is the quickest way to mastery?
The Taste of Banzo's Sword
"Matajuro Yagyu was the son of a famous swordsman. His father, believing that his son's work was too mediocre to anticipate mastership, disowned him. So Matajuro went to Mount Fuhra and there found the famous swordsman Banzo.
But Banzo confirmed the father's judgment. `You wish to learn swordsmanship under my guidance?' asked Banzo. `You cannot fulfill the requirements.'
'But if I work hard, how many years will it take me to be come a master?' persisted the youth.
`The rest of your life,' replied Banzo.
`I cannot wait that long,' explained Matajuro. 'I am willing to pass through any hardship if only you will teach me. If I become your devoted servant, how long might it be?'
'Oh, maybe ten years,' Banzo relented.
'My father is getting old, and soon I must take care of him,' continued Matajuro. 'If I work far more intensively, how long would it take me!'
'Oh, maybe thirty years.' said Banzo.
'Why is that?' asked Matajuro. 'First you say ten and now thirty years. I will undergo any hardship to master this art in the shortest time!'
`Well,' said Banzo, 'in that case you will have to remain with me for seventy years. A man in such a hurry as you are to get results seldom learns quickly.'
'Very well.' declared the youth, understanding at last that he was being rebuked for impatience, 'I agree.'
Matajuro was told never to speak of fencing and never to touch a sword. He cooked for his master, washed the dishes, made his bed, and cleaned the yard, cared for the garden, all without a word of swordsmanship.
Three years passed. Still Matajuro labored on. Thinking of his future he was sad. He had not even begun to learn the art to which he had devoted his life. But one day Banzo crept up behind him and gave him a terrific blow with a wooden sword.
The following day, when Matajuro was cooking rice, Banzo, again sprang upon him unexpectedly.
After that, day and night, Matajuro had to defend himself from unexpected thrusts.
Not a moment passed in any day that he did not have to think of the taste of Banzo's sword.
He learned so rapidly he brought smiles to the face of his master. Matajuro became the greatest swordsman in the land".
#287 re. #208
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
tgplumbbob
Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:20 pm
derrick, if I may try to answer your question, when Bill is talking about the BC and the BC bond he says to 'charge the same to' but when doing 'setoff acceptances' use the wording 'for credit to'
#288 re. #258
Re: Funds in treasury come from a conversion, NOT liens upon estates
joshuasdad100
Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:15 pm
They already know it. Bill
#290 re. #247
Re: Does this apply to Canada or the US? - BOTH
joshuasdad100
Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:19 pm
See thread we opened up on this. Bill
#293 re. #199
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
markonealus
Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:41 pm
"DOES ANYONE KNOW WHY WE MARK THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE: "CHARGE THE SAME TO JOHN
HENRY DOE # 123-45-6789?"
Honestly, I did not know we were supposed to.
#295
The Number of the Name.
motla68
Mon Jul 23, 2012 9:52 pm
FYI, to settle any controversies whether the SSN is the number of the name or not.
Florida statutes
382.0135 Social security numbers; enumeration-at-birth program.—The department shall make arrangements with the United States Social Security Administration to participate in the voluntary enumeration-at-birth program. The State Registrar is authorized to take any actions necessary to administer the program in this state, including modifying the procedures and forms used in the birth registration process.
#297 re. #281
Re: TOPIC: CANADIAN GOVERNOR FOR IMF
lzvw7r2012
Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:03 pm
So, is this remedy for US and Canadian born only?
How about those who were not born in the US nor Canada but were naturalized U.S. citizens ?
Would foreign-born "citizens" be able to use this remedy?
#298 re. #297
Re: TOPIC: CANADIAN GOVERNOR FOR IMF
motla68
Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:47 pm
Any country within the United Nations. Probably others too, just have to research examine their trust construction.
#299 re. below
Re: What is the quickest way ??
sawasinc
Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:39 am
Just popping in to say thank you to all that responded to my question: "What is the quickest way for the remedies available to a full status creditor ??"
I did a search for "FULL Status Creditor" thinking a person could start there and there's nothing that comes up so we can't go that way lol .
Heck we all know that China is BIG.. and yet over at:
it even states:
"China's status as the world's biggest creditor nation has yet to be fully established, (WOW) and it should not undertake any responsibilities in that capacity, said Ba Shusong, Deputy Director of the Institute of Financial Studies of the Development Research Center of the State Council."
SOOOOOOOOOOOO
I do know there's no quick fix to "anything" worth real meaning and value in Life.. and I really do know it's up to me to do the research. I guess I just wanted to pick any wisdom from the great minds on this list to see if anyone else was feeling as I do and if anyone could direct me to the best and still quickest way to get to a FULL Status Creditor.
Just to be directed to the info needed to learn "how to" any better then how I've been directed in the past, and basically I see we all are still in the same boat here. Not sure there really is an answer to my question as it's basically called.. "Time" and learning all that one can within that "Timeline"
And will it even matter anyway when Our Father/Lord acts within His "Timeline" to calls us to Him.
AND that one needs to search one's self within also which I do daily to have that "Relationship" with my Father/Lord, as I answer ONLY to Him even tho the Gov believes otherwise.
thank you all again for responding.. and Thank you Bill for this list.
Sharon.
In a message dated 7/23/2012 12:32:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, motla68@... writes: re. #246
To put it bluntly, the quickest way is to stop being so dependent on other people just to give things to you without earning it some, stop looking outside of yourself for the answers. Until you get in there an learn it yourself, ask the tough questions of the government, get your own reply letters back. Take it from someone who also has been around for a while, once I put away the toys and started coming into the age of majority by doing all the above and virtually creating my own law via Internal self the light bulbs really started lighting up.
It is my belief that we are not sovereign, if your Christian and believe in God then you should know he is the only sovereign and our sovereignty upon this earth is by proxy through him. I do not even call myself Christian anymore for several reasons including that it is not about religion, it is about relationship. Who do you give pledge to, it can only be one.
Hats off to Bill for having the courage to create this group and hosting a collaboration tool for us to communicate through, but the answers are not going to come from him either as well as myself, that is all up to you and how serious you are about changing your own life, are you ready to look in the mirror and even ask the hard questions of yourself, first forgive yourself before you can forgive others for the pains and peonage you have placed upon your neighbors for sin in commerce.
Peace brother, keep reading the other messages and checking out the other resources, actually go to the link, crack open a book, good luck to you man.
'm
#300 re. #208
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
derrickwayne...
Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:46 am
From: motla68
Charges are what the military occupation does. What does the information in the treasury process say about who is being empowered to do their job?
The treasury process Bill has laid out here is so much simpler then other groups, be thankful and go study. ===
===
Okay I will. I have studied Bill and am asking for clarification. IF he doesn't want to that is okay.
#301 re. #
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
derrickwayne...
Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:00 am
So sometimes one charges the strawman and sometimes one credits the strawman.
#302 re. below
Re: "treasury process"
derrickwayne...
Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:05 am
motla68
What is the B.C. Bond? Where does one get it? Is the BC Bond the certificate of birth?
If one sends a checking account statement and totals up the purchases and one include credit card purchases should one include payments to credit cards on the 1040V?
Re: "treasury process" re. below
motla68
Monday, July 23, 2012 6:08 PM
Short description:
Your basically returning the BC bond back to the treasury, the issuer of the currency for redemption of debt against the estate name. Empowering the treasury agents i.e. I R S in doing their job.
But there is 2 things to think about that might get you there sooner, 1 forgiveness and good faith of yourself and everyone else, 2. if done correctly returning all receipts, even the cash ones, CC, debit statements for years previous they may be questioning you about, totals for individual years. it just might save you from doing any UCC found in the treasury process that would give the presumption that your still not forgiving and at war.
Belligerent vs. Peaceful Inhabitant
"RandyW" wrote:
It has been made very clear "how to process" instruction is not available here. But this "treasury process" has been referred to specifically a couple of times as I have studied postings by this group. Will someone give a valuable description or definition of this "treasury process".
My first hurdle to knowledge is understanding the jargon you folks are using. I don't have anything to unlearn. I have to learn EVERYTHING!!
#303 re. #299
Re: What is the quickest way ??
iamsomedude
Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:54 am
Why think in such limited terms such as "full status creditor"? What is "full status creditor"? Hell, what does "full status" even mean?
Why not just give the one making a claim exactly what they wish ... give them "ownership" or "adverse possession"?
The party making a claim is "usufruct" .... From "Law of Belligerent Occupation" (JAG Manual).... "one is said to be a usufructuary or enjoy a usufruct if one has a claim of a special kind for life or some lesser period." and it appears thru CJS that "acts of ownership" are actually "acts of enjoyment of a usufruct" which is "adverse possession" and every statute, code, rule, and regulation in place governs the "usufructuary interests" or "trustees" of the "land" or "people" and their "estates" or "interests" ... and if those "trustees" or "usufructuaries" impede the "obligations of a contract" thru governing one's "naked ownership" or "disposal rights", they in breach of "fiduciary duty" for "adverse possession" of the "interests" of the "naked owner" or "principal" because the "act of impeding" means the "public debt obligations are in question" and "the public debt shall never be in question"; the "reciprocation of the indemnification" or "discharge of usufructuary duties" IS the public debt obligation referenced in the 14th amendment; fulfillment of the contract under seal of state or "certificate of live birth" which is just a receipt for "LABOR and DELIVERY" of which the "receiver" has already made "beneficial use", as evidenced by the existence of Federal Reserve Notes.
What else does one need to know?
If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
#304 re. #303
Re: What is the quickest way ??
motla68
Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:40 am
Ah yes, never made that last connection myself until last night for some reason. The labor and delivery has already been done. It is the state that has made claim upon pledging credit for any future performance. That claim is what puts them in the legal liability position as usufruct. Scriptural quote: " Let it be written, let it be done ".
That is genius!
When one receives a ticket, a claim has already been made, who is it that solicited all the advertisements from attorney's, the state through another one of their agent's did. So then just give it to them. Let them deal with the
liability of screwing with the protected estate.
'm
#305 re. #304
Re: What is the quickest way ??
rhs8963
Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:46 am
Motla:
I'm reading the post below yours and I think a light just went on. Remember that matter we discussed that took place in June? Is that the direction I was headed or the position taken? I'm still not completely sure, but will be checking the docket in the next day or so and I'll bring you up to speed on progress.
Usufruct!! That is becoming one of my favorite words.......
#308 re. #302
Re: "treasury process"
motla68
Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:01 am
Birth certificate is just evidence that a bond exists, certificate literally means " copy " otherwise it would say Birth title. Just like a certificate of title for a vehicle, it is just evidence of a claim on title exists somewhere.
Yes, anything you have given / paid into society. Not to worry about the particulars too much because this will not be for ever, it is just to assist in showing good faith that you are ready to make the change from interfering with what has been created to acting like a true heir to what has been given to all of man, the earth.
'm
#309 re. #305
Re: What is the quickest way ??
motla68
Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:05 am
Sure is, he is one of them that was on the conference calls you had with our group.
#311 re. below
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
rhs8963
Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:35 am
Can you please elaborate? Where does the bank come into this? What is being deposited to the servicer? Are you referring to a mortgage servicer or the bank in general?
Thank you
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED re. #301
motla68
Tuesday, July 24, 2012, 10:55 AM
Deposit with a servicer and let them take care of it, the servicer is registered with SEC as a transfer agent.. i.e. bank person.
#313 re. #311
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
motla68
Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:58 am
See message #294
#315 re. below
Re: What is the quickest way ??
wingjockey...
Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:18 am
Please describe a "full status creditor" with the details you would give a police sketch artist. I'm just learning the terms used in this new language.
And I agree.... the age of majority...statement was condescending.
The gurus here are the minority with accusations of gross errors committed by the majority. Are they willing to tell what those mistakes are?......Yes and No....Guess!
The help they propose comes in riddles and deliberately vague answers to direct questions. I understand the exercise of discovery will make the knowledge personal. Yet, wonderful claims are made on this group's welcome page but not a single story detailing any triumph has been offered. Am I wrong? Please, direct me to it and I will humbly apologize.
But why are details so important? Because the Devil is in the details.
Re: What is the quickest way ?? re. below
eponymous_680 embury111@...
Mon, July 23, 2012 8:16:33 PM
Are you responding to MY answer to Sawasinc@ who wrote:
"what is the quickest way for the remedies available to a full status creditor ??" (see below Zen story). I like to use martial arts metaphors to illustrate points.
???
Because that Zen story, WAS my answer to his/her question. I already know there's no quick fix, that's why I used the Zen story to make the point. Telling someone they haven't reached the age of majority, is a bit condescending in my opinion.
Please be careful, and read the whole thread thoroughly, before answering throwing your two cents in, this will go a long way in the future, in keeping things uncluttered, and
- peacemaker -
Re: What is the quickest way ?? re. #282
motla68
Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:04 pm
Asking a doctor for a quick fix or asking a guru for a quick fix, what is the difference. Problem is that quick fix don't work for most people and they end up getting frustrated as you are now.
Reading the treasury process or reading what we tell you, what is the difference? you still have to read either way and the same works as above, just because someone tells you does not guarantee you will understand, if you come this far and have not understand yet, there is your sign.
Someone said... " gimme gimme, I need I need " now that is entertainment.
Are you ready to leave the age of minority and come into age of majority? Asking the questions on here helps others who may have had the same question and were afraid to speak up.
It is not a I, I, I or a Me, me, me thing. What is offered is a whole lot more then most of us had starting out so be thankful and go study.
'm
#316 re. #302
Re: "treasury process" - Let' do it right.
joshuasdad100
Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:19 am
Hi derrick, I'm writing to urge caution. You have good questions. You are at the rudimentary stage where the temptation is to paint by the numbers. I suggest you hook up with a competent mentor and take a year to get your sea legs. I envy the advantage of having a beginner's mind. I suggest trusting that the Father's plan will include your remedy. Your Faith is your salvation. Bill
#317 re. #303
TOPIC: OWNERSHIP - LEGAL TITLE
joshuasdad100
Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:25 am [re: #303]
VERY GOOD IAMSONEDUDE. TRANSLATION: OWNERSHIP IS LEGAL TITLE. THE OWNER IS
LIABLE FOR TAXES, INSURANCE, UPKEEP AND PERFORMANCE. It means exactly the opposite of what society believes. The owner is a tenant beholding to the bank that holds the security interest (equitable title), the secured party. Now you know why you lose your foreclosures. Bill
#318
Re: New file uploaded to Reclaim_Your_Securities (Member Goodies v 1.2.docx)
markonealus
Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:56 am
Thanks!
I love it when questions get answered before they are asked.
#319 re. #315
Re: LET ME ANWER ALL YOUR QUESTIONS STARTING WITH: What is the quickest way ??
joshuasdad100
Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:57 am
YEHOSHUA TOLD US TO AGREE, BUT THAT WAS WITH OUR ENEMIES. RANDY, YOU'RE A MEMBER OF THIS GROUP, SO OUT OF RESPECT, AND CONCERN, I AM MOVED TO SAY....YOU ARE WRONG, IN EVERY POINT YOU MADE.
1. When the member used the term "age of majority" he was referring to abandoning incompetence. Treasury regs at 31 CFR 363 define you as a minor (an incompetent) until you've claimed your securities. Have you reclaimed yours? Of course not. So in the eyes of the public, you fall within the age of minority.
It is natural that those members who have attained majority might be misunderstood by their teenage brethren.
2. Please check the previous postings. A member already answered the question about "full status creditor" by telling you its a bogus term, inapposite to the wondrous disclosures provided by the members of this group that are available nowhere else. Believe me, NOWHERE else, and at considerable risk to themselves.
3. As to triumphs, we've got a bunch of them. SO WHAT? A member recently posted something to the effect that if you believe you will succeed, you are correct. If you believe you will not, you are correct. Someone last week asked me the same sickly question he asked six years ago, basically the same one you asked: "Show me the beef.".....THERE IS NO BEEF IF YOU CANNOT VISUALIZE YOURSELF AS OWNER OF YOUR LIFE. They will destroy you at the first hearing unless you agree to eat steak with Cipher. Your result, and mine, will not be the same. And this is not something you can learn from a list of details in a few emails. In fact,
the list of details will be the false crutch that will land you in the sinkhole.
4. As to not answering questions, I've got one for you: "What's the quickest way to become a surgeon?" "What's the quickest way to become a rocket scientist?" Get the point? THERE IS NO QUICK WAY. But the risks of giving you piece-meal details are enormous.
The reason you don't see the value of what's been disclosed in the first 300 postings is because you don't have the basic foundation YET to discriminate between gold and fool's gold. But you do have a wonderful opportunity, if you choose to adopt the beginner's mind. It's really up to you.
I hope you choose wisely, like your name. Bill
#320 re. #318
TOPIC: STRATEGIC ANTICIPATION - A GAME CHANGER
joshuasdad100
Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:00 am
THAT'S A POWERFUL OBSERVATION IN MANY WAYS. THE ABILITY TO ANTICIPATE THE PUBLIC RESPONSE TO A PROCESS IS AN INVALUABLE STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE TO OUTCOMES AND CONFIDENCE GOING IN. Bill
#321 re. #313
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
rhs8963
Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:12 am
I read it--might as well be in Chinese
Back to preschool.....I'm lurking
#322 re. #131
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
markonealus
Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:44 am
First we learned to roll over.
Then we learned to stand up.
Next we learned to walk.
Eventually we learned to run.
We are laying in our cribs, virtually helpless talking to a tap-dancer, and we must learn patience.
I cannot speak for all, but I feel like Neo must have felt right after he was extracted.
There was a time when I thought I understood SOME things. I am learning little by little that I really have no idea. But knowledge will come in its own time.
"True knowledge comes when you realize you don't know anything"
Albert Einstein
#323
Statute of Limitation Question
sawasinc
Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:48 am
Question please, based upon these facts below:
The statute of limitations on debt in Ohio limits the time you can be sued for a debt:
Oral Contract: 6 years
Written Contract: 15 years
Promissory Note: 15 years
Open-Ended Accounts: 6 years
If I closed escrow & lived in my home since 4/1996 and it's now 7/2012, making it 16 yrs 3 months
AND my mortgage is an Open-End Mortgage
AND my bank now is NOT the original bank.
My question is.. Do the limitations above in years apply to the original bank only?? or to the total amt of years with any and all banks (5 total) that I have made payments to INCLUDING the current one that has me in foreclosure???
AND.. would my loan fall under the Promissory Note of 15 yrs or the Open-End Acct's of 6 years??
thank you again and again
Sharon.
#324 re. #321
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
motla68
Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:51 am
- Registrar registers the event, whom is registered by the SEC and is indemnified by the state. That form of registration is in beneficial form, therefore since he is an agent of the state the state becomes the beneficiary in the grand scheme of things in the usufruct.
The capitol is the corral where all claims of legal title are held which makes the legal beneficiary of the cow (paper title) in their corral usufruct. The paper is the cow not us.
Feed the cow in consideration for use of the milk (the fruit).
Remember I showed you S.R. #62 where all ownership of property was through the state ?
make sense ?
#326 re. #324
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
rhs8963
Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:59 am
Some of it makes sense but I'm still confused
Where does the living soul come into play? The all-caps state name is the usufruct right? Then what is the role of the living soul?
#327 re. #below
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
rhs8963
Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:00 am
You've answered some of my questions between responses.
Now how far do I have to rewind in order to get to the point where I can become the usufruct with usufructary liability? How exactly does that happen?
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED re. #324
motla68 motla68@...
Tuesday, July 24, 2012, 1:58 PM
Let me rephrase slightly, the estate is the cow. The title is the paper claim on the cow. You make a claim on the cow you just became usufruct with a usufructuary liability (International Law).
#328 re. #317
Re: TOPIC: OWNERSHIP - LEGAL TITLE
iamsomedude
Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:17 am
Equity will not allow a trust to fail for want of a trustee ... If there is no trustee, whoever has title to the trust property will be considered the trustee.
As all "title" is held in "abeyance" by "United States and its army" (per Article 31 of Lieber Code) , who would be the "trustee"?
And since "United States and its army" "appropriates" from the same (per Article 31 of Lieber Code), who is the "beneficiary of the fruit" of those "interests" or "title"?
And does the maxim of law state "he who benefits ought bear the burden?"
And since "the State" has made "beneficial use" of "the gift" or "exposure" or "extension of credit regardless of what it is called", would "the State" and all those who "partook of that fruit" all then be "users of the fruit" or "usufruct" or "bearers of the burden"?
And what are the duties of the "usufructuary" or "one who enjoys the use of the "property" or "estate" or "interests" that belong to another"?
And since this "agreement" allows for "United States and its army" or "the State" to "exist as a condition of the agreement", it appears the one in agreement with "the State" being "usufructuary" would then be operating the "peace treaty" already agreed upon by the "occupying army" or "the State" that "maximizes the benefits for all parties" and helps "restore public order and safety," per Hague Article 43, and now government exists to "administrate the agreement" and it is done in accordance with the "rules of usufruct" as instructed to the "occupying army" or "the State" under Hague article 55 and acknowledged by the issuance of a "revenue receipt" or "live birth certificate" guaranteeing performance by both parties of a "contract under seal of state"; the people "donate" or "surrender" "usufructuary interest" or "ownership" or "legal title" while "the State" "services" the "usufructuary duties" or "equitable interests" as a "public debt obligation" which shall never be questioned and always in the best interests of "the State" for if the "trustees" fail to "discharge" the "usufructuary duties" of "the State", then one can just "withdraw the pledge", thus "exposing" "the State" to "risk" of "disease" which could result in a "destabilization" of "public order and safety."
And one will be tested for the recognition there are peaceful inhabitants gives rise a corollary duty to ensure those who are peaceful one day are not "belligerent" the next or "war rebels"; claiming "ownership" which is basically "engaging in an act of slavery" or "adverse possession", and if one is deceived by what is happening in "the public", then one is "at war" and "equity does not aid a volunteer" for "it is a fault to meddle in affairs that do not concern you" and "those who consent and those who perpetrate are embraced in the same punishment."
And if one does not "exercise" the "option" for "right of set-off" against the "lease" or "donation" of "usufructuary interest" or "exposure", then one is presumed to agree one is a "war rebel" and using trust property for private profit and gain or "piracy" which is an act of "insurrection" and "rebellion" or "ownership" or "adverse possession" and is prosecuted under one of the 3 -feasances; malfeasance (felonious), misfeasance (misdemeanor), or nonfeasance (civil) in a "war tribunal" for one is a "trustee de son tort" or "trespasser" upon the "contract under seal of state" of which "United States and its army" is "contracted" to "serve, protect, and defend".
And, as the Law of Nations clearly states, a "stranger" in the "host nation" has a duty to the host nation in defending it against pirates or robbers, against the ravages of an inundation, or the devastations of fire. For can he pretend to live under the protection of a state, to participate in a variety of advantages that it affords, and yet make no exertion for its defense, but remain an unconcerned spectator of the dangers to which the citizens are exposed?
“We ought not to think of common law & equity as of two rival systems. Equity has come not to destroy the law but to fulfill it, to supplement it, to explain it.”
#330 re. #327
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
motla68
Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:38 am
You already have it that way through natural law. But if your speaking of the legal side, I do not go there but have just asked the state admin about it, but if that really interests you then you have to go to the administration of the state, usually in the estates office in the court house, he / she will give you some information if you’re sweat to them, but so far as answering in detail what your asking of me hear they will of course tell you to consult with an attorney because it is at that point you have just displayed incompetence. Not my words, that is theirs.
Usually involves filling out some forms, paying a fee and speaking to a judge who will decide if your competent enough to handle the task of wrangling one of their cows.
'm
#331 re. #330
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
rhs8963
Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:09 pm
Well unfortunately I display incompetence because I am in this matter.
So how do I become competent? Where do I go? Where is my study focus?
#332 re. #328
Re: TOPIC: OWNERSHIP - LEGAL TITLE
rhs8963
Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:16 pm
I am amazed
I actually understand this.....
I'm throwing a party now!!!
On to kindergarten,,,,,,,,,
#333 re. #311 2nd
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
rcarne...
Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:29 pm
So....deposit to the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE...pay to the order of UNITED STATES TREASURY....hmm.."deposit to" telling IRS( trustee) who to pay and what to do..and charge the same to the SS# account..
#341 re. #below
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
rhs8963
Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:07 pm
So the state has legal usufruct, but we through natural law have lawful usufruct?
Is that correct??
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED re. 326
motla68 motla68@...
Tuesday, July 24, 2012, 2:31 PM
There is a dual usufruct in play, the state has the legal usufruct. God has usufruct of natural law (the earth ), we are usufructuary to that, he benefits by receiving all of the glory from the living soul.
Keep reading it a couple more times, it will come to you.
#346
Who acknowledges possession of usufruct in Natural Law?
motla68
Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:28 pm
Who acknowledges (Genesis 14) possession of usufruct in Natural Law?
#349 re. #341
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
iamsomedude
Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:25 pm
"The creator" ALWAYS surrenders "usufruct" to "the creation" to "ensure" or "insure" "the creation" evolves into whatever "the creation" is to become .... Creation and evolution go hand in hand; a symbiotic relationship.
It may be easier to think of it not as "legal usufruct" vs. "lawful usufruct", just in terms of "user of "fruit" "provided".
I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;" that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. - Letter from Jefferson to Madison Sep. 6, 1789
"God has created heaven for himself and his saints, and has given the earth to mankind, intending it for the advantage of the poor as well as of the rich. The resources are for their use, and God has not subjected them to any taxes." - Law of Nations Book 2, Chapter X, Section 132 [replace "resources" for "roads" for it is all the same]
Mankind is "naked owner" of "his image" and "usufruct" with respect to "the fruits" of "his image" for "his image" is always "his nature" and "the fruit" produced in service of "his nature" is self-evidence of the "god" mankind "worships" the government or society or "his image" "constructed" by mankind is "naked owner" of "the fruits" of "his image" and usufruct with respect to "his image" for "his image" is "the god" by which mankind wishes to be "known" and "governed"
In other words, mankind can do anything mankind wishes to the society of which mankind builds or creates but will ultimately be governed by the society which evolves from his service to his creation. "The system" currently in place is neutral, it will protect those who operate in honor or harmony with "the system" and right now, those who seek "subversive activities" are operating it more in honor or harmony than are the people; doesn't mean it is "correct" or "right", is just means those are "more in tune" with "the system"...What is going on now, is the "wake up call" to "adjust the course" mankind has "embarked upon"...a natural, cyclical event. Not everyone will wake up, hence the necessity to "keep the system intact" so one does not deny the future the opportunity for the same growth and development one is currently experiencing.
And I also am of the belief one should thank and forgive those who do "act subversive" for without them, would ANY of you be here learning this? They also serve the creator. Do not forget that.
So, each "sentient being" or "part and parcel of mankind" is but a "point of light" within "the image" mankind wishes "project" to any "sentient race encountered" for it "self-evidence" of the "god" mankind "worships". Usufruct is merely "pledging" "this life" to a purpose higher than one's self and "disclaiming" all glory for the benefit of "the image" and honoring that pledge. It is one's "skin in the game" as one now has a "vested interest" in "the fruit" of "the image"..."reap what is sown"
Mankind "takes advantage" of "the fruit provided" or "the earth" and "the fruit produced" from "the earth" is what is placed into "the trust" for "the system" to utilize; so, change the fruit tendered into the usufruct, change the direction of man.
And as of right now, what is "the fruit of man"?
I recommend people read "Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars" .... " In view of the law of natural selection it was agreed that a nation or world of people who will not use their intelligence are no better than animals who do not have intelligence. Such people are beasts of burden and steaks on the table by choice and consent. "
Stupid is as stupid does.
#352 re. #349
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
rhs8963
Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:32 pm
Although I like your explanation, it seems a little better for me to understand in the setting of legal vs. lawful usufruct. The state represents the legal and the living soul represents the lawful.
It's not eloquent or extensive, but it makes sense to me.
#377 re. below
Re: Funds in treasury come from a conversion, ... Transfer agent
derrickwayne...
Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:13 am
I am going to fill one out don’t know all the codes.
Re: Funds in treasury come from a conversion, NOT liens upon estates re. #254
motla68 motla68@... motla68
Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:34 PM
To extrapolate on one trustee who is doing conversions, check this out:
SEC
Section 17A(c) of the 1934 Act requires that transfer agents be registered with the SEC
Florida Statutes:
Title XXXIX
COMMERCIAL RELATIONS
Chapter 678
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE: INVESTMENT SECURITIES
View Entire Chapter
678.4071 & #8195; Authenticating trustee, transfer agent, and registrar. A person acting as authenticating trustee, transfer agent, registrar, or other agent for an issuer in the registration of a transfer of its securities, in the issue of new security certificates or uncertificated securities, or in the cancellation of surrendered security certificates has the same obligation to the holder or owner of a certificated or uncertificated security with regard to the particular functions performed as the issuer has in regard to those functions.
History. s. 4, ch. 98-11.
711.503 & #8195;Registration in beneficiary form; applicable law. A security may be registered in beneficiary form if the form is authorized by this or a similar statute of the state of organization of the issuer or registering entity, the location of the registering entity's principal office, the office of its transfer agent or its office making the registration, or by this or a similar statute of the law of the state listed as the owner's address at the time of registration. A registration governed by the law of a jurisdiction in which this or similar legislation is not in force or was not in force when a registration in beneficiary form was made is nevertheless presumed to be valid and authorized as a matter of contract law.
History. s. 3, ch. 94-216.
Is anyone here registered with the SEC as a transfer agent ?
#380 re. #377
Re: Funds in treasury come from a conversion, ... Transfer agent
motla68
Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:03 am
derrik... No, no. The posting was just to emphasize how the registrar was responsible for the transfer of the name given by the parents over to the state, then energy converted to create an estate. Guess I have to make myself a little more clearer, forget sometimes I am not working with the private group here.
There is already transfer agents in place appointed to do all that we need the state to do.
'm
#381 re. #323
Re: Status of Limitation Question
joshuasdad100
Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:14 am
YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASK AN ATTORNEY or read the statutes carefully to see how it's written and the associated case law, or hope that one of the members is familiar with Ohio SOL, since you are trying to game the system from within.
Most of the postings here concern how we can claim the note nunc pro tunc so the bank is obligated to us instead of the other way around. Bill
#383 re. #332
CAUTION!!!!
joshuasdad100
Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:53 am
This Martian showed up at my home one day and asked if he could africkoleafin with my daughter. This led to an argument. I was about to throw him off my property when another Martian ran over and said "He wants to pray with your daughter for forgiveness." Africkleafin is the highest gift on Mars.
"Oh," I said. "Why didn't he just say so?"
"He did," the second Martian pointed out. "In Martian."
A friend of mine said to a Judge, "I'm here to represent the vessel."
Predictably the judge chuckled and said, "So you think you're a boat?"
When converting miles to kilometers, is it helpful to first convert both to usufruct? I'm reminded of the movie: "Lost in Translation," when two minutes of instruction in Japanese is translated into two seconds of English.
There's the BC trust, the SS trust, and the securities trusts created when an instrument's deposited. A, B, C. Easy to understand. East to translate. Easy to enforce. It also reflects exactly how public officials and those who keep the books understand how the system works.
The members are doing fine work in this dialogue, but I suggest not losing sight of the forest, i.e. the expectations and ignorance of the adversary. Most of them are operating from the slave's perspective. Bill
#384 re. #333
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
joshuasdad100
Wed Jul 25, 2012 10:00 am
Don't need any of that language, rcarne. See posting #199 as to when we charge,
when we credit, and why. Bill
#385
A little symbolical reading to help discern.
motla68
Wed Jul 25, 2012 10:00 am
Here is a little help to learn the sybological usage of what has been put in place for us;
Possibly why do they call it the vital statistics office, see this definition:
Vitals;
2. The part essential to life, or to a sound state. Corruption of manners preys upon the vitals of a state.
There is a lot going on here, ever hear of competence being of a sound state of mind? Yes, you are a state of being, but incompetence is not always a bad thing, it sometimes means that your standing is under another law, just not the one they use. I.e. Natural law A man who was once pulled over and a cop told him " your under arrest " , the man replied " no I am not, I am under God ". When receiving an invitation to court and the judge started rattling off a couple statutes, he picks the bible back up that he affirmed on and asked him " what page are you on? " , the judge pauses for a minute, dismisses the case and tells the bailiff to get the man out of his courtroom.
The secrets of the state need to be protected folks and they will do whatever is in there power to protect it, if you go in as a peaceful inhabitant of a foreign jurisdiction and be a peacemaker that you have been given a token for " use " only your mileage will go further. You do not want to appear as your taking something away from them, just that your using it and you will leave it behind when your done with it.
You have as much duty to protect yourself as they have to protect the person, this is why some of us call the bible a peace treaty.
IRS - IMF ; Chapter 10 - Infant ; An infant is a decedent who has not yet received a SSN.
You see here, back to the Vital Stat terminology. An event was recorded, a person had to be created so that an estate may exist. Also that a token could be created so that an Act of God could be indemnified, settled, extinguished, setoff and discharged.
In this approach all we are doing is empowering these folks to do their job, this can be with good intent such as a diaper service or private investigation service i.e. Internal Revenue service, or it could be used with bad intent, for criminal reasons and creating controversies. Who comes with controversy? not this living man, I make not claim here.
Remedy is found in the law, but for you to find it, you will need to train your brain how to read the symbolism. What seal does the court have, the cops ticket, the drivers license, the certificate of title, inspection sticker?
It's a title dispute if you stand in the way, are you going to interfere?
A little insight into reading symbolism, watch this vid:
Also here is some reference how some words are used:
In history the druids had not spoken language, what they did is sing to each other to communicate and their written language was symbols. A calendar was found by some Archaeologists and it turned out to be the most accurate calendar in the world. Media does tell you this, but not a literal blunt like approach. Check out a movie called: Ghost Dog , if you can get past the violent acts and the spoken language you will see there is a unspoken language there of respect between a few people.
Enjoy the entertainment everyone,
'm
#386 re. #385
DEFINITION OF INCOMPETENCE
joshuasdad100
Wed Jul 25, 2012 10:32 am
See 31 CFR 363.6 if you wish to understand the very simple criteria the public uses to presume you're incompetent: YOU HAVEN'T CLAIMED YOUR SECURITIES. Why do you think I named this group Reclaim Your Securities? Bill
#388
Response Letter
motla68
Wed Jul 25, 2012 11:43 am
Here is a response letter someone received who thought they owned it too and found out it was only for " use " :
#394 re. #206
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
ladyfairfax3...
Wed Jul 25, 2012 5:23 pm
I wanted to point out that until about 5 years ago my drivers license had the SSN #. That goes for all 3 states I've lived in.
#395 re. #206
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
rcarne... re.#206
Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:49 pm
So Peter,
Why go thru all this... and why not just accept for value the "BC" endorse it on the back and send it to the IRS/CID c/o U.S. treasury and tell them to settle all accounts/issues involving the fiction/person as well as any others submitted in the future involving the Fiction/person they created? And do the same with the SS card as well. And same with the SS account as they are able to deal with the trusts as well as us...."give back to Caesar, what is Caesars... so the debt can be set off/discharged without dishonor...So, me thinks will I need a proxy as well to accomplish this? uhh maybe? Gonna go read some more....Hmm...#%#^!!
Rick
#396 re. #388
Re: Response Letter
motla68
Wed Jul 25, 2012 10:25 pm
For Florida anyway by law the hospitals do not need to hold records past 10 years and the state does not keep the hospital copy. Then there is the statement of live birth that shows detailed info that would have been on the hospital information. Birth certificate is a about a half page that includes a seal an all, this is the one they tell you to use to obtain a SSN and dl.
Basically a department of FEMA keeps a federal one and there is probably also one through United Nations because UNICEF goes into their world countries to obtain SOB from parents who do not have one. I imagine there is no local government there to do this so international level steps in since the nation signed in registration with UN.
'm
#401 re. #395
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
dvanderryt
Thu Jul 26, 2012 7:20 am
I have just joined this group but, I have been a member of the Redemption by Method group for a while now. I also have been studying a great deal. I hope I can learn enough to contribute.
I just read this post and trimmed it but, it stated that one should A4V the BC and endorse the back. This I have not heard of doing. I have been working on my Treaty of Peace, My Political Status, and FORGIVENESS OF DEBT.
My questions are:
Is it suggested that the A4V format be done to the face of the COLB and endorse the back. If so, what about the public signature on the front; should that be left off?
Q2. My father is dying right now at home. Can I do a A4V on his COLB and sign my name? Should I send in his BC with mine and try to HONOR my father in that way?
Any help would be appreciated.
Thank you
David VanDerryt
aka
DVD
I am everything if not an anything
DVD
#403 re. #395
Re: TREASURY PROCESS SHORTCUT??
joshuasdad100
Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:19 am
RE. YOUR IDEA HAS MERIT, RICHARD. THE ONLY PROBLEM IS THAT IT WON'T WORK.
They've built a Matrix to keep you out. There is, unfortunately, a complex protocol that they WILL follow (usually) to get things done. Bill
P.S. I'm talking fact here, not opinion re this issue.
#407 re. below
Re: Federal case dismissed using non-commercial method
surprized_daily
Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:28 am
Congrats to your friend & you M...... watched that entire movie yesterday you suggested "Peaceful Warrior" thanks for posting it. I just found another movie here, that is just as awesome. It's one I recommend to anyone on this group to checkout!
Into the Wild (2007) - After graduating from Emory University, top student and athlete Christopher McCandless abandons his possessions, gives his entire $24,000 savings account to charity and hitchhikes to Alaska to live in the wilderness. Along the way, Christopher encounters a series of characters that shape his life. Can watch it online for free here:
Wait for the page to load, then press the small play button on the bottom left of the larger video player. Do NOT need to download anything to watch this here....Don't pay attention to the ad over the player....click the small play button on bottom left of large player & it should play fine.....am watching it now & I got to tell you it's exactly what I feel is the single most crucial thing to getting out of this Matrix......pay close attention to the movie I recommended here at about the 28 minute mark and prior to that what the main character does with his wad of FRNs....hint (they make great fire starting material)
Enjoy the movie.....well worth the time to watch.. IMO
Geo
--- In Reclaim_Your_Securities@, "motla68" wrote:
I talk to a friend yesterday who called with good news and also to thank me for working with on his court issue, the charge and his name are withheld because it is all one in the same.
This family man was facing 15 yrs in federal prison, a case that had been going on for 4 years, finally came to me and said that he tried everything else and if I would be willing to try and help him out.
When he decided he was done with his education he sat down and wrote out a brilliant affidavit from his own understanding, basically was presenting he had no commercial interests in the case, said he was done and apologized for any mistaken identity that happened, also inserted the lords prayer. NO AFV, No liens or any other form to give assumption that he was a trustee with a liability to perform in commerce.
The Attorney called to try and get one last crack at him to try an upset him so he would be trick into going back into enemy combatant mode and he stood his ground.
He actually looked it up online to see the case had been dismissed.
So case was dismissed, a few of us are going out to celebrate this evening some.
#415 re. #146
Re: TOPIC: COURT, SECURITIES, CASE BOND & TRUSTS --THE INSIDE STORY
younglady1975
Thu Jul 26, 2012 11:39 am
Hello. I want to get further clarification. So after signing and becoming trustee for this security, I would be responsible for paying the tax; how are we notified to pay the taxes or how would we know to pay the tax if don't ever get a tax bill for it, or do we get a tax bill? I guess what I'm asking is how is that tax debt accounted for?
#418 re. #301
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
dang_78...
Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:00 pm
I think what Derrick is asking......Under what situations does one make use of the BC / BC Bond and use the phrase "Charge The Same TO" and with what instrument and under what circumstances would one use Setoff/Dischrage process using the phrase "Credit To" and what is the instrument used to do this ?
#419 re. below
TOPICS: SETOFF PROTOCOL; UCC’s, ESTATES; MARITIME LIENS
joshuasdad100
Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:08 pm
Hi Mark, will try to answer all of your questions (below) to the best of my ability…
1. WHICH ESTATE? Simple, the Birth Certificate trust. The BC trust includes all of your assets and liabilities in the public trust known as the United States. It was created specifically to be the surety for all of the liabilities
attributed to the strawman trust. The strawman represents debt, period. All actions in admiralty begin by issuing an arrest security (a warrant criminally, or a summons civilly) for the vessel (the strawman) to entice a surety, an underwriter, to appear and post bond. They seek your permission to tap the mother lode, the Estate. They presume you will provide your consent to access the surety by appearing and signing a bond.
That Estate is distinct from the private estate, which is your Divine inheritance from YHWH. The Divine estate is not cognizable in the public trust. G-d is truth, and truth is a contempt in the admiralty world of fictions. This
is why the so-called Executor letters usually fail. I get a chill when I read the words of Yehoshua: You cannot serve both G-d and Mammon." Amen brother.
HERE'S A TIP: Most of my letters derive from the Grantor or Beneficiary, and occasionally from the strawman acting as Trustee when it's to the Beneficiary's (my) advantage.
2. I WILL SKIP THE CREDENTIALS QUESTION as it concerns an entity we don't utilize.
3. HOW DO YOU "COMMAND" THE AGENCY TO EXECUTE YOUR SETOFFS? Establish recognizable status and submit the correct paperwork. The paperwork depends on the task a hand: a mortgage, credit card, tax lien, property tax, recouping certain bank funds, a disposition, a deemed disposition, a partial exchange, a
general deposit, a special deposit, within the past 3 years, older than 3 years……you get the picture. It may involve a single sheet of paper or as many as 30 – 40 documents. Even when you think you understand, a new situations arises. The nature of the process does not lend itself to parsing details in a Group. Thousands of patriots have boxes of failed acceptances doing process based upon miniscule understanding. I suggest you hook-up with a good mentor.
4. WHAT DO UCC FILINGS ACCOMPLISH? The way most people are doing them? Nothing, other to identify the patriot to Treasury as incompetent. The Turner docs have damaged the reputation o thousands of patriots in Treasury's files. Treasury knows they're following blindly. Properly done, the UCC's perfect a maritime lien. UCC 9-311 (a)(3) demonstrates that the BC is your proof of a perfected lien in the estate. But we seek a maritime lien in the Estate, and the UCC’s are part of the perfection. They also allow public officials to see our standing.
5. CAN YOU ACHIEVE STANDING WITHOUT THEM? Not in admiralty. Keep in mind, that behind every perfected lien is a correct Security Agreement. Like most patriots, my original SA identified the strawman as the debtor. That means I could never claim the securities in the BC trust account since the SS trust is a subsidiary of the BC estate. We also screwed up by naming the living man as the creditor. Most patriots are still making that mistake. There is no button or database field in a public computer to enter the living presence, so it winds up being converted to the strawman. In other words, THE CLERK IS USUALLY RIGHT WHEN SHE
REJECTS YOUR UCC-1 FOR NAMING THE SAME PARTY AS DEBTOR AND CREDITOR. We use an
admiralty-ready proxy that is not beholding to the agency. That pretty much tells you the basic UCC strategy.
6. WHAT IS CP 575? It's the letter the agency returns after dispensing an EIN.
UCC’s can be simple or a pain in the neck. If you're one of the many patriots who declared a decedent estate, the UCC is more problematic (as is the Security Agreement). I've spent the last three days trying to file a UCC1 only to be stonewalled online. Today I figured out the workaround. Each situation is different. That's why you're not finding cookie-cutter approaches at this Group. The Father said we will die for lack of knowledge. He did not say information. PATRIOT'S HAVE NO SHORTAGE OF INFORMATION. BUT FEW COMMAND KNOWLEDGE. The Father wants us to be wise, not necessarily educated. He wants us to understand, not parrot back someone else's words. Feel free to contact me by private email. PLEASE ENTER THE WORDS "PRIVATE MAIL" IN THE SUBJECT LINE SO I CAN SPOT IT IN MY DISASTROUS INBOX.
The Father has a plan for all of us. He proved his love by allowing us to die and live eternally. He sacrificed greatly by subjecting Yehoshua to a man's death, that we might live like Him. All good fortune. Bill
Greetings
Mark ONeal
Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:49 PM
Hey Bill - Time for me to prove my ignorance once again. My questions are in bold after each point below.
Here are some things to think about.
1. The Estate is actually the surety for all the securities you and the public have issued against your credit.
Which estate?
2. If you bank with special deposit you cannot claim a refund later because the funds are never commingled with the banks. Not one person I've spoken with is aware of this.
3. The Executor's information reports are ignored the way most people have constructed the office due to various defects (see posting #48).
4. You also canNOT use the second entity, the irrevocable trust many have created, whether under your own name or pseudonym, because it lacks the credentials the agency requires to process forms (see #48).
I have never created such an entity, so perhaps I have a chance here. What credentials DOES this entity need?
5. Despite your procedures, the IRS will maintain the position that it's a trustee on the strawman trust. So working around it won't work. You have to employ the agency to perform as trustee.
So, how does one command this agency to perform as desired? I get the feeling from reading all these posts that they are going to be my new best friends.
6. The most critical deficiency is the lack of a proper security interest and lien. Filing the UCC-1 as so many have done it is defective as the security interest has not been developed.
I have never understood what these UCC filings are supposed to accomplish, so, I have not filed them, despite MANY peoples advice. Is there a method of accomplishing the same function without using their forms?
7. From what I've seen, many people remain confused about the difference between the estate David Clarence was talking about, and the Estate they've tried to file as a secured party, and the PUBLIC ESTATE the agency returns in the CP 575.
See question in point 1 above. Also, what is CP 575?
8. In most cases, there's no credentialed holder in due course of the security interest. I wish I could say this was due to a lack of knowledge, but I believe the info was withheld in many cases because I have located some of the "mentors'" credentials through internet search.
Despite all of this, I DON'T BELIEVE THE ESTATE MOVEMENT WAS A FAILURE. It got many pointed in a better direction. My people perish from a lack of knowledge. I am disappointed that no one I've spoken to really understands the implications of their bank account, positive AND negative.
Please contact me by private email if you seek further discussion, Bill
Thanks,
Mark
#420 re. #419
Re: TOPICS: SETOFF PROTOCOL; UCC’s, ESTATES; MARITIME LIENS;
of the one sovereign sentient
Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:18 pm
Other than you Bill.....where are the mentors.........
#421 re. #419
Re: TOPICS: SETOFF PROTOCOL; UCC’s, ESTATES; MARITIME LIENS;
locomotivate
Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:19 pm
Can you elaborate a little on this. Thank you for helping us!
We use an admiralty-ready proxy that is not beholding to the agency.
#422 re. #415
TOPIC: ALL ABOUT TRUSTEES
joshuasdad100
Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:27 pm
Good questions, "younglady." IN A COURT TRUST, WE APPOINT A PUBLIC TRUST (e.g. JUDGE JOHN SMITH) AS THE TRUSTEE to counter their presumption that we're the trustee. Now they have to exchange the securities as I described (a tax-free event since it would be an even exchange), or THEY are liable for the taxes on the gain when they keep my securities (taxable termination - see 26 USC 2603, 2611 and 2612). If they do not exchange or show me my copies of the tax reports of the gain, then the trust collapses and they have to return all of my securities or else they've got big problems with securities and tax fraud. You can't RE-sell unregistered securities and not declare the gain and pay the tax. But somehow that's exactly what these champions of the law do every day.
Let me dispel some confusions: THERE ARE 2 DIFFERENT TRUSTEE SITUATIONS INVOLVING THE STRAWMAN:
1. When a trust is created by the deposit of one of my Estate's securities (like a Court trust created by the deposit of an indictment or arrest warrant), they are trustee on that deposit, even though they immediately presume that the strawman is the trustee (until they get your paperwork or you show up and give them a kick in the pants).
2. When we create a trust to benefit ourselves, we usually appoint the strawman as the trustee. It may have an SSN, but as long as the Grantor does not, the trust is not beholding to the agency.
Hope that helps you receive the Father's blessings. Bill
#427 re. #418
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
embury111
Thu Jul 26, 2012 2:54 pm
He explains this is in ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED. Read it again and again, if you have to.....
- peacemaker -
#429 re. below
Re: Response Letter
fdmfghr
Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:14 pm
Mostly so, except that not all 'live birth' be it statement or registration in title, are on long paper....I know of some that are regular letter page format.
eponymous_680
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 3:37:06 PM
Re: Response Letter re. #388
In the this letter, from the Michigan Department of Health- for those that can view it, did you pick up on the difference between the "certificate of live birth", and the "original records of live birth, i.e. the 'original certificate", and where it's kept, in the "repository"? Sounds like a trust was established.....question is, what's the difference between the regular birth certificate, and the long form, "statement of live birth", anyone?
In 'canada', we have the "Physician's Notice of Live Birth (form 1)" ((rare, very hard to procure)), "Registration of Live Birth (form 2)", also known as, the "Statement of Live Birth" (both of these docs, are printed on Bank of Canada bond paper, 11' X 14"), and the "Birth Certificate", which is either credit card sized, or the newer ones are printed on the new polymer plastic....
- peacemaker -
#433 re. #419
Re: TOPICS: SETOFF PROTOCOL; UCC’s, ESTATES; MARITIME LIENS;
embury111
Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:11 pm
In answer #5 you say: "Like most patriots, my original SA identified the strawman as the debtor. That means I could never claim the securities in the BC trust account since the SS trust is a subsidiary of the BC estate."
I'm confused - the strawman is the debtor - you've already said this in previous posts - so it has no standing in admiralty ....
- peacemaker -
#434 re. below
Re: TOPIC: ALL ABOUT TRUSTEES-INSTANT CHANGE IN THE COURTROOM
joshuasdad100
Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:16 pm
TO EPONYMOUS680.....HOW DO WE APPOINT THEM AS TRUSTEE?...WE APPEAR (without showing up) AS THE GRANTOR AND BENEFICIARY OF THE TRUST CREATED BY THE DEPOSIT OF THE SECURITY (be it indictment, summons, complaint, warrant, case bond). We appear (without showing up) as the depositor. ONLY WE CAN RECLAIM OUR SECURITIES. Only we can make the appointments. They went fishing by issuing securities without an underwriter, but they presumed incorrectly. However, if they want to keep the securities: "fine, then show me the tax reports of the gain and the receipts for the capital gains. If not, I will file them for you and it will be a bloodbath." You see, they KNOW they've committed securities and
tax fraud.
The law of trusts is like the laws of gravity and momentum. There's no getting around it, and they know it.
The non-commercial method that's being discussed in the last few postings is excellent, and we've been involved in a few, but even then, the straw that sent the judges literally running from the room was the patriot's command of commerce. Once they know that you know how to foreclose on their public trust (JUDGE JOHN SMITH), you can literally feeeel the roles reverse.
That's how, peacemaker. Good questions. Bill
As to UCC, we have a security interest which defines the debtor estate and the grantor.
eponymous_680 embury111@... wrote: re. #422
Question, how do we have any sort of standing to appoint judge trustee - we're considered trustee de son tort, until we've switched the nature of the usufruct, yes? Same applies to filing the UCC - how do we have any capacity to fill 'their' forms out, even if we are doing it through a corporate 'proxy'?
- peacemaker –
#436 re. #434
Re: TOPIC: ALL ABOUT TRUSTEES-INSTANT CHANGE IN THE COURTROOM
markonealus
Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:20 pm
Perhaps I am missing something here. I am of the opinion that there are some things that need to be done "foundationally" before we can get something like that to work. Things like the security agreement and UCC stuff and various filings with the government. or are you saying that little ol' me, just as I am right now can file this appearance and reclaim my securities?
#449 re. #433
Re: TOPICS: SETOFF PROTOCOL; UCC’s, ESTATES; MARITIME LIENS-CLARIFICATION
joshuasdad100
Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:01 am
I CAN SEE HOW THIS COULD BE CONFUSING. I was referring to which trust we're claiming with the SA, BC bond, UCC’s, lien and Treasury process. Most of us go after the Estate (the BC trust) which coverts [covers?] everything since the SS trust and all of our securities are derived from the BC trust/Estate.
But there are reasons someone might choose to capture the SS trust instead, or even a lesser trust. Same process, only specifying a different debtor. In that case, you would only be able to claim securities issued from that lesser trust and all lesser trusts derived from it.
WHY IS THE ESTATE A DEBTOR? It is surety for all o the strawman's trusts. It's the portal to our credit/labor/equity controlled by the ed through Treasury on the private side.
Hope that clarifies. Bill
#450 re. #420
Re: TOPICS: WHERE ARE THE MENTORS?
joshuasdad100
Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:21 am
There are a handful who have learned the system from insiders. Please email me from a non-Yahoo account (Yahoo emails don't make it through my ISP's spam filters). No promises, however. Few are willing to talk. Bill
P.S. There are many others WHO THINK they understand the system. If they're focused on the Estate rather than securities and trusts, be very cautious because the Estate has no recourse through the agency.
#452 re. #436
Re: TOPIC: ALL ABOUT TRUSTEES-INSTANT CHANGE IN THE COURTROOM
joshuasdad100
Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:26 am
FIRST YOU NEED STATUS. THE JANITOR CAN'T TRADE IN CORPORATE SECURITIES.
"First you learn to use this (his brain), and then I'll teach you to use this (his sword)." Argyle Wallace to William (at least in the movie). Makes sense to me. Bill
#461 re. #434
Re: TOPIC: ALL ABOUT TRUSTEES-INSTANT CHANGE IN THE COURTROOM
Strawman
Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:00 pm
Can I ask the million dollar question?
How do we appear without showing up? Is there some doc that does that for us.
Sorry, I'm new to the group.
#463 re. #422
Re: TOPIC: ALL ABOUT TRUSTEES
younglady1975
Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:39 pm
When we appoint a public trust (judge) as trustee is this done verbally, if so, what would one say? Or is it done by putting documentation on the record before we show up or would we even need to show up? What would that documentation be?
Okay, so if I do everything wrong and show up and give them my name and sign the appearance bond, there would be no tax owed because it's an original issue security?
Also, if the court is the beneficiary, how are they able to act as a trustee and invest/deposit the security or do they do it in your name? So are they creating the trust on our behalf where we are the grantor and the trustee? If they are using our SSN when filing with the IRS and/or the treasury then we would have to be the grantor, no?
So, after reading a little more about trusts, if a beneficiary or creator/grantor of a trust hires/appoints a trustee to manage the trust for the benefit of the beneficiary/self, is the trust itself the owner or is the beneficiary the owner? The trustee can only be the owner if he's actually a beneficiary/grantor who failed to hire/appoint a trustee?
At any rate, what I would be doing is entering into a trust between the public trust and myself/my estate where my estate is put up on the table to pay for any restitution in the case that I am found to owe them. Ideally, the judge/public trust would be named trustee rather than beneficiary so that I would be able to pay restitution myself through my estate, rather than having the public trust paid directly from my estate? Is this the jist of it or where might I need clarification?
#464 re. #422
Re: TOPIC: ALL ABOUT TRUSTEES
younglady1975
Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:42 pm
So is the proxy with standing in admiralty our uppercase/lowercase name where the strawman is the all CAPs name? Who would be the second proxy, would we need to create an llc or corp for this one?
#469 re. #463
Re: TOPIC: ALL ABOUT TRUSTEES
apokalypse1...
Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:11 pm
The court is not acting as Bene AND Trustee...They are assuming you will sign the bond and YOU are the Trustee...You are the one performing. That is why you need to reassign roles and destroy their presumption...(I think)
IMHO.
#473 re. #452
Re: TOPIC: ALL ABOUT TRUSTEES-INSTANT CHANGE IN THE COURTROOM
fdmfghr
Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:36 pm
Janitor can't trade in securities? Sure he can, but only when in his own private capacity, not his janitorial job role. So means NOT for or from within the structure that deems him a 'janitor'. NOT so? If you disagree, please explain.
#475 re. several off-topic posts
NOTICE - NOTICE - NOTICE
joshuasdad100
Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:26 pm
TO ALL MEMBERS: THIS GROUP IS DEDICATED TO EDUCATION. It was created to stem the tide of endless frustrating twists and turns that have wasted your time and diverted your attention to rumor, riches and even absurdities instead of UNDERSTANDING the basic principles and procedures that govern the commercial
society.
As much as we would like to help people directly, this is not a forum to solve your immediate controversies. THE PAINFUL TRUTH IS THAT MANY OF OUR CONTROVERSIES RESULTED FROM ACTING PREMATURE TO UNDERSTANDING. The lessons we learn may be the darkest, but they are also likely to be the most valuable of our lives. We intend to change that pattern once and for all. Instead of solving problems, we crave a community that understands how to avoid them.
This Group will be establishing a boilerplate knowledgebase of specific trustworthy maxims to serve as the ladder of emergence from confusion and desperation once for all.
I deeply apologize for our inability to solve your individual problems. The knowledge is far too broad for pat answers and magic bullets. I pray to Almighty G-d that His wisdom be blessed upon each and every member, that you might one day replace your fears and desperation with the quiet confidence that comes from mastery of the truth, and faith that the Lord has you covered. Bill
#484
Trustee in DSS case?
trooper753
Sat Jul 28, 2012 6:11 am
I heard some interesting terms in the DSS court - baby snatchers court for those who don’t know - that were very commercial- one of which is a term used in EFT process. Let me digress for a moment and explain. My daughter went through an ugly custody battle and ended up being charged with kidnapping. The charges were dismissed, but upon arresting her, the other child was taken by DSS while she was in jail.
I am extremely familiar with appointing the judge as trustee in criminal cases, but cannot quite wrap my head around doing it in a DSS case.
My other thought is this- could you transfer a child’s BC to another person - grandparent to stop the DSS case?
Any thoughts?
Char ~ I fight what you fear!
#485 re. #463
TOPIC: COURT CASES & MAXIM #1
joshuasdad100
Sat Jul 28, 2012 7:52 am
GOOD QUESTIONS "YOUNGLADY1975." Let's go one by one.........
1. MAXIM 1. FACT: IF YOU MENTION THE TRUST IN COURT WITHOUT PROPER STATUS AND
UNDERSTANDING TO ACCESS ENFORCEMENT, YOU WILL BE TARGETED FOR SPECIAL PUNISHMENT FOR ATTACKING THEIR REVENUE STREAM. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.**
2. A trustee can be appointed orally or in writing.
3. I choose to appear privately as Grantor and Beneficiary of the trust created by the deposit of the charging SECURITY (not "instrument") in the Court's books. I choose to appear through my paperwork, the nature of which depends on the individual situation (and understanding their internal policy to disregard templated paperwork). By definition, whoever accepts a security has a fiduciary obligation to perform a/k/a he's the trustee. If he does not, he's got problems due to securities and tax fraud, the same as if you accepted my check and failed to provide the service.
4. If forced to appear physically, I can play possum, creditor, banker, claimant, or just general pain in the butt. I can even play trustee if it would benefit the Beneficiary (me).
5. The Court does not create the trust (see above). This is a common misunderstanding. Very important.
6. I don't give them my name. Why would I allow them to play the name game and confuse me with a trust? I would rather begin by terminating the false presumptions or recapturing my property. They can comply or face the consequences, which will vary depending on the crimes and the status of the case.
7. Why would I sign an appearance bond? But if I did, it's MY security, not theirs, a security future to be deposited like anything else, a bet against future performance. They will try to interpret it according to the words on the page, but I will treat it like a security and hold them to performance.
8. The Court is not the beneficiary of my securities. That's the first presumption that goes out the window.
9. As to ownership, the securities are "placed in trust" with the Trustee. That is one of three ways to create a trust (Sec 401, Uniform Trust Code). The beneficiary has beneficial interest in the property (a security interest). Isn't that what we want?
I hope this helps. Bill
** This Group will not facilitate typical foolishness like shooting from the hip, bluffing with sound bites, or blaming failures on bad technology. There is no technology to fail, there's only understanding. Please exercise good judgment or the Group will disappear from Yahoo.
#486 re. #484
Re: Trustee in DSS case?
joshuasdad100
Sat Jul 28, 2012 7:59 am
CHAR - WHY WOULD THERE BE ANY DIFFERENCE IN ANY COURT? ITS ALL COMMERCE. "There
is only one form of action, a civil action" (Rule 2, Fed. Rules of Civil Proc). If you know how to appoint a trustee in one, you know how to appoint a trustee anywhere.
But let me clarify something. THEY ARE ALREADY THE TRUSTEE. It's really a matter of correcting the false presumption.
You cannot transfer a BC. You only have a copy. The original is in the State files at the birth County seat. However, a grandparent can certainly perfect a claim against the minor's securities if the parent defers. The question is, does the grandparent have the understanding to act and enforce? Bill
#488 re. #473
Re: TOPIC: ALL ABOUT TRUSTEES-INSTANT CHANGE IN THE COURTROOM
joshuasdad100
Sat Jul 28, 2012 10:41 am
Duh
#489 re. #434
INSIGHT FROM A GROUP MEMBER INTO THE COURT TRUST......
joshuasdad100
Sat Jul 28, 2012 11:30 am
TO EPONYMOUS680........Every time I gloss over things instead of thinking them through, I wind up with double the work. Reminds me o the old expression, The cheap man pays the most. Knowing how the trust was created is critical because your response is NOT to create a trust but to clarify the existing one per the Grantor's intent. As I said earlier, YOU WILL HAVE TO REWRITE MOST OF YOUR TAPES to finally accommodate the truth about our world of fiction. Just like Marine boot camp.
The trust does not have a name. Many trusts do not. JUDGE JIM JUDAS is the name of the public trust that's acting as the bank.
Your second paragraph is a perfect summary of the circumstances, especially the part about expressing the true trust:
"All of this is done - publicly - with the USA being the construed (implied) beneficiary, and we're the trustee/ surety? If we don't express, what I call, the true trust, that we are the true grantor/beneficiary/depositor/donor,
and all around good guy, then we will be liable for future performance on that security that was deposited into trust....? And, no matter what the paper says, it's a security? Bottom line?"
Bill
P.S. How about giving us a name to work with.
#490 re. #489
Re: INSIGHT FROM A GROUP MEMBER INTO THE COURT TRUST......
ladyfairfax3...
Sat Jul 28, 2012 12:13 pm
1951 Powers of Appointment Act.
~Allows us to specifically express the terms and change our role in the power structure of the constructive trust already in place.~. Lady Fairfax
FLA. STAT. ANN. § 737.402(4)(a) (West 1994):
(4)(a) Due to the inherent conflict of interest that exists between a trustee who is a beneficiary and other beneficiaries of the trust, unless the terms of a trust refer specifically to this subsection and provide expressly to the contrary, any power conferred upon a trustee (other than the settlor of a revocable or amendable trust or a decedent's or settlor's spouse who is the trustee of a testamentary or an inter vivos trust for which a marital deduction has been allowed):
1.To make discretionary distributions of either principal or income to or for the benefit of such trustee, except to provide for that trustee's health, education, maintenance, or support as described under Internal Revenue Code ss. 2041 and 2514;...
cannot be exercised by such trustee.
#491 re. #486
Re: Trustee in DSS case?
ladyfairfax3...
Sat Jul 28, 2012 12:29 pm
Quote:
You cannot transfer a BC. You only have a copy. The original is in the State files at the birth County seat. However, a grandparent can certainly perfect a claim against the minor's securities if the parent defers. The question is, does the grandparent have the understanding to act and enforce? Bill
So, there would be power in acquiring acceptance from the original informant and deposit with the court? I've been toying with this idea. I do have a friend, however, who deposited the "Defendant" in the form of a BC attached to an affidavit of identity and directed the court to discharge and close all current and future actions connected to the case. The warrant disappeared. You may want to reconsider your previous statement.
#492 re. #491
Re: Trustee in DSS case?
ladyfairfax3...
Sat Jul 28, 2012 12:31 pm
I correct myself...this being a DSS issue. My apologies.
#494 re. #485
BILL?? QUESTIONS REGARDING >>>> TOPIC: COURT CASES & MAXIM #1
sawasinc
Sat Jul 28, 2012 3:05 pm
wow.. so many thoughts and questions within this email you wrote.. ..that I now have and others could have also.. My Foreclosure hearing/pretrial is this coming Thursday at 9 am. HELP!!
1. Did they issued a Bond when they assigned my case number on my Foreclosure Case?
and if they did,
2 you speak about the Appearance Band or perhaps it's called something else when a foreclosure? .. Does this apply in Foreclosure also? and if it does
3. How can I avoid signing in without starting out on the wrong foot from the start?
Sign with a "X" ?? or Sign my name all in little letters? OR
s______ w______ putting this under it? OR
without recourse?
signing under duress
s_______ w________ again all little letters ?
without recourse
4. When they ask if SXXXXX WXXXXX is in the court? do i show them the Birth Cert. with all CAP'S name stating that it is in the court. holding up the Birth Cert? and then also showing the original BC with my name in small letter which is my original one that my parents kept and before they put my name all in CAP'S ?? then Stating that I am the Flesh & Blood human woman giving my proof which represents the original BC only? Then stating that I am "heir and administrator" of my legal person, Would this work ?
AND
5. I've heard to get a Dismissal by doing what's below.. IS THIS TRUE?:
a) asking for Remedy (judge leaves court comes back in to regain jurisdiction)
b) you now ask for cure & maintenance ( judge leaves court again, comes back in to regain jurisdiction)
c) you state you only answer to The Divine Creator CASE DISMISSED !! Totally overriding all the filings back and forth for the last 2.5 years
6. If object to any and all assumptions within any and all presumptions or vise versa AND I totally challenge STANDING and demand FULL DISCLOSURE regarding what really happened regarding the Note and Mortgage as to what they REALLY SAY.. Can I then claim to be the Grantor ( Grantor and Beneficiary of the trust created by the deposit of the charging SECURITY (not "instrument") in the Court's books ) which I know that I am and then appoint the Judge as the trustee to then DEMAND DISMISSAL !? for this darn foreclosure case?
Sharon.
#495 re. #491
Re: Trustee in DSS case?
joshuasdad100
Sat Jul 28, 2012 3:50 pm
You can assign your claim in the BC trust, but you are not the holder of the BC and cannot transfer it. Your friend used a certified copy of the BC under UCC 9-311 to express his claim and the affidavit of status to establish beneficiary status. But I promise you, the BC is still located in the vault in the records vault in his home state. Bill
#496
NO LOAN. Conversation between Defense Atty & Plaintiff Bank
sawasinc
Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:05 pm
NO LOAN !!! How loans work.
Conversation between Defense Atty. and Plaintiff Bank
see attached
Sharon.
In a message dated 7/28/2012 2:30:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, joshuasdad100@... writes:
Attachment
042710_how_loans_work.pdf
Type:
application/pdf
#497 re. #494
Re: BILL?? QUESTIONS REGARDING >>>> TOPIC: COURT CASES & MAXIM #1
joshuasdad100
Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:18 pm
Sharon, I have no comment on the various strategies you propose other than to observe that they are not really a part of this Group's curriculum. One observation may help however about strategizing. Visiting a Court with a laundry list of possible strategies is a death sentence. Either you have mastered one approach, or not. It's not the particular method that gives success or failure. IT'S YOU. When you strategize an approach as your fall back position, you can expect to be falling back during the hearing. If you create energy of indecision, weakness and failure, you can expect indecision, weakness and failure. Those who win are the ones who have no doubt that they will. That's just the way the universe works. The strategies you cite are weak because they rely upon discretion. When you understand the matrix of securities and trusts, all the discretion reverts to you.
Keep in mind, IF YOU WAIT TO ESTABLISH YOUR STATUS AS BENEFICIARY, THEY WILL
PERCEIVE YOUR LACK OF BELIEF AND WALK ALL OVER YOU. Don't do it, Sharon. Do NOT EVEN CONSIDER talking about estates, trusts, securities, grantors and beneficiaries until you have mastered this knowledge AND COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND how to enforce it. You'll get clobbered.
IT'S ESSENTIAL you read Maxim #1, posting 485, because you are about to walk off a cliff. I would suggest sticking with the things you understand, and commanding the miracles you seek in Yehoshua's name. Blessings to you. Bill
P.S. The reason BCs and notary certificates are ignored is because they are not proved. See Fed R Civ. Proc 44 and 28 USC 1739. They need to be authenticated (NOT apostiled).
#498 re. #486
They already ARE the Trustee !!
sawasinc
Sat Jul 28, 2012 5:43 pm
EXACTLY !!! boy I would love to get my hands on how to correct the false presumption .. Let me clarify that.. What I mean is the PROOF TO SHUT THEM UP, so they know I know !
Sharon.
#499 re. #497
Re: BILL?? QUESTIONS REGARDING >>>> TOPIC: COURT CASES & MAXIM #1
markonealus
Sat Jul 28, 2012 5:49 pm
You mean that the CoLB from the bureau of Vital statistics with the embossed seal isn't considered authentic?
#500 re. #495
Re: Trustee in DSS case?
sawasinc
Sat Jul 28, 2012 5:56 pm
But my mom kept the microfiche of my birth cert where they have my name in small letters, and I do have it. Does this mean anything?
#504 re. #450
Re: TOPICS: WHERE ARE THE MENTORS?
"ladyfairfax33@..."
Sat Jul 28, 2012 7:48 pm
But Bill, aren't testamentary estates actually trust instruments? I found this interesting publication on advanced fiduciary accounting. I hope it's useful.
\y_Accounting.pdf
#505 re. #489
Re: INSIGHT FROM A GROUP MEMBER INTO THE COURT TRUST......
trooper753
Sat Jul 28, 2012 10:09 pm
I think y'all are giving the judge too much credit. The clerk is the bank and the true court. The judge is just the smoke in mirrors, though tied to the court- and some responsibility on his/her part, the clerk is the one who issues warrants (after they are signed by a law enforcement agency or a judicial official) - the clerk is also the one who gives a case number, holds monies for judgments and transfers funds to CRIS system. The clerk holds the records and the power to make things get 'lost' or go away completely. The judge is just a puppet.
Char ~ I fight what you fear!
#508 re. #505
CORRECTION:....THE COURT IS THE JUDGE. THE CLERK IS NOT.
joshuasdad100
Sun Jul 29, 2012 7:48 am
PLEASE EXCUSE THIS CORRECTION. I never like to disagree with my colleagues so forgive me for setting the record straight for the common good. But this Group is committed to dispelling the long list of flawed patriot philosophy that has focused our attention on defective remedies......THE NOTION THAT THE CLERK IS THE COURT IS ONE OF THOSE FALLACIES. It is based on subtle defects in logic and insufficient research. Like many other delusions, once uttered it spread like a plague in a community desperate for answers.
First of all, by definition, both courts (of record) and incorporated Courts CONSIST OF JUDGES. Just read the Statutes...
Corporate Courts:
28 USC Sec. 1 Number of justices; quorum
The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum.
Pennsylvania Revised Statutes
Title 42, Sec. 501. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania shall consist of the Chief Justice of Pennsylvania and six associate justices.
courts of record
28 USC 132
b) Each district court shall consist of the district judge or judges for the district in regular active service.
"SHALL CONSIST OF" pretty much ends the argument regardless of how committed we are to our own logic.
SECONDLY, as to logic, a bank teller has all the same fiduciary responsibilities that the member cited. Nonetheless, the bank is the fiduciary of record.
THIRDLY, we may have forgotten that when a Judge gives an instruction to a Clerk, the clerk will almost always obey.
LASTLY, the reality is that when a Court withholds our setoffs, the JUDGE TRUST is the party against whose account the taxable termination must be assessed if we are to have satisfaction.
Again, I apologize for any embarrassment this may cause. I would prefer that the bigger lesson is that if we all begin to examine our beliefs and the utterings of our colleagues in Yahoo and Google Groups, on blogs, emails and at seminars, we might not still be using the same failed methods, and worse, advocating them to newbies at the Groups. Just because someone has a website or advocates a protocol, does not make them an authority. THE BEST EDUCATIONAL TOOL IN MY ARSENAL IS MY ABILITY TO IGNORE MOST OF THE EMAILS PEOPLE SEND ME.
With love in my heart, Bill
#509 re. #508
Re: CORRECTION:....THE COURT IS THE JUDGE. THE CLERK IS NOT.
locomotivate
Sun Jul 29, 2012 7:52 am
There has been some other groups, and I do not know what success they have had, that used Oaths and acceptances thereof. What my heart tells me is that going against the (divine) oath and would not be agreement and would not move the title to the security for the beneficiary. Could you maybe post your opinion on that Bill, please.
a man called thomas
#510 re. #509
TOPIC: JUDGE'S OATH
joshuasdad100
Sun Jul 29, 2012 8:23 am
Not exactly sure what you mean, BUT AN OATH IS NOT WHAT YOU HAVE EVER BEEN TOLD. IT'S A TRUSTEE'S FORMAL ACCEPTANCE OF HIS APPOINTMENT AND THE TRUST DIRECTIVES, a fanciful version of the acceptance that appears at the end of a trust agreement. (In the public trust, the directives are all of the statutes, case law and regulations.) It's his confession of his true status and his agreement to
perform.
As you have seen it can be used in many ways. Some have tried to use it to solidify the general contract into a specific contract. Most people cite the oath out of desperation before going down in flames.
A simple acceptance on an AUTHENTICATED copy of an oath converts the judge from administrative to ministerial duty. That can be helpful if you understand the significance. The last time I did that, I was a plaintiff and the judge was replaced overnight. (Then I made a tactical error based upon faulty research and blew the case. That's how we learn.)
As a trustee's acceptance, an oath has potential benefit when expressing the true trust or converting it into a security. In that case, I would actually refer to it "as your acceptance of trusteeship" or words to that effect.
As long as the Court presumes to be the beneficiary, the Judge can, and likely will, ignore the statues and rules and his oath. Bill
#512
TOPIC: pleading guilty to the facts
victordmann
Sun Jul 29, 2012 9:03
Hi to All,
Couple of years ago I came across this on one of the forums:
He treats everything (he's an ex-banker) as a CREDITOR and loves to use commercial law as much as you guys love to use common law.
He used his philosophy successfully in California for not having a license plate. Appeared with no lawyer, not famous, just himself. This is his key:
YOUR HONOR, I plead GUILTY to the FACTS, not the controversy, and would like to effect payment immediately.
Judge:
CASE DISMISSED, You May Go!
This is essentially a demurrer to the charge without the affidavit.
It works because there are no facts, and the entire process is defective on it's face.
There is something in commercial law called "acceptance for honor"
That is right, and even if the judge said, the facts, you would say yes, the facts. He most likely would say, what facts. Your response would be, CORRECT SIR (I NEVER, call a judge your honor), I have not been presented nor been served with any facts in this case.
I respectfully ask you all to think about your LEVERAGE (both in how you handle matters and in credit). I sincerely believe that we can win these matters much more often with a CREDITOR viewpoint instead of a debtor one.
It appears to be very similar to what Motla68 has posted.
Victor
#513 re. below
Re: Federal case dismissed using non-commercial method/sending attachments
iamsomedude
Sun Jul 29, 2012 9:04 am
What leads you to believe I know anything about a 100B bond or whatever TT does? I do not subscribe to any of that, I operate out of pure usufruct via the deposit of the security interests AT BIRTH by way of operation of equity and law; The estate is "deposited" and "received" by "the state" via "registrar" and the $$$ in circulation are EVIDENCE "the public" or the "usufructuary" has made beneficial use of "the parcel delivered" ...now, the public debt obligation or "reciprocation of the usufruct" IS the 14th Amendment public debt that shall not be questioned ........ The very nature and existence of the $$$ is the "security" giving rise to the "equitable lien".
This is all in military manuals, international law, Law of Nations, Lieber Code, Declaration of Independence, Blackstone's Commentaries, Old Roman Civil Law (when if Rome, right?), nature, the bible...etc..... The philosophy is all there and the statutes, codes, rules, procedures, ordinances, etc...all illustrate the philosophy. It is all in their own codes. Nothing has been omitted nor undisclosed. One just need the eyes to hear and the ears the see.
The people are "naked owner" of "the image" (..of the god they worship which is self-evident thru the society/government created) and usufruct with respect to "the fruits" of "the image" and "the system" (or society/government created in service of the god they worship) is "naked owner" of the "fruits" of "the image" and "usufruct" with respect to "the image"
So, to "change the direction" of the people, change "the fruit" tendered into the usufruct or "trust" ..... all "they" are doing and can ever do is "influence" the people with respect to "the fruit" the people "contribute" to the usufruct or "trust"
The people will always reap what is sown, which is why in war "civilians killed in combat" are "collateral damage"
From Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars: "...credit, presented as a pure element called "currency," has the appearance of capital, but is in effect negative capital. Hence, it has the appearance of service, but is in fact, indebtedness or debt. It is therefore an economic inductance instead of an economic capacitance, and if balanced in no other way, will be balanced by the negation of population (war, genocide). The total goods and services represent real capital called the gross national product, and currency may be printed up to this level and still represent economic capacitance; but currency printed beyond this level is subtractive, represents the introduction of economic inductance, and constitutes notes of indebtedness.
War is therefore the balancing of the system by killing the true creditors (the public which we have taught to exchange true value for inflated currency) and falling back on whatever is left of the resources of nature and regeneration of those resources."
Man was given this earth in usufruct and that is all man will ever "own", so it is all man can ever "grant" or "surrender". The estate which is just "interests in land" or "property" (land being "people" or "inhabitants") is "deposited" and "received" by "the state" via "registrar" and the $$$ in circulation are EVIDENCE "the public" or the "usufructuary" has made beneficial use of "the parcel delivered"
Obviously, if they are coming to take the property away, one is presumed to be a usufructuary of someone other public entity's property (interests) licensed to them (a nested usufruct within the public trust) and have failed to pay on the insurance agreement (loan agreement) allowing you to maintain possession. In other words, they are holding onto a "security instrument" and since you failed to "redeem" or "claim" the "interests", then you must not have any interest, thus are just a usufruct licensed thru an "insurance policy" or "loan agreement" to "insure" possession, and it appears you failed to pay the "premiums"
Now, have you contacted, oh lets say, the Registrar or the AG of the State or Chief Judge of the county court, or even the Supreme Court and ask they handle the matter? What about the SoS, since it appears SoS is the trustee in charge of registering the corps...what about contacting the actual registered agent not the CEO, not the CFO, not the Corporation, but the GUY WHO ACTUALLY REGISTERS THE DAMN THING .. he HAS to take service and now "proper notice" has been "delivered"? Just go to SoS and look it up. Have you contacted anyone with what it is you wish them to do (basically charge the estate and credit the name and ss# and then charge name and ss# to get "payment" or "discharge" or "set-off" in service of the usufructuary interest deposited and received which is the estate)
This is not rocket science ... it is all common sense ..... I just prefer to use one word: usufruct
If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Re: Federal case dismissed using non-commercial method/sending attachments re. #412
Glenn Vanden Bosch
Saturday, July 28, 2012 4:06 PM
Some Dude; So if you teach this info. Where do I go to get this
information? I need help. I have a summons for wanting to take my
vehicle. I am two payments behind and now they want to take my vehicle.
I do not have the money to catch up, so they want the vehicle, I have to
go to a summons, Aug 13th, 2012 @ 10:am/Also sending three things that I
filled out with TT and so please tell me if they are correct OR show me
by putting a line through the incorrect info and put in there what is
suppose to be. Also I am showing you how I did the 100B bond. If this is
incorrect please strike through with pen then replace with what is
suppose to be in the place for correction purposes. I would appreciate
your help. AND what do you think of Luis Ewing? Is this person wanting
business.
God Bless.
Glenn Vanden Bosch
#514
back to basics
ravingraven2000
Sun Jul 29, 2012 9:15 am
Greetings all,
OK, so from reading through the posts, we [should] have learned that all securities issued against the Estate, although maybe not issued "by" us, are issued "by us" [via assumed / presumed / expressed / implied POA]
[My] logic would dictate that there are two parallel issues:
1) deal with the securities that get issued (i.e. traffic ticket, criminal charge, complaint etc.) and
2) the original issue, being a B/C in Canada / SSN in the US - being the token used by the public to ledger the securities against our Estate.
[As per stated goal of this group] to move comprehension forward, lets keep them separate and expand on each.
1) we have learned - public trust (see Uniform Trust Code in "Files Section") can appoint Judge as Trustee ... etc....
2) involves claiming the Estate - UCC 8 Entitlement Holder - use proxy to evidence claim - involves 4 documents ?? - Sec of Treas. US (governor to/of IMF) and MOF in CA (governor to/of IMF).
[Has to be held by IMF - who else is lending "money" to EVERY corporate government in the planet - and where did they get that "money" / credit from??]
Seems to me, once you complete #2, #1 [almost] takes care of itself.
I can appreciate xxx is in trouble, and yyyy’s got this issue, and zzzz is losing his home, and I myself blah, blah, blah. Not to appear unsympathetic, but millions of people lose their homes, and go to jail, and xxxx. NONE of which relates to [the stated goal of this group] moving forward comprehension of the remedy.
Seems to me, if everyone on this group had a clear and precise comprehension of # 2 [COMPREHENSION, not templates], ALL other issues would resolve themselves. I am a firm believer that it is time the world changes for those who know who they are, and have enough faith to make that change.
So, in the spirit of 'cracking this nut', seems to me if everyone so inclined focused on #2, the journey would be easier / quicker.
So, what do we know so far:
[educated guess:]
B2B 1) Need Claim
- go READ UCC article 8, comprehend what an Entitlement Holder is
B2B 2) Probably need to give NOTICE
- UCC
B2B 3) hmmmm, living man does not belong in commerce, cannot be on a UCC (ever wonder why they only do all caps???)
- need proxy
B2B 4) need to assert / enforce / control?? claim
- send ??? to ?????
- 2nd proxy - CRA / IRS ????
I would suggest each of us go read Galatians 4, King James [commerce] Version. Look around, figure out if you are a) being treated like a slave, b) under the control of a Governor (in every State / Province) c) in bondage to the elements of this earth, d) have received the adoption of sons yet.
NOTICE you will not be GIVEN the adoption of sons, but rather "that we MIGHT receive the adoption of sons" The gift to you is the opportunity, the rest is up to you.
Seems like someone who is responsible for themselves and in control of their commerce and inheritance (reached the age of majority) would man up and take care of their issues themselves.
If we take these B2B discussion points, complete the sequence, and expand on each one till they are fully comprehended, seems like we will have met the mandate of this group, and given everyone the tools to take care of their own issues. For those that are still looking for a quick fix / someone else to do it, you "MIGHT receive the adoption of sons" when you are ready.
I would even suggest a different thread for each B2B point to expand for those less read - to provide clarity / study resources etc. Create new B2B thread as each new step reveals itself.
Just a few thoughts humbly submitted.
#515 re. #512
TOPIC: HOW TO ADDRESS JUDGE
joshuasdad100
Sun Jul 29, 2012 9:27 am
Welcome to the Group victor. Good information. One item though. We would never want to call a Judge "sir" which is derived from "sire." Rather than a term of respect, "sir" a higher officer. And of course "sire" is associated with a father or king.
It is acceptable to call it "JUDGE," as you are really addressing "Judge Tim Terrible, TTEE" who is "acting" on behalf of the JUDGE TIM TERRIBLE trust. That's why they call them actors. In this way, it's clear who is liable. "Well then, Judge, I will instruct my fiduciary to charge the liability to your public trust."
Of course, once they see you're in command, it doesn't matter what you call them. Bill
#516 re. #486
Re: Trustee in DSS case?
frankbonin
Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:13 am
The rules of the courts where merged, but the jurisdictions were not. There is no remedy in a court of law. Find out in your state how to invoke EQUITY. That is the only remedy real man has and it is alive and well, but HIDDEN in plain sight. Here is a good question for all: Do you want to learn 63 million codes, rules, statues, regulations (that continue to chance as needed by those who need them changed to do their crookedness) or 12-20 maxims? Your choice.
Frank
#517 re. #513
About this usuructary stuff------------
thebradleys2012
Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:37 am
We haven't posted since the group was started but we've been studying our heads off. Its pretty incredible. I personally feel as if I've emerged from a long sleep.
About this usufruct stuff, I read every word and follow what you said Dude guy. Its all perfectly logical. Now if you have a tangible result, then its also perfectly exciting.
My only skepticism concerns obvious things like probably 1 in a million bureaucrats have ever heard the word (I can't tell the nouns from the verbs at this point), and I image the county registrar to more like Gomer Pyle than Timothy Geithner when it comes to remedies, and it seems unnecessarily cumbersome like trying to talk to your husband through a translator when we both speak English. But I'm basically a mental midget in such things.
But if we can contact the county registrar and succeed in getting results that would be as predictable as any ordinary financial transaction, then I'd be happy to usufruct till the cows come home.
So I hope you will be kind enough to expand the discussion. Thanks Dude guy!
Sheila
#521 re. #514
Re: back to basics
joshuasdad100
Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:01 am
I can see you've gotten the picture quite handily. One thing though, once you have #2, that's when it gets busy resolving all the issues, pursuing your funds, and even tending to cashing out. Bill
#522 re. #517
Re: About this usuructary stuff------------
iamsomedude
Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:37 am
What do you think the stories on this group reveal?
The way I figure it, if anything I say can and will be used against me, then, if I must speak to relay intent and thought, I just choose to use one word; usufruct .... For the every word indicates anyone making a claim is the one bound to perform on the obligation and contains a whole world within it relaying to form, function, and operation; all already agreed upon by who knows how many generations of usage.
Bill teaches exactly the same concepts, just different terminology and I tend to get into the spiritual, social, and philosophical side because that is how I comprehend. IMO, the law and all else is merely the evidence of those aspects.
The usufruct = the trust created by deposit of a security = creates a usufruct and a naked owner by way of operation of law and equity
usufructuary = the one who brings a claim or demand for performance on a "security": trustee (of the duties) and beneficiary (of the fruit)
fee/naked owner = the one who pledged "the fruit" underwriting the "security": grantor/donor (of the fruit) and beneficiary (of the duties)
It is a duality trust in which both sides achieve equal equitable interest, which is the goal of equity ... both sides win / win
#523 re. #499
Re: BILL?? QUESTIONS REGARDING >>>> TOPIC: COURT CASES & MAXIM #1
joshuasdad100
Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:56 am
No. The signature has to be authenticated. And technically, the authentication has to be certified. See Fed. Rule of Civ. Proced. 44, 28 USC 1739 and:
Bill
#525 re. below
PERRY MASON AND THE MINISTERIAL JUDGE
joshuasdad100
Sun Jul 29, 2012 12:05 pm
Here's something simple: You can tell the judge respectfully that you would like him to act in ministerial capacity or the rest the case, and to hear your evidence. Then show him what you've got, hopefully including a copy of the bank's ledgers showing they enter the note as an asset. Then we get the bank officer on the stand and ask HIM if the banks records will show they performed by giving you credit to the full value of the note?
If you know the issues, you can establish all the evidence you need by questioning the bank's officers. Let them build the case for you. You start with simple questions to get them to stick their foot in it ("So the bank gave consideration on the note?"), and once THEY open the door, you move in over plaintiff's attorney's objections. Bill
Re: BILL?? QUESTIONS REGARDING >>>> TOPIC: COURT CASES & MAXIM #1
"Sawasinc@..." re. #497
Saturday, July 28, 2012 8:26 PM
ok I understand what you are saying but I think that I have messed up already as this has been going on 2.5 yrs.. and we are down to the wire now.. and with what you wrote at the very bottom of this email.. it caused me have those 6 questions so I don't mess up anymore.. it's not that I was going to use various things.. but I am scared to death as I am on my own here and thus I was asking questions about what a few things that you stated below ..
1. Did they issued an Appearance Bond when they assigned my case number on my Foreclosure Case????
2. And regarding signing in..
how can I avoid signing in without starting out on the wrong foot from the start? I KNOW who I am.. I know it was my signature that created the energy that allowed them to deposit that Note. which makes me the creditor.. I know this.. but it's hard to know all of the ins and outs of how they can trip me up !!!
If I have to sign in I don't know how I would do that. just sign it???
this hooks me !!!
Sign with a "X" ?? or Sign my name all in little letters? OR
s______ w______ putting this under it? OR
without recourse?
signing under duress
s_______ w________ again all little letters ??
without recourse
4. When they ask if SXXXXX WXXXXX is in the court? NOOOOOO he's dead !!! But again they are in one frame of mind and I am in another... so would I show them the Birth Cert with all CAP'S name stating that the dead entity is in the court. holding up the Birth Cert? and then also showing the original B Cert with my name in small letter which is my original one that my parents kept and before they put my name all in CAP'S ?? then Stating that I am the Flesh & Blood human woman giving my proof which represents the original BC only? Then stating that I am "heir and administrator" of my legal person here to settle this matter, Would this work ? I sure as heck don't want them to appoint an atty. for me !!!
AND
5. I've heard to get a Dismissal by doing what's below.. IS THIS TRUE??? as I DO NOT know if it's true ???? :
a) asking for Remedy (judge leaves court comes back in to regain jurisdiction)
b) you now ask for cure & maintenance ( judge leaves court again, comes back in to regain jurisdiction)
c) you state you only answer to The Divine Creator (judge leaves and you state let the record reflect the judge has left the court THIS CASE IS NOW DISMISSED !! which would totally cancel OUT all my mistakes during the last 2.5 yrs..??
6. and you stated.. 2 times.. of power
If object to any and all assumptions within any and all presumptions or vise versa AND I totally challenge STANDING and demand FULL DISCLOSURE regarding what really happened regarding the Note and Mortgage as to what they REALLY SAY.. and then tell them I AM the Grantor ( Grantor and Beneficiary of the trust created by the deposit of the charging SECURITY (not "instrument") in the Court's books ) which I know that I am and then appoint the Judge as the trustee to then DEMAND DISMISSAL ! ?? for this darn foreclosure case??
Sharon
#526 re. #499
TOPIC: AUTHENTICATING EVIDENCE
joshuasdad100
Sun Jul 29, 2012 12:06 pm
No. The signature has to be authenticated. And technically, the authentication has to be certified. See Fed. Rule of Civ. Proced. 44, 28 USC 1739 and:
Bill
#527 re. below
TOPIC: PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROCESS?
joshuasdad100
Sun Jul 29, 2012 12:08 pm
YOU ARE CORRECT TO BE CONCERNED Sharon. Filing truth into a public case is a contempt. I have a friend who filed an affidavit explaining such truth in a lowly credit card case and he was immediately arrested by a small brigade. Think of it this way. How do criminals and politicians (yes, I know) react when confronted with the possibility of being exposed? Ask Jimmy Hoffa. WHY WOULD WE THINK A JUDGE IS ANY DIFFERENT? Do you think they want securities and tax fraud placed into the record?
Conclusion: we address their trustee obligations and breaches privately. Yes it can be helpful to have the CUSIP’s on hand. But it's not essential if we can say:
"These are your choices, and if you don't perform, then I will retain all title to the securities and this guy here with all the right credentials is going to file everything on your behalf as an assessment against your bond."
One error patriots have been making for years is trying to introduce evidence of fraud into a case instead of holding the trustees of record liable for their failures to perform. The first problem is obvious: THEY ALREADY KNOW THEY'RE SCREWING YOU. It's what they do. It's what they enjoy. They've long ago rationalized the shame. It's why they fight to the teeth to hold office.
Secondly, the evidence has not been made admissible per Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 44 and 28 USC 1739.
The difference is this: enraging them by filing evidence of their own misdeeds in the public case, or scaring them senseless by serving evidence privately of your ability to collect for the misdeeds you know they commit?
BY THE WAY, IF YOU DON'T HAVE THAT ABILITY AND KNOWLEDGE, THEN YOU SHOULDN'T
EVEN GET NEAR THE WORDS TRUST, SECURITIES AND ESTATE. THEY WILL FRY YOU.
These sorts of issues go straight to the heart of HOW and WHY we do things, rather than individual situations. This basic lack of perception as to how the other side thinks explains why patriots keep getting clobbered for speaking truth. Bill
Am I am trouble now?
"Sawasinc@..."
Saturday, July 28, 2012 9:18 PM
If I had a securitization exam done and it shows from the SEC website the CUSIP numbers (12) and that there's no Cumulative Realized losses .. AND I showed that the Servicer who has me in foreclosure does not have standing because it's the mother company that is the securitizer... and I filed this into the case will I be in trouble?? it's the PSA/PROSPECTUS
Sharon.
#528 re. #527
Re: TOPIC: PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROCESS?
rhs8963
Sun Jul 29, 2012 12:52 pm
This has been quite illuminating...thank you for sharing your thoughts because this makes a lot of sense and why I and others have bumped our heads in court matters and hit the glass ceiling.
#529 re. #486
Re: Trustee in DSS case?
trooper753
Sun Jul 29, 2012 1:48 pm
There is a difference in a way- with a criminal charge someone obtains a warrant and gives you a court date. Easy to argue and get out of. DSS is much different. In this particular case, a parent gets an emergency custody order cause mom was beaten by her boyfriend. Judge signs based of false things in the complaint sheriff shows up to take child. Now you must go to court to get the child back. Thats a huge difference in the logistics of a case. The overall concept may be the same, but if you don’t appear or argue it right, the court gives the child to whomever wants him/her.
Char ~ I fight what you fear!
#530 re. #527
Re: TOPIC: PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROCESS?
sawasinc
Sun Jul 29, 2012 1:54 pm
I'll be giving my apology and settling the matter Honorably.
#531 re. #515
Re: TOPIC: HOW TO ADDRESS JUDGE
fdmfghr
Interesting comments, except that in some domains, the black robe and associates will still go ahead despite using the format of 'guilty as to facts and not the charges' because the prosecutor's response will be or can,
"such are going to be presented/established, etc." Some line like this by those who are already vested in process would not quite accomplish what is claimed below, as one's time and energies would still be wasted on useless appearance and endurances of a kangaroo 'trial', etc. Also, asking for statement of account does not quite work in all domains for similar reasons....they may or may not give you such in early stages because they believe they may be getting you to cave in and capitulate.
This all likely depends on how badly they wanna get you! No one strategy works equally well all the time in all circumstances.
#532 re. #529
TOPIC: PLAYING THE TRUSTEE WHEN IT SUITS YOU.
joshuasdad100
Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:27 pm
WHEN THEY'VE STOLEN THE CHILDREN AND ARE USING THEM AS LEVERAGE, IT'S OKAY TO
PLAY THE TRUSTEE.
There are many times we sit back and bide our time playing the trustee: signing a check, accepting a traffic ticket, playing the Defendant in a Court case.
When do we play the Trustee? WHEN IT'S TO THE BENEFIT OF THE BENEFICIARY, AND WE'RE CONTROLLING THE BENEFICIARY.
Translation: when it's to OUR benefit.
If they have the kids? We can choose to jump through the hoops until they're returned.
Once they're back, it's time to reclaim our securities and give them their orders.
Someone who's really skilled might meet with the Judge in chambers and set him straight. When Judges see that you know who you are, you know what to do, and you're operating on conviction and not just belief, they have been known to comply and move on. Bill
#533 re. #526
Re: TOPIC: AUTHENTICATING EVIDENCE
hammond_ted
Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:08 pm
Isn't an authentication for a non-Hague country and the Apostile for a Hague country ? And therefore we would want a non-Hague country, is that correct ?
#534 re. #521
Re: back to basics
maharaj333
Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:32 pm
Ergo, chop the root at it's source.
"And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."
-Mathew 3:10
- peacemaker -
#537 re. #533
Re: TOPIC: AUTHENTICATING EVIDENCE
joshuasdad100
Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:21 pm
Correct. Bill
#538 re. #512
Re: TOPIC: pleading guilty to the facts
south_side8
Mon Jul 30, 2012 5:04 am
I think he's right, my sovereign buddy Top Jimmy used the acceptance in a court case years ago and it worked. Since then we've used the same remedy with no wins and couldn’t figure out why. What was different ? He plead guilty to the facts to the case he won. Since then we have not been pleading guilty to the facts, which is why it hasn’t been working, so from now on we'll do the bankers acceptance along with pleading guilty to the facts and bring a copy of the UCC-1 filing.
#540 re. #262
Re: TOPIC: O CAN-A-DA; GLORIOUS AND FREE....well not really
loringjim
Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:22 am
The Canadians file their Treasury process with Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Giethner, correct?
#541 re. #537
Re: TOPIC: AUTHENTICATING EVIDENCE
hammond_ted
Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:23 am
so, the BC is a certified copy from the Registrar, the Registrars Seal is authenticated by the state secretary of state, then the state secretary of states seal is authenticated by the federal Secretary of state and then you need to have that signature certified ???? or the whole package filed [ county, UCC] and then certified copies taken out ?????
#542 re. #540
Re: TOPIC: O CAN-A-DA; GLORIOUS AND FREE....well not really
joshuasdad100
Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:17 am
No. See previous postings. Bill
#543 re. #541
Re: TOPIC: AUTHENTICATING EVIDENCE
joshuasdad100
Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:28 am
People see the BC as being straightforward. Actually, there are many possible scenarios. I could talk to you for hours about it. Depending on what you're trying to do, it may or may not need to be authenticated. We don't for T process, but I think the original question was about using it as evidence in Court - that's a different ball game. The significance of the BC is not the document, but its value as evidence of your priority claim. Bill
P.S. they don't authenticate seals. They authenticate signatures.
#544 re. #541
Re: TOPIC: AUTHENTICATING EVIDENCE
joshuasdad100
Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:32 am
One other thing...I recognized the protocol you mentioned, so I took the liberty of confirming at DOT by your email. I understand what you're trying to do, the problem is it doesn't parallel what happens inside the agency which is why most of the "Estaters" are still struggling with liens. You might find the Estate posting I left some time ago. It might be helpful. Your mentor should be able to explain the T process to you, although I understand the new crop tend to make themselves "strategically" unavailable until "you grease their palm. Be aware that some of them are operating on partial information and recycling old (not necessarily bad) information. The county is not necessary to develop a maritime lien, in fact, it can destroy it. But once you progress to the T process, it can be helpful if you want certified copies for some reason. You can also use a triple-sig process to have the probate court certify it. And those little tidbits didn't even require ch-ching! Bill
#546 re. #544
Re: TOPIC: AUTHENTICATING EVIDENCE
hammond_ted
Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:56 pm
thanks, yes, your right on. the greasing of the palm is very strategic
#547 re. #540
Re: TOPIC: O CAN-A-DA; GLORIOUS AND FREE....well not really
maharaj333
Mon Jul 30, 2012 1:31 pm
Canadians work through CRA - and the 'treasury process' is depostied with Jim Flaherty, the Finance Minister, and head of the Bank of Canada - he is also on the board of the IMF.
- peacemaker -
#548 re. #547
Re: TOPIC: O CAN-A-DA; GLORIOUS AND FREE....well not really
fdmfghr
Mon Jul 30, 2012 2:14 pm
Technically correct, but I've heard of cases where discharge was effected via IRS more readily than CRA. They're ultimately sister gangsters. I have yet to hear of any direct success in dealing with Flaherty or his alternates.
#550 re. below
Re: TOPIC: O CAN-A-DA; GLORIOUS AND FREE....well not really
fdmfghr
Mon Jul 30, 2012 2:23 pm
Ok, I don't mind positive corrections....but then are you willing to offer more description of whatever success you know of in use of CRA?
Don't dispute that CRA does have facilities for clearing, etc., just a matter of USE of such when asked for seems to be an entirely differenct issue! Am working on something right now actually where two key parties, including federal minister involved, simply do NOT reply to multiple communications. That is hardly effective 'clearing' when such has been occuring now over a period of some months. Maybe some do get remedy, but in such case, I am most curious as to the how part.
Re: TOPIC: O CAN-A-DA; GLORIOUS AND FREE....well not really re. #548
maharaj333
Monday, July 30, 2012 3:18:40 PM
I'm going to correct you on this - because this is what I've 'heard' as well. However, CRA is set up just as equipped to handle set offs, as the IRIS (IRS), is. They have their own clearing house, technical decision. I urge you to purge these notions, that only the IRS is where Canadian's can get remedy, as this is patently false.
"I have yet to hear of any direct success in dealing with Flaherty or his alternates".
"Heard" is the operative word here. You heard wrong.
#551 re. #523
Re: BILL?? QUESTIONS REGARDING >>>> TOPIC: COURT CASES & MAXIM #1
lawfulstudy
Mon Jul 30, 2012 2:55 pm
It almost seems that one's "status" would be acknowledged as an "American", and not a US Citizen, or am I steering in a different direction Bill? From some of the "gurus" thought processes, folks could access the DTC accounts privately with a sponsor. After all, if we are reclaiming "our" securities, then maybe some of the info(or fragments thereof) spread out there are viable, just not cogently disseminated. If we were to maneuver through commerce as "US Citizens", and attempt to reclaim our securities, then we would be acknowledged as QIB's, would we not, Bill?
Thanks for the info you are sharing,,,, it is appreciated by the majority of those here, I believe,
Ken
#553 re. #525
Re: PERRY MASON AND THE MINISTERIAL JUDGE
dstehling
Mon Jul 30, 2012 5:08 pm
Here is a link to more education about what Bill references below... download the PDF Manual from this site and see especially pages 145-151.
Or just right click on below link and select Save target as...
Also, if you can, get the "Call Reports" from the quarter in which they processed your loan, so that you can expose that it is the Lender's policy [not an inadvertent mistake for just your loan) to not disclose to borrowers the "Accounts Payable" Credit entry that offsets the "Cash" Debit entry that constituted your complete loan "transaction", in accordance with GAAP.. The Call Report will show that the Lender's Assets increased by approximately the amount of the Loans granted during that period. This should not occur if the Lender lent their own assets. See GAAS auditing standards for more reports to request from the Lender.
Doug
#556 re. #551
US Citizen vs. American
illusionsnom...
Mon Jul 30, 2012 5:44 pm
I agree that one is an American natural free born of the land...
NOT a US Citizen which is what all their forms ask you to state.... That is 14th amendment nonsense and converts you from rights to privileges..... Another invitation for you to voluntarily give up what is unalienable.
IMHO you actually can not GIVE up your rights... but, you can surrender anything to the pirates once they board your vessel....
Kelly
#565
Indictment
pennyjones339
Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:38 am
I have been indicted with a huge federal case regarding the OID's. The whole situation has gotten horrible. Is there any way you can help me?
#569 re. #551
Re: BILL?? QUESTIONS REGARDING >>>> TOPIC: COURT CASES & MAXIM #1
joshuasdad100
Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:25 am
We're not operating as QIBs, ck. We're expressing our claim through the BC trust, or in some cases, through one of the lesser trusts derived from it. American status is foreign to, and recognized in, the (28 USC 3002) United States. So we use a hired gun. We get ourselves a Paladin. Bill
#571 re. #
Re: BILL?? QUESTIONS REGARDING >>>> TOPIC: COURT CASES & MAXIM #1
hammond_ted
Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:50 am
Under their rules an officer of the court could be a notary public and he could take a deposition with a letter rogatory to declare that I, John-Jay: Doe am in fact alive and returned from the sea of illusion and here to reclaim my estate, John Jay Doe Estate and then get that authenticated by the state and by feds
?????
#576 re. #489
Re: INSIGHT FROM A GROUP MEMBER INTO THE COURT TRUST......
maharaj333
Wed Aug 1, 2012 2:28 pm
This is from further down the thread - I didn't write it - "Who do they intend to hijack as trustee? Your strawman naturally. Because like any vessel, it comes with a surety, a guarantor … your Estate"...again, I'm reprogramming the old tapes running in my head - I THINK I know what 'estate' is, but all that David Clarence material keeps looping, looping. What is 'my estate'? And to re-iterate the answer you gave below - we are not creating a trust – just clarifying the trust already created, and my position in relation to it - trustee already exists, so does grantor, beneficiary, and so on.....? Sorry, whom is the grantor? Is it me? Even if they deposited some paper into the bank, creating a construed trust relationship - I am the grantor, because the deposited security is lodged against 'my estate'? I just need to now express my (grantors) intent? Nuc pro tunct - ab initio - right back to age of majority?
Also, can you explain difference between legal tender, and lawful tender. I was told, that legal tender is based off the birth certificate, in the public...and lawful money, goes back to the original name (given name), and comes from the registration of live birth - because this is the originating document - is this true? Clarify?
#577 re. #2
Re: FORECLOSURE MESS
derrickwayne...
Wed Aug 1, 2012 4:34 pm
Do you think we can figure what this status is by study?
"You have to have the very specific status IRS requires to process your forms when you foreclose on them."
#581 re. below
TOPIC: DANGER OF OPERATING COMMERCE SUI JURIS
joshuasdad100
Thu Aug 2, 2012 9:44 am
Thank you for the posting nicholas. I know and like Jim, but the method you are suggesting below is of course outside the ability of public officials to recognize, so it tends to lead to controversy. If you attempt ANY commercial procedure from it, they tend to respond forcefully.
What we are concentrating on is reclaiming our securities as taught to us by the very people who do the enforcement. So everything we send in is transparent, completely justified, and quite workable. This way we don't fear a visit, we welcome it. Bill
Re: TOPIC: LOST IN ESTATE. DON'T KNOW WHERE TO GO. re. #33
genestreetkid
Wednesday, August 1, 2012 5:13 PM
If anything I believe james thomas: mcbride has some helpful sites which has been posted previously. notice- and suijuris.me Please take time to review the sites. The documents you do are free: there is a service template that costs twenty dollars if you want to get the most recent automated documents. But signing up is free on SuiJuris.Me and you can get all documents there with all instructions. Basically you have five documents to fill out and print on specific stationary as the documents you do are created to establish yourself outside of the Military Industrial Complex/ out of the 14th amendment and place you in the land of the living: original jurisdiction. It is about Trust law and the links are all on suijuris.me
With supplies and postage suggested.
Best to your situation,
Nicholas
#583 re. below
TOPIC: LIVE SUI JURIS OR LIKE ROCKEFELLER?
joshuasdad100
Thu Aug 2, 2012 9:52 am
I don't know if you're the same nicholas in the last email, but as you have discovered, it can be lonely living on the land as a one man nation/estate. Once you understand trusts, securities and the beauty of tax law when commanded from the proper station, then freedom becomes redefined from a constant battle to prove we're not an "owner" / tenant / debtor, to simply operating the mechanisms already in place by paying and seeking recoupment for certain securities annually (mechanisms like Public Law 73-10).
As to your question, I'm not sure I followed it. Sorry. But let me observe that there's not much one can do sui juris when acting as a tenant with respect to a landlord. A tenant is a trustee on the trust indenture known as the rental agreement or lease. He has most of the obligation to perform. THE BEAUTY OF OPERATING IN COMMERCE KNOWLEDGEABLY is that you can operate as trustee or beneficiary at will. It is to your benefit to play the trustee when you sign a check, pay the rent, or even sign a traffic ticket, because you control the beneficiary (yourself) and will enjoy the benefits of those actions, and can have satisfaction later upon recoupment. Those who eventually know this and understand how to accomplish it tend to quickly lose their taste for sovereignty in favor of living life to the fullest while the Father is so inclined.
So I can stand on the lawn next to my private mailbox in front of my house with no 911 numbers on it waiting for the swat team, or I can go about life knowing how to control my environment like the Rockefellers. In a world where bankers have bled the masses for thousands of years, the latter seems pretty good until I meet the Creator face to face. Bill
nicholas-peter via SuiJuris.Me site
Nicholas Furlano
Wednesday, August 1, 2012 4:26 PM
Bill:
I read your post on SuiJuris.Me and find it very helpful. I understand most people do not believe in being out of work (normally) but I am one of many that is out of work. That being said, I have done my documents through JT's sites. Things are so much better.
However, I have one concern (I am still learning about Trust Law via the education area put up by JT) which I have asked about. It perhaps is related to Trusts or being a rookie after doing my paperwork in the original jurisdiction of maintaining status as 'beneficiary' of the Trust. My question is:
I have rent past due and have been unable to secure any stable work. Is there a possibility of me receiving any letter from landlord/owner trying to evict me I should like to know from understanding Trust Law; (our sub accounts have not been activated yet via the PMG of NA) shouldn't I be able to handle the situation should a notice be given? I never thought I would be unable to pay rent. My intention is to understand how to solve my situation upon receipt of such 'Notice'.
Thank you for any direction,
nicholas-peter: Furlano
#588
30 day time limit to file an appeal
camille.humble
Thu Aug 2, 2012 12:23 pm
I have a judgment for foreclosure which was on 07/02/2012. In the order they stated that I have 30 days to appeal. I don't have all the information that I need to complete the appeal. Will I be able to go past the 30 days?
#589 re. #581
Re: TOPIC: DANGER OF OPERATING COMMERCE SUI JURIS
maharaj333
Thu Aug 2, 2012 12:28 pm
Patriot belief, after belief, after belief, just keep getting shattered, day by day. This [reclaiming my securities] is more about deprogramming, than reprogramming - so that the light can shine through - Bill, my warmest regards.
Gord
- peacemaker -
#590 re. #583
Re: TOPIC: LIVE SUI JURIS OR LIKE ROCKEFELLER?
maharaj333
Thu Aug 2, 2012 12:51 pm
Bill, the below makes perfect sense - use what is already in place - why re-invent the wheel? My question is this: how could any average man or woman know this? Unless one is born into this informational inheritance, then it seems that the average man or woman - my brother's and sisters - are lost, and floating around in the Sea of commerce. Or, is it, by the Father's will, do we come across the "Way", and come out of 'Her'?
Another question I have is, Winston Shrout talks about the King James Bible, and how commerce is based on it - is there truth to this? Or is this more Patriot mythology? I would think, that there would be a parallel - for example, just reading Galatians 4:23 "But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise."
I would like to think, or feel, that we are all born of the 'promise'....and not of the 'bondwoman', but this is about choice.....I choose freedom. I know who my Father is....
- peacemaker -
#591
TOPIC: Do you REALLY understand the system? MOST DO NOT
joshuasdad100
Thu Aug 2, 2012 1:01 pm
WHAT I'M ABOUT TO DISCLOSE IS AT THE CORE OF OUR VARIOUS REMEDIES AND WHY SO
MANY PATRIOT PROCESSES FAIL.....HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE HJR 192? Did HJR 192
replace payment with discharge, give us a credit economy, and outlaw repayment in lawful money? Of course.
But the people who keep the books and enforce the laws think otherwise. And THEY ARE RIGHT, at least where it counts in the public institutions that can provide our remedy.
PL 73-10 (Public Law 73-10 aka HJR 192 aka 48 Stat. 112) installed barter and EVEN-exchange as the official economic system in the United States Federal corporation. If you give me something, I have to give you something of equal value. And vice versa.
In this society, that something is NOT the house, the car or the groceries. That something is a cash receipt issued under the Financial Accounting Standards Board, Standard 95 (see file section to download) and generally accepted accounting principles. The receipt is exchanged for a security in the form of a check, a Federal Reserve Note, or a credit card receipt.
The same is true in Court. It's all about exchanging securities. When they "charge" the Defendant as a presumed trustee that failed to uphold the public trust (statutes an codes), it is automatically liable since it must give them a security of equal value in return. THEY ARE LEVYING THE ESTATE UNDER PL 73-10. PL 73-10 gives them the statutory "right" to assess the Estate as surety for the Social Security strawman account that was created from it. The Strawman is Lucifer's version of Adam being charged for its sins for buying and selling as
described in Chapter 13 of Revelation.
Like the Indictment, a warrant or summons is also an assessment, a security identifying the payee (them), the payer (the Strawman), the term (maximum prison time), the amount (penal sum), and the date. Doesn't that make perfect sense?
Once we make it known that WE hold the priority security interest in all the securities (indictment, warrant, appearance bond, summons, complaint, etc.) everything changes in our favor. Since they are assessing the Strawman (our Debtor) to charge the bill to the Estate account (our primary Debtor), then THEY revert to being the trustee by definition since THEY received the deposit of the securities in the Court's records when they opened the case account and issued a case # and case bond.
Nonetheless, we still owe them a security under PL 73-10 (and you thought it was about the gold). So when we appear PRIVATELY in the court of record (without which their corporate court cannot exist) as the Grantor and Beneficiary of the trust THEY created when they deposited OUR indictment security in their books, when we appear as the actual Depositor of record and give them a payment instrument PROPERLY drawn by the PROPER parties and a directive to process, now THEY have the obligation to perform as Trustee under PL 73-10.
AND IF THEY DO NOT, then THEY, not us, are in breach of trust and subject to foreclosure, and in violation of PL 73-10 by having failed to execute the mandatory EVEN exchange, and having failed to REDUCE THE PUBLIC DEBT upon demand. This means that THEY owe the taxes on the gain, and transfer taxes under IRC 2611 and 12 for having terminated our interest in our security, and taxes on the sale of the case bond.
Once you understand HJR 192, then you also understand the accounting philosophy by which the bookkeeping agency operates the accounts.
CAUTION!!! - I OFFER THIS INFORMATION ON BACKGROUND. IT IS POWERFUL AND IT IS
DANGEROUS. Do NOT act on this meager email summary. IF YOU EXPOSE THE FRAUD IN OPEN COURT OR IN A FILING, OR IF YOU ATTACK THE JUDGE'S REVENUE STREAM, THEY WILL CRUSH YOU LIKE A MAGGOT.......
Is it possible that patriots can accept information on background without causing themselves additional misery? I hope so. Bill
#592 re. #588
Re: 30 day time for appeal-NOT IF ITS A COURT OF RECORD
joshuasdad100
Thu Aug 2, 2012 1:11 pm
Camille, this is off-topic for the Group, but let me just say that a ruling from a Court can be appealed AT ANY TIME to a court of record. This is one sentence in what could be weeks of study to understand courts of record and the like unless you have a study group member who is well versed in the court of record, for instance the Supreme Court ruling that states IN PLAIN LANGUAGE that even it must obey the ruling of a court of record.
An appeal to a court of no record (i.e. a Court aka an incorporated Court aka a court of inferior jurisdiction (meaning statutes)), is governed by the inferior law, namely statues. Bill
#594 re. #590
TOPIC: THE BIBLE, COMMERCE, JESUS, LUCIFER, AND YOU
joshuasdad100
Thu Aug 2, 2012 1:29 pm
Eponymous: I'm familiar with Winston's source on that. But let's expand it a bit. ALL versions of the Bible warned us about the moneychangers, mammon, and disagreeing with thine enemies. That's a pretty good roadmap.
I view the world as a giant laboratory where the Father permitted Lucifer to roam to allow His children to exercise AND NURTURE their powers of free will and choice. Reading a single instructional booklet for an IRS form tells us how far most people have strayed from Faith and cognitive reasoning. Where is, "I'm supposed to do all of that instead of play with my kids????" The Father gave us His spirit in His Son intending that He volunteer to be butchered to provide us a clean slate and pathway home. And still, very few accept the invitation.
You want to know WHY I started this Group? For me, controlling commerce is my way of "overturning" the moneychangers (isn't that what we're doing?) and manifesting my promise to Him to bring souls into the Kingdom. This is my way of reaching out. Let us all pray for forgiveness and Faith. Bill
P.S. This is why no one on this site will slander their brothers be they Winston, Kennedy, Smith or any of the other dedicated servants that shared the insight that led so many to their present level of sophistication. Thanks for the question.
#596 re. #591
Re: TOPIC: Do you REALLY understand the system? MOST DO NOT.
markonealus
Thu Aug 2, 2012 1:56 pm |
Bill -
I believe the most important part of this message that currently defines the hole in MY knowledge is:
“Nonetheless, we still owe them a security under PL 73-10 (and you thought it was about the gold). So when we appear PRIVATELY in the court of record (without which their corporate court cannot exist) as the Grantor and Beneficiary of the trust THEY created when they deposited OUR indictment security in their books, when we appear as the actual Depositor of record and give them a payment instrument PROPERLY drawn by the PROPER parties and a directive to process, now THEY have the obligation to perform as Trustee under PL 73-10.”
The source message is beginning to make sense, but, of course. HOW one would achieve this objective is another matter entirely.
Thanks,
Mark O'Neal
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man. Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.
-G. Bernard Shaw
#603
MY QUESTION TO ALL PATRIOTS IS THIS...
joshuasdad100
Thu Aug 2, 2012 4:31 pm
Why would you undertake any process involving the estate if you weren't aware of the information I reviewed in the last posting?
Why would you undertake any tax process if you didn't have a similar understanding?
"First I'll teach you to use this (his head), and then I'll teach you to use this (his sword)." Argyle Wallace to William, "Braveheart."
#604 re. #576
CRITICAL TOPIC: WHAT IS YOUR ESTATE? NO MORE CONFUSION
joshuasdad100
Thu Aug 2, 2012 4:20 pm
SO MUCH CONFUSION ABOUT THE ESTATE - SO EASY TO RECTIFY.......
There are two estates, the public and private estates.
The private estate consists of your inheritance from the Creator. Period. The body He bequeathed to your care, the air it requires to sustain, the earth beneath your feet, the food it bears, your reproductive abilities, and your
possessions and holdings.
As you have seen your whole life, the corporation has used the misnomer (mis-naming) scam to constitute a mirror image of everything in your private estate. They created religious corporations to supplant your churches, incorporated Courts to replace the de jure courts of record, dimes and quarters to replace the "dismes" and "quarter dollar" coins defined by the National Coinage Act of 1792, the United States to supplant the United States of America, and even fictional "persons" - strawmen - to supplant men and women. Similarly, they
created a public estate to supplant the private estate.
A public estate is devised from three events: the imprinting of an infants footprint on a hospital notice that the infant was born at that location, which is presumed to be a pledge of the infant's future labor.
The second event is the certification of the infant's pledge for the purpose of issuing securities. This results in a long form Certificate of Birth which is executed by the Registrar of the incorporated County, and serves to transmit the pledge into the public domain by way of a process known as certification.
Sound familiar? Isn't certification the process used by Bank of America to securitize your credit card application - your pledge - by transferring it to FIA Card Services, which transfers it to BA MASTER CREDIT CARD TRUST II, which issues certificates backed by the application (the pledge) so that BA CREDIT
CARD TRUST can issue BA Series Notes to investors? See the flowchart in the Group's file section in which BOA graphs these transactions from its SEC 424(b)(5) prospectus.
The third vent is the creation of an account on the books of the Department of the Treasury to accommodate the deposit of the Certificate of Birth into the account. The sole purpose of the account is to leverage (issue) securities backed by the infant's future labor, the same way BOA issues BA Series Notes.
This is the series of events that creates the mirror image public estate. Whereas the private estate is your Divine inheritance, the public estate consists of all accounts and securities (including currency) which are used to
leverage your future labor by issuing securities against the Treasury birth account. IS IT ANY WONDER THIS GROUP IS CALLED RECLAIM YOUR SECURITIES?
The first such derivative security is the birth bond which is represented (noticed) in the public by the SHORT FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE and exchanged with the Fed for currency. This exchange of securities (bonds for Federal Reserve Note securities), whether at birth or during the so-called bailout of 2008, is how currency is placed in circulation.
Another derivative of the BC trust estate is The Social Security account which is also used to leverage securities, namely the Social Security bonds that are represented by the routing and bond numbers listed on the back of your Social Security cards.
IN SUMMARY, THE PUBLIC ESTATE IS COMPRISED OF THE BC TRUST / ACCOUNT and all accounts and securities derived thereby, everything in the public which has been derived from the infant's pledge.
As with all the other misnomered corporate substitutes, the public estate is a mirror image of the private estate. With that knowledge, can you guess from whom it's derived? If the Father is the source of the private estate, can the public estate arise from anyone other than Lucifer? Now you know why the public estate contains all of life's sinful TEMPTATIONS amalgamated into a Matrix of liability, idolization and demonic accounting (double entry bookkeeping) where everything adds up to zero every day.
How do you know that anything I've said is true? Once you understand securities and trusts, is it not self-evident? If an entire day's transactions totals zero on the books of every financial institution in the Country, do you need any more proof that HJR 192 installed a system of EVEN-exchange barter as I disclosed in my last posting? And that the problem is that you're not getting the even exchange to which you are entitled?
How do I know that the deposit of the infant's pledge into the public books is diabolical? Because the same demonic scheme of false presumptions is used by every U.S. Court to presume they can deposit our pledge into their books to issue for-profit case bonds BEFORE we appear in the building.
Because every U.S. bank uses the scheme to hijack our credit for the issuance of for-profit notes to investors without ever disclosing the theft of our credit.
Because Papa Bush had the audacity to lecture Enron about the evils of securitization when he was CEO of the largest securitizing entity in the history of world.
Who else but Lucifer could have designed such a system? Is it any wonder that the Christ overturned the moneychangers' tables?
By the way, though I am proud to be nothing more than a child of the Creator, the private estate is useless for dealing with the public securities and trusts which are derived from the BC "pledge." THIS IS WHY YOUR ESTATE LETTERS FAILED. You have been taught to proudly hide your head in the sand with respect to
understanding the commercial world around you.
But don't be surprised if Lucifer decides to mess around with you when he sees your behind sticking out. Bill
#605 re. post not included
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
Posted By: fdmfghr
Thu Aug 2, 2012 4:08 pm \
This is where the lines become very blurred for me, having resided in both Canada and U.S. Canadian treasury board has, at least officially, very different lineup with U.S. version of this, at least to my reading of it. REceiver General is the appropriations settlement officer/office on a practical levels for all government issuances of fiat checks, etc.
I am personally right now planning to make send offs to all 3 of duplicates of demands for official discharge....have not tried this so far, but hey, it's no worse than any other option which does not work and might just succeed!!
#606 re. #596
Re: TOPIC: Do you REALLY understand the system? MOST DO NOT.
fdmfghr
Thu Aug 2, 2012 4:23 pm
This supports very well my own recent limited experiences, where suddenly all went very silent for a few months now after an in-private submission to the judge of 'orders' issued....no personal appearances by anyone, just a private, confidential mail delivery ....can be hand delivery probably as well to court counter?
Included both BC, COLB as well as excerpts from personal property registry on the court with designated case no. Of course, cover letter has to be composed to suit the case and circumstances.
#611 re. #606
Re: FOR IRIS
joshuasdad100
Fri Aug 3, 2012 9:52 am
Hello Iris, glad to hear of your good fortune. Would you consider sharing your experience in more detail with the group? If so, specifically the nature of the charges, details of your private presentment (for instance, copies of the BC sent to Treasury versus new copies), contents of the personal property registration (your collateral or the case alone), and so forth, as I think it will stimulate the members' thinking and bolster their faith in the power of remaining private rather than entering the jurisdiction by appearing physically. EVERYONE SHOULD BE AWARE THAT IF YOU APPEAR IN PERSON TO ARGUE JURISDICTION, YOU HAVE ALREADY GRANTED IT. APPEARING IN PERSON IS LIKE STANDING IN FRONT OF AN 18
WHEELER THAT'S COMING RIGHT AT YOU. YOU'RE DEAD, NO MATTER HOW YOU FLAP YOUR GUMS.
Thank you in advance, Iris. Bill
P.S. Presumably by the PPS reference, this was a Canadian Court?
#612
CAUTION - CAUTION - BEWARE VULTURES IN MENTOR'S CLOTHING
joshuasdad100
Fri Aug 3, 2012 11:03 am
TO THE MEMBERS, BEWARE, the vultures have come out the woodwork and are preying on the members of this Group. "Mentors" are asking for huge retainers and promising the world. This is part of an ongoing campaign orchestrated by the Masons to milk the patriot community dry and create chaos.
PLEASE VISIT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION search site and search for the name "Estate" (Google: "SAFER SEARCH" or simply use this link:
*ESTATE*&SEARCHTYPE=
You will see HUNDREDS of patriots who have begun the so-called Estate process, only to be abandoned after being milked dry. Much of the activity is centered in Georgia, NC, TENN and NYC.
The vultures are easy to spot. They often speak like preachers. They share their time generously during sales call but will NEVER return emails or take phone calls until you offer more money. They complete many procedures for you (like getting a foreign EIN for the Estate) instead of showing you how to do it yourself. Your previous teachers will be slandered. You will never quite receive all the information even if you book special sessions to address specific issues, so you can never complete any of the processes. Some will offer to sell you trusts at $20K a pop, or membership in a secret society, or deliverance through "retreats."
in contrast, a true mentor will be GENUINELY humble, caring and forgiving, and will be so obviously called to teaching that the learning experience will be efficient, effective and fulfilling rather than A SERIES OF FRUSTRATING EVENTS THAT HAVE YOU PULLING YOUR HAIR OUT TRYING TO EXCUSE THE MENTOR'S BEHAVIOR.
This message is not intended to slander anyone. I urge the members to be aware of patterns of antisocial behavior that patriots have accepted out of desperation. LISTEN TO THE FATHER'S WORD AS TRANSMITTED THROUGH YOUR GUT. Bill
#615
SPEAKING OF GENUINE MENTORS...
joshuasdad100
Fri Aug 3, 2012 11:08 am
A few people have posted to the Group who are obviously well qualified to teach about Securities, Trusts and Estate. If you are approached by a "mentor" who found you through the Group, feel free to email me privately and I will refer you to any postings they may have made so you can evaluate the depth of their knowledge for yourself, or tell you that no such postings exist. Bill
#616 re. below
TOPIC: USING THE BC
joshuasdad100
Fri Aug 3, 2012 11:20 am
Allen, good thought but recording the BC in the tax assessor's office won't get you anything, if such recording is even supported since rel property claims go through the commercial registry (UCC). It is the claim against the certificate, properly perfected, that moves the public to follow your directives. Bill
Allen Murray
Monday, July 30, 2012 9:11 AM
Hi Bill, how r u? Have u ever heard of recording the BC in the tax assessor's office?
#617 re. #612
RE: CAUTION - CAUTION - BEWARE VULTURES IN MENTOR'S CLOTHING
sportniks
Fri Aug 3, 2012 11:20 am
There is an old saying……”When a student is willing to give all they have to a teacher, they are ready to learn…When a teacher is willing to take everything the student has, it is time to find a different teacher”.
John
#618 re. #605
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
joshuasdad100
Fri Aug 3, 2012 11:45 am
Iris, that's a lot of effort for no reason. You follow the money, the bonds, and it takes you back to the issuer's agent. Who trades bonds for currency with the BOC? Bill
#622 re. below
TOPIC - ACCOUNTING 101. HIGHWAY ROBBERY.
joshuasdad100
Fri Aug 3, 2012 12:14 pm
GOOD POINT, JOHN. Understanding the accounting is key to understanding the public scam and the remedy to it. It's in the accounting that your securities get robbed. I just spent a couple of days reviewing that with someone. It was like watching her let her breath out after a long wait. No need asking a Court to answer what we already know, I'd rather hold them accountable for the exchange, taxes or return. Bill
bankruptcy
Signature Graphics printing
Thursday, August 2, 2012 11:04 AM
After many years of searching for the answers we all seem to be chasing and only knowing for sure that things are not what they seem, I often wonder if the sky is really blue. If it's not what color is it? Is it blue because somebody told me it's blue.
Do you see any evidence or documents that might be presented in a bankruptcy case that might help get any answers to which we might be searching? I say this because a bankruptcy discharges debt. In accounting there has to be offsetting entries. I wonder what the offsetting entry is and to what account is it made?
Who is in charge of the accounting? How do you think one might get the court to best answer those questions? John
#623
Pleading Guilty to the Facts
younglady1975
Fri Aug 3, 2012 12:47
Hello All. I was reading posts regarding pleading guilty to the facts and I'm wondering if it's necessary or a good idea to put the facts [your facts] into evidence before one would do this and before one is to appear. If anyone has clarifications please share. Thanks a lot!
#625 re. #623
TOPIC - PLEADING GUILTY TO THE FACTS.
joshuasdad100
Fri Aug 3, 2012 1:45 pm
THOSE POSTINGS WERE NOT MINE SO PLEASE DON'T INTERPRET THIS RESPONSE AS
RECOMMENDING THAT APPROACH. What has never been explained to you is that pleading guilty to the facts acknowledges the Corporate jurisdiction and your authority over it. What are the facts? That it's an admiralty Court, that the Defendant is a U.S. employee, that they have a right to charge the Social Security account (Defendant) for any and all statutory infractions, that the Defendant is a trustee bound to obey the statutes, that the Court officers are presumed to be telling the truth as they understand it, and that you retain the
authority to order them to charge the Estate to credit the Strawman and then charge the strawman to credit the Court account in its name (another way of saying this is "for credit to the account of the Defendant"). Again, I'm not advocating this approach, If 20 patriots come forward and say that they've done this successfully in the last 6 months, then I would concur on its PRESENT viability. The public is constantly adapting to our lawful remedies (with the except they cannot get around returning my securities or paying the taxes without losing their standing as a public employee). Bill
#627 re. #625
Re: TOPIC - PLEADING GUILTY TO THE FACTS.
fdmfghr
Fri Aug 3, 2012 2:47 pm
I always like to qualify most nouns I might use....so I would think it useful to qualify which facts or what kind of facts....were I to use this approach, I'd probably say something like 'verifiable' or 'independently substantiable' facts.
Courts make up 'facts' all the time and if not denied their assumptions and presumptions, these 'facts' become accepted...if using credit to 'pay' off, might be ok, but I prefer to limit my risks as far as possible by use of qualifiers.
#628 re. #625
Re: TOPIC - PLEADING GUILTY TO THE FACTS.
younglady1975
Fri Aug 3, 2012 2:48 pm
So are you saying that a better way to resolve court adjudication is to go about reclaiming one's securities?
#631 re. #below
Re: TOPIC - PLEADING GUILTY TO THE FACTS.
maharaj333
Fri Aug 3, 2012 3:15 pm
It goes to the heart of the matter - reclaiming your securities.
eponymous_680 embury111@... wrote: re. #628
I think that is all Bill is ever saying.
- peacemaker -
#633
UCC-1 Lien
sportniks
Fri Aug 3, 2012 4:05 pm
Back in 2010 when I got into studying commerce I made a security agreement where SM breaches the agreement and then filed it in the county on a UCC-1 national form (notice of lien rights), then I found a website that had the old UCC-1 forms to be signed by both parties (commercial lien) and I listed the UCC-1
national on it and filed it in the county. When I got into studying trust I put the UCC's in trust as res and the indenture also spells out the SM is insolvent and without assets. Has anyone used a UCC-1 or security agreement as a defense in showing that Defendant (SM) is insolvent and without assets as proved by the perfected commercial lien and the trust terms? John
#634 re. below
Re: TOPIC - PLEADING GUILTY TO THE FACTS.
fdmfghr
Fri Aug 3, 2012 4:06 pm
A reply to the original group posting inquiry and a private inquiry:
Summary of a main example is below.
Details were of course all tailored to the unique circumstances of the case. Someone else is involved so I hesitate to share too much personal info. May see about sharing parts of reply in private to judge redacted when I get a chance to get consent and editing time.
However, this was a Canadian case, with enclosures of both BC and COLB, and excerpts of copy of personal property registry first liens on all ens legis entities, like 2 items just mentioned, sin no., and a few other state/province items. All first claims by living entity, as normally spelled.
Registry included listing the court domain jurisdiction, like Provincial/state court at Shysterland, etc. and inclusive of case no. 123456 in files of same court region. So would be similar to an inclusive basic UCC1 listing of first claims.
This was a nasty and difficult case for the party involved, who is a senior and held in solitary when grabbed forcibly by policy enforcers, then held till mock trial some 3 weeks later.
We will eventually keep the case on the registry and likely file for involuntary servitude to the Crown since there are legal clauses re compensation to court 'witnesses'....don't recall specifics of these offhand but probably similar items exist in most/all jurisdictions re compensating witnesses for their time, etc.
Re: TOPIC - PLEADING GUILTY TO THE FACTS. re. below
Iris Clarity
Friday, August 3, 2012 4:49:34 PM
Yes, Glenn, it does look like something I sent a while back.
FYI, it was a trumped up charge....like so many are!! Not quite "criminal" though they were seeking such....an item under immigration act which was really bogus because the party involved does have a BC, Canadian in this case but would be same in U.S. But due to funny circumstances, party involved got off regular roadways and ended up with deemed 'illegal' border crossing. Stupid groundless charges, since there was INHERENT right to cross border back to area in any case.
SO it started from there....then due to illness, a series of 'failure to appear' nonsense 'charges' added, which were basically dropped at time of forced kangaroo trial.
Party was forcibly detained with NO access to help or their own files, then of course found 'guilty' by kangaroo lower court. WE appealed...since location was domain far away, offered phone presence, not replied to, etc.
A motion by prosecutor was granted of course! FOR setting aside proffered grounds for appeal.
Then I really went to town so to speak....filed an Affidavit of rebuttal to the 'order' issued, challenging every point and a long in-private letter to the deciding judge with enclosed affidavit for public court as well as her private letter indicating a no. of things re. not accepting trustee role, lack of law applications of corp. to living ones, God's laws only being supreme, etc.
Result so far: Silence for a few months now. It may come out of woodwork, yet, but next step will be to send same materials in with criminal complaint for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty on JUDGE and other officers!
So this is a summary.
Re: TOPIC - PLEADING GUILTY TO THE FACTS. re. #611
Glenn Vanden Bosch
Iris Clarity
Friday, August 3, 2012 4:13:47 PM
Iris; Did you or did you NOT write this below? I am searching for some help. If you did write this would you be so kind as to either get back to me or am I looking at a person whom DID NOT write this? Please respond. I would like to discus a few things. Perhaps your not interested. Just let me know one way or other. Thank you. Glenn Vanden Bosch
#635 re. #618
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
fdmfghr
Fri Aug 3, 2012 4:28 pm
Perhaps! But earlier submissions into the lower level of court did nothing useful to get rid of the situation.
Yes, I and other know it's about following the trail of the "money" which really does not exist. So what kind of shortcut would you have suggested or done instead?
In domain of occurrence here, they are very stubborn re enforcement even when shorter paths are used at lower levels...they simply ignore and refuse to recognize....so only at higher levels is anything really recognized. Temple of Ba'al servants at lower levels are well trained predators who follow the scripts of their 'education'.
#636 re. #627
TOPIC - How to win.....How NOT to lose. CAUTION...
joshuasdad100
Fri Aug 3, 2012 5:41 pm
Iris, THIS IS A CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF WHERE A LITTLE BIT OF KNOWLEDGE CAN BE DANGEROUS. Please take my comments in the spirit of Group education...........
If you pick and choose the facts you wish to agree with, you are now arguing the facts. Translation, you've lost before you begin. This is Jack Smith 101. The only reason this method might work in the first place is because from THEIR perspective (if the Judge is sufficiently informed), they want for a trustee through which they can tap the Estate to pay for the Case bond. The effect of arguing the facts is that you are really stating, "I care about the facts sufficiently to argue them with you, so I must therefore be subject to statutes, and therefore the Trustee."
If Targets sent you a summons, would you appear and argue the facts? It's our ACTIONS that tell them who we are.
This is why I CAUTION ALL MEMBERS AGAINST acting on threads of discussion which can never take the place of intensive education.
I wouldn't use ANY technology that I hadn't mastered and where I did not know the results BEFORE I ACTED. That's how winners win....
UNDERSTANDING - CONFIDENCE - PROJECTION.
Bill
#637 re. #633
TOPIC: DON'T TELL THEM WHAT THEY KNOW. EXPRESS YOUR CLAIM
joshuasdad100
Fri Aug 3, 2012 5:53 pm
JOHN, THIS IS THE CLASSIC REASONING THAT HAS LANDED SO MANY IN PRISON. Please accept my comments in the spirit of Group education.........
First, the public already knows it's bankrupt. Don't you know you're alive? The entire admiralty system is a transmitting utility for debt. They don't need to be convinced.
Secondly, truth is an automatic contempt in the corporate Court.
Thirdly, if you argue anything, you are in the jurisdiction, a Trustee/Defendant/Debtor deep pockets transmitting utility that leads right to the Estate.
Why not say, "Hey, this is the trust, I'm the beneficiary, I'm directing that you exchange the securities or pay the taxes or return all of my property?" (And if you do not, I'm going to acquire your bond, the Case bond, the profits, the interest, and then some.) HERE'S MY LIEN." When in Rome.......They want to play commerce? Fine. I've got the security interest.
Bill
P.S. "It's not personal, Sonny, it's strictly business." Michael Corleone, "The Godfather."
#638 re. #633
Re: [Reclaim_Your_Securities] UCC-1 Lien
yarod4u
Fri Aug 3, 2012 7:26 pm
Yes
#639 re. #637
UCC-1
sportniks
Fri Aug 3, 2012 7:26 pm
Thanks Bill, I just jumped in to this groups way of thinking and trying to get my head around it. I am up to #50 and climbing...I can't wait to understand exactly what you mean. John
#642 re. #639
TOPIC: DON'T TELL THEM WHAT THEY KNOW. EXPRESS YOUR CLAIM-CLARIFICATION
joshuasdad100
Send Email
Fri Aug 3, 2012 9:19 pm
JOHN, IN RE-READING YOUR POSTING AND MY RESPONSE, I THINK I NEED TO CLARIFY. I'm
not sure you perfected a lien (probably not), but placing a lien in trust is a good direction for a multitude of reasons. However, using it to remind them of insolvency is a waste of time (in my opinion or what it's worth) because all parties to the action are presumed to be insolvent anyway, so insolvency is not a defense. But stealing my securities is. I imagine that arguing insolvency, from their perspective, is one of those "patriot mental case arguments" that never make it past their need to ridicule their "subjects." And any argument is
a consent to jurisdiction anyway. Bill
#643 re. #577
Re: FORECLOSURE MESS
joshuasdad100
Fri Aug 3, 2012 9:31 pm
derrick, I think the Matrix was purposefully constructed to be convoluted so that the pathway out requires a guide. It's kind of like being in a jungle. There's a good chance of winding up in quicksand without Tarzan. Bill
#644 re. #637
Re: TOPIC: DON'T TELL THEM WHAT THEY KNOW. EXPRESS YOUR CLAIM.
markonealus
Fri Aug 3, 2012 9:41 pm
Why not say, "Hey, this is the trust, I'm the beneficiary, I'm directing that you exchange the securities or pay the taxes or return all of my property?" (And if you do not, I'm going to acquire your bond, the Case bond, the profits, the interest, and then some. HERE'S MY LIEN." When in Rome.......They want to play commerce? Fine. I've got the security interest.
Umm...because you already told us if we mention the trust in court, we are liable to get beat up?
#645 re. #638
Re: UCC-1 Lien
europeaneagle90
Fri Aug 3, 2012 11:20 pm
Has anyone successively put a lien their property?
#648 re. #637
Re: TOPIC: DON'T TELL THEM WHAT THEY KNOW. EXPRESS YOUR CLAIM.
ravingraven2000
Sat Aug 4, 2012 6:35 am
Bill,
Is there any authority you quote (Blackstone's etc.) that is universal that shows a deposit creates a trust / fiduciary relationship?
We all know it does, but court is another matter.
thanks
#650
BC & Trustee
sportniks
Sat Aug 4, 2012 9:05 am
I am only up to #166, however, am I getting this right?
1. BC is debtor?
2. Debtor=Trustee?
3. BC is Trustee to the estate?
4. Grantor/Beneficiary can give orders Trustee on front of BC?
Still reading and working...This is a great group and I am very pleased to be hear. John
#651
Re: New file uploaded to Reclaim_Your_Securities
markonealus
Sat Aug 4, 2012 9:31 am
As I read through the files, I am reminded of the movie "Soylent Green" they have people eating each other!
#652 re. #645
Re: UCC-1 Lien
joshuasdad100
Sat Aug 4, 2012 11:04 am
THAT'S WHAT WE DO, PAUL. BUT AS IN LIFE, SOME DO IT BETTER THAN OTHERS. Bill
..... (Reminds me of another line from Braveheart: "I see your mother's been telling stories about me again.")
#653 re. #648
TOPIC: CREATING A TRUST RELATIONSHIP
joshuasdad100
Sat Aug 4, 2012 11:23 am |
GOOD QUESTION. SEC. 401 OF THE UNIFORM TRUST CODE TELLS YOU THAT A TRUST IS
CREATED when you declare it, appoint a trustee or deliver property (see below). So we're not pulling this one out of a hat. This is the derivation of the cliché: "Everything's a trust," but in this case it has substance.
Every patriot who's been arguing trusts and did not know the above needs to return to the drawing board and get their sea legs before taking on any controversies. Remember what the sergeant said: "Let's be careful out there."
But regarding Court, we don't have to cite a thing. They're in fiduciary breach by engaging in unjust enrichment, securities fraud and conspiracy to obstruct the tax laws of the United States (or Canada or wherever). If they are denied access to the Estate because we won't volunteer the Strawman as trustee or convey legal title by a general deposit, then they are in serious trouble when we express our right to special deposit and to claim our securities.
I REPEAT MY CAUTION FROM A PREVIOUS EMAIL. IF YOU TRY THIS WITHOUT A SOLID
FOUNDATION, THEY WILL MAKE AN EXAMPLE OUT OF YOU FOR ATTACKING THEIR LIVELIHOOD.
Are you PREPARED to go to the mattresses? Bill
SECTION 401. METHODS OF CREATING TRUST. A trust may be created by:
(1) transfer of property to another person as trustee during the settlor's lifetime or by will or other disposition taking effect upon the settlor's death;
(2) declaration by the owner of property that the owner holds identifiable property as trustee; or
(3) exercise of a power of appointment in favor of a trustee.
#654 re. #651
Re: New file uploaded to Reclaim_Your_Securities
joshuasdad100
Sat Aug 4, 2012 11:24 am
I'll take mine with sugar on top. Bill
#655 re. #650
Re: BC & Trustee
joshuasdad100
Sat Aug 4, 2012 11:26 am
BC account/trust IS the Estate. Bill
#656
Being competent
sportniks
Sat Aug 4, 2012 11:44 am
Bill, I would like to comment on what I have heard you say many times to those of us looking for the quickest way, "What's the quickest way to become a surgeon?" "What's the quickest way to become a rocket scientist?" I believe we all miss your point, the quickest way of become anything doesn't make us competent. An incompetent surgeon will make mistakes maybe take lives just as a rocket scientist...Who wants to be operated on by an incompetent Doctor or go into space with something designed to fail? I want to learn to be competent in what I do, for competence reaches majority. John
#657 re. #656
Re: Being competent
markonealus
Sat Aug 4, 2012 12:07 pm
Furthermore, a surgeon, when all is said and done, is only cutting meat and/or sewing it back together, but that doesn't mean the job could be done by a butcher and a seamstress.
#659 re. #644
Re: TOPIC: DON'T TELL THEM WHAT THEY KNOW. EXPRESS YOUR CLAIM.
fdmfghr
Sat Aug 4, 2012 3:26 pm
Perhaps a better way to put this might be to talk about 'security interests in this case'?
#660 re. #636
Re: TOPIC - How to win.....How NOT to lose. CAUTION...
fdmfghr
Sat Aug 4, 2012 3:43 pm
Sure, I overstand the logic here Bill of not entering into controversy.
My perspective is one of considerable courtroom observation of claims of "facts' which in fact are NOT facts, but assumptive and presumptive observations of the reporter on a stand....classic example is identifying someone in court, typically done by finger pointing at the coerced to be present party.....but NOT substantiated since how does anyone really 'know' the private identity of anyone else unless they have a close relationship and much in-private knowledge of or experience with that party?
Unless one was present at a physical christening ceremony for the party involved, or similar event, this is a prime example, IMO, of a non-fact typically accepted as a "fact" in court venue.
Yet it is often hard to object to such nonsense unless one is very alert and of course acting for oneself, but often not done.
One could ask "how do you know" for many things when items deemed to be 'facts' come up.....or basis of testifier's knowledge....but that too would be generating controversy.
So one may have a choice then of raising questions re the 'facts' and basis for same OR rearranging the questions perhaps, though later is always not easiest to arrange when one does not have the stance of being 'on record'.
Note that here I am referring to instances where there is little choice about presence or lack of same....there are domains where seizures and arrests and detentions are done routinely without much confirmation of anything or anyone, and assumptions are then carried through into court under duress.
If there is a choice, different situation of course.
#661 re. #659
Re: TOPIC: DON'T TELL THEM WHAT THEY KNOW. EXPRESS YOUR CLAIM.
eponymous_680
Sat Aug 4, 2012 4:01 pm
not publically
- peacemaker -
#663 re. #637
Re: TOPIC: DON'T TELL THEM WHAT THEY KNOW. EXPRESS YOUR CLAIM-CLARIFICATION
sportniks
Sat Aug 4, 2012 4:28 pm
Bill, I was going to use the UCC-1 lien against my SM/Defendant as a way of protecting against paying money or having assets levied because of a court order to a credit card company that I lost. I am not there yet to claim
Grantor/Beneficiary and the rest of what is being taught here. Also it sounds like I need to redue my UCC-1 state form without SM as debtor and RM as creditor. From what I am understanding after reading 642 posts is the BC Trust would be debtor and the SM the creditor? How close is that?
#664 re. #637
Re: TOPIC: DON'T TELL THEM WHAT THEY KNOW. EXPRESS YOUR CLAIM.
sportniks
Sat Aug 4, 2012 4:32 pm
I am trying to get my head around the Lien, what is the lien in "Here is my lien"?
#666 re. #660
TOPIC - A THOUSAND WAYS TO CONSENT TO CORPORATE JURISDICTION.
joshuasdad100
Sat Aug 4, 2012 5:38 pm
Have it your way, Iris. The issues you raise are not different situations, They're all the same, namely: how many more years will patriots waste their energies discussing the various methods of participating in their own lynching? It's painful for me, like watching concentration camp victims debating which gas chamber to enter.
We have a different perspectives. There are no shortage of ways to confess into the jurisdiction by arguing the facts in a Court of fiction from the moment opposition counsel opens his mouth. BUT IF YOU ANSWER A SINGLE QUESTION OR CHALLENGE A SINGLE FACT EVEN BY QUESTIONING, you have placed yourself in the mouth of the Beast.
Fortunately, we don't have to argue the facts of the Courtroom here. This Group is committed to embracing the Future. I suggest taking that line of discussion to the other Groups. We are fortunate that many forums embrace that stuff. Thank you for understanding. Bill
#667 re. #650
Re: BC & Trustee
joshuasdad100
Sat Aug 4, 2012 5:41 pm
John, the BC trust/account IS the estate. It's the surety for all debts attributed to the strawman. Bill
#669 re. #663
UCC-1 lien
sportniks
Sat Aug 4, 2012 6:22 pm
1..So i did it right by making SM the debtor?
2..Did I do it right about making the RM (real man) the creditor?
From what I thought I understood, the RM can't be creditor on UCC-1?
John
#670 re. #667
Re: BC & Trustee
sportniks
Sat Aug 4, 2012 6:24 pm
It seems like the BC trust should be creditor on UCC-1 and SA?
#677 re. #48
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
sportniks
Sun Aug 5, 2012 4:22 am
Bill, does this mean that the Ucc-1 state form (pre 1999) should be used so the secured party can be and stay the RM and not converted automatically into the SM?
#678 re. #48
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
sportniks
Sun Aug 5, 2012 4:40 am
#48 says...THAT'S WHERE WE'VE ALWAYS SCREWED UP (defect 5). Filing the UCC as a living man is just one of the pitfalls that brings us back under their control. Is this because everyone used the national form after 1999 or is it saying we shouldn't use the living man ("RM") as SP at all?
#683 re. below
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
sportniks
Sun Aug 5, 2012 7:04 am
Peacemaker, Thank you for your thoughts, I do appreciate what I believe you are trying to say. I to have studied and trained in the arts and learned at a very early age the difference between techniques and natural movement, and to never judge your opponent. There is a big difference between fishing for answers and looking answers, this must be studied. Also, every persons why is different, however, their how is almost always the same. I already know why I want to reclaim my securities, I joined this group because I want to find out how I can
reclaim them…Thank you again for insight. John
eponymous_680 embury111@... wrote: re. #678
John, read through the posts again, from the beginning. The 'RM" as you call it, cannot appear in the 'fictional' world. How can the dead world - commerce - recognize a living being?
It also - in my opinion - looks as though you are looking for the 'how' without really trying to get to the 'why'...that's why it looks - in my opinion, yet again - like you're fishing for the answer.
I'm not an expert in this particular 'reclaiming one's securities', area of life - not yet - but do know a thing or two about 'the doctrine of understanding', as it applies to the world of say, martial arts.
You have to know the 'why' before any sort of understanding, and from this, the 'how' arises naturally, as if it were second nature, and only then can you speak or 'do', from any place of authority
Trying skip a step - to get to the 'how' -before the 'why', is backwards. Unfortunately, this is how we're indoctrinated in the West: it's called 'public education'. Regurgitation of information, is how we 'learn' - it gets us certificates and diplomas, but robs us of our ability to discern - luckily, I was not a good 'student'....
Trying to figure out which form to use - and we're still talking martial arts here - in a certain situation, i.e., a REAL LIFE confrontation - is a recipe for disaster, and usually ends up with a black eye, or worse - and THIS comes from my own experience, so I can tell you this: if you do not know the 'why', then do not do the 'do'; don't 'go there'; study and learn. UNDERSTAND FIRST!!!!!
What's that quote from Apocalypse now? "You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill."....or from the Matrix?
Merovingian:
The question is, do *you* know why you are here?
Morpheus:
We are looking for the Keymaker.
Merovingian:
Oh, yes. It is true. The Keymaker. Of course. But this is not a reason. This is not a "why". The Keymaker himself - his very nature is a means. It is not an end. And so to look for him is to be looking for a means to do... what?
- peacemaker -
#686
Group Question on Foundation?
sportniks
Sun Aug 5, 2012 8:54 am
Hey Group is this correct for the foundation?
1. We (the RM) are presumed lost at sea.
2. We have abandoned our estate or are dead.
3. Our estate was put in BC trust just in case we return or are not dead.
4. We the RM is beneficiary for the BC trust.
5. Our SM is Trustee for the BC trust.
REMEDY…
6. We as RM prove we are alive.
7. We claim our estate.
8. We use our estate as per our entitlement.
9. We defend our estate from trespassers.
How close am I?
#689
my thoughts on paper
hammond_ted
Sun Aug 5, 2012 9:32 am
I've spent the last couple of days searching for the answers to Bills well advised questions, if he gives you the answers then you wont be able to solve your problems, we must resolve them for ourselves, I deeply respect your patience Bill, it must not be easy, but necessary. How do you get status in Admiralty? You must be the owner or have equitable interest in the vessel. What is the vessel. We have long thought the vessel is the strawman, but what equity does the strawman have? Nothing. What does have equity, the Estate? Or maybe the BC.
The Estate is not tangible so I think it is the BC that is the Vessel. Who has an equitable interest in the BC? The Estate? But isn't the Estate being claimed abandoned? How would you reclaim your Estate? By deposition with a notary whose an officer of the court? How would you prove your claim on the vessel? In Admiralty a Maritime Lien is proof of an equitable interest in the vessel. But can the estate file the maritime lien? I don’t think so. I think you need a Proxy who would be a beneficiary to file the lien. Who could be the Proxy? What if you appointed an Executor as your proxy? But how would the agency recognize your proxy? What does the agency use to identify everything? Numbers. You can’t use the SS number because that would make him a debtor and dead on arrival, what about an EIN? Aren’t EIN numbers for estates and trusts ? In all trusts you need a Trustee and one cannot be both the Beneficiary and Trustee. We would have to appoint a second Proxy to be TTEE. One the agency would recognize but did not have control over, again, they recognize numbers so wouldn't the EIN be appropriate for the TTEE ? WHO could be this Trustee, someone the agency had no control over? A pseudonym (sp) for the living man, An entity we create with its own identity. The new name as TTEE would have the authority to do the setoff? Just my thoughts. If anyone has any ideas, I would surely like some feedback, with Bills excellent teachings and guidance we should be able to understand and figure this out.
#690 re. #689
Re: my thoughts on paper
sportniks
Sun Aug 5, 2012 9:52 am
Great brainstorm Ted, If numbers are true, I was taught we have three and may that is a key. we have the SS# 123-45-6789 and the Exemption #123456789 and the EIN# 12 3456789, all the same numbers with different meanings...food for thought. John
#691 re. #690
Re: my thoughts on paper
sportniks
Sun Aug 5, 2012 10:16 am
Another thought with those numbers:
1. SM = 123-45-6789 SS#
2. BC = 123456789 BC trust#
3. RM = 12 3456789 real man EIN#
#692 re. #690
Re: my thoughts on paper
arthur_louis...
Sun Aug 5, 2012 10:17 am
Someone showed me this yesterday. Look up Counter-deed in Blacks Law [6th]. It's under deed in a sub category.[In 4th it is under ‘c’] It has to do with Notaries.
#694 re. below
Re: my thoughts on paper
hammond_ted
Sun Aug 5, 2012 10:22 am
Not the real man, the executor or..... the estate the EIN is for estates and trusts
eponymous_680 embury111@... wrote: re. #691
the real man (kingdom of heaven) cannot mix with the dead world (secular commerce), so how can a real man have an EIN #?
- peacemaker -
#695 re. #694 2nd
Re: my thoughts on paper
sportniks
Sun Aug 5, 2012 10:29 am
EIN also stands for 'exemption identification number' and that is how I was taught to use it in commerce with the RM as secured party on the UCC-1 State from. The SM got the SS# and RM got the EIN3. Not saying it is carved in stone.
#696 re. #695
Re: my thoughts on paper
hammond_ted
Sun Aug 5, 2012 10:35 am
Yes, I’ve heard that too, but i'm trying to negotiate this in the terms Bill has described in this group, the beneficiary, Grantor must be recognized by the agency and the living man is already recognized as the strawman, authorized representative, with a SS#, once you have the SS you are a debtor, you’ve already
contracted away your beneficiary position and are presumed to be the debtor trustee
#699 re. #696
Re: my thoughts on paper
sportniks
Sun Aug 5, 2012 10:50 am
Thought I would though that out there, you were talking numbers and brainstorming on what we know and are learning is a great way to see things we didn't before. Somehow the RM must prove he/she is alive and has not abandoned his/her estate that is held in the BC trust and claim that estate for this to work. John
#704 re. #670
Re: BC TRUST IS THE SURETY FOR THE DEBTOR WHICH = DEBTOR
[Point is, since the estate/BC trust/account is the surety for the strawman debtor, it is a debtor by definition. #720. Meaning that if you're the surety for my Debtor, then YOU are my Debtor. THE ESTATE IS THE MOTHER OF ALL DEBTORS #727]
joshuasdad100
Sun Aug 5, 2012 11:21 am
JOHN, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS WHICH DEMONSTRATES THE VALUE OF CONCEPTIONAL UNDERSTANDING. We've established that the BC trust/account/estate is the surety for all debts attributed to the strawman. The public seeks your consent to tap the estate every time they arrest or assess the vessel/strawman. What's another name for surety?
Underwriter.
And what's another name for underwriter?
Insurer.
Now who is liable in admiralty when you have a car accident?
The insurer.
So who is the debtor? Who pays the bills? WHO ultimately pays the assessments levied against the strawman?
The estate; the BC trust/account.
Another way to deduce it would have been to recall that the strawman is a TRANSMITTING UTILITY. I suspect that very few patriots understand what that means. Simply this: it exists to transmit debt back to the estate. They make a perfect pair: the debt transmitter and the surety. Which is exactly what happens when we get in an accident. We're just the stand-in for the insurer.
The above is nothing more than basic cognitive reasoning and conceptual understanding. Patriots focus on minutia: color of ink, punctuation, who do I send it to? Classic cases of missing the forest for the trees. So I continue to stress the value of conceptual understanding. Thanks or the question. Bill
#706 re. #704
Re: BC TRUST IS THE SURETY OR THE DEBTOR WHICH = DEBTOR
hammond_ted
Sun Aug 5, 2012 11:43 am
Thank you Bill, that answered my next question is who or what is the vessel in admiralty, it is the strawman. SO to achieve status in Admiralty we must have a lien on the strawman, but the real man cannot do the lien so the proxy must execute the lien ?
#707 re. #704
Re: BC TRUST IS THE SURETY OR THE DEBTOR WHICH = DEBTOR
sportniks
Sun Aug 5, 2012 11:47 am
Thanks Bill, yes I put transmitting utility on my UCC-1 State form. Conceptually thinking, would it be safe to say the BC trust a private trust since it holds the private estate for the RM who is lost at sea. If this is so then didn't we appoint our SM as trustee to this BC trust to transmit from the private to the public to the private. If so then wouldn't the state registrar be the custodian for the trust? Hope I am not to far out of the box. John
#708 re. #704
Re: BC TRUST IS THE SURETY OR THE DEBTOR WHICH = DEBTOR
sportniks
Sun Aug 5, 2012 12:22 pm
Bill this is a mind twist alright, if the BC is the surety for the SM which makes it the insurer which makes it the creditor yet it is the debtor who ends up paying all the debt liability for the SM. This would make the SM both debtor and creditor, transmitting debt back to the BC estate then transmitting credit to the creditors. I am sure I am making this much more complicated than it is so I have to think about it for a while. John
#717 re. #661
Re: TOPIC: DON'T TELL THEM WHAT THEY KNOW. EXPRESS YOUR CLAIM.
fdmfghr
Sun Aug 5, 2012 3:21 pm
Well I've not tried any version of this in court....yet!
So if not 'publicly', what are your suggestions if any if one is coerced under threat to attend 'court'?
Or would you suggest simplified version as earlier in this thread in public if need be, and ONLY addressing such comments in private to black dress?
I'm talking hypothetically, since I do considerable street counseling and offer legal aid/advocacy to those who cannot afford otherwise and do not always want or have learned too well the futility of the official legal aid system and pretenders inhabiting such.
#720 re. #704
CORRECTION......
joshuasdad100Sun Aug 5, 2012 5:14 pm
The thread entitled:
BC TRUST IS THE SURETY OR THE DEBTOR WHICH = DEBTOR:
should read:
BC TRUST IS THE SURETY FOR THE DEBTOR WHICH = DEBTOR
Please excuse the typo. Bill
P.S. Point is, since the estate/BC trust/account is the surety for the strawman
debtor, it is a debtor by definition.
#721 re. #691
TOPIC: "EXEMPTION #" - CLASSIC PATRIOT MYTHOLOGY.
joshuasdad100
Sun Aug 5, 2012 6:02 pm
I'M SO GLAD YOU MENTIONED THE EXEMPTION #. Perhaps nothing better demonstrates how we must update and discard old patriot legends as our understanding matures.
First of all, THERE IS NO EXEMPTION #.
The "exemption number" (Social Security number without the dashes) arose from the need to specify the private side of the ledger that represents all of the living man's assets placed in trust (confiscated) in 1933. How do you refer to an invisible account? So someone got the bright idea of using the SSN without the dashes.
It's been nothing but confusion ever since. When we accept the BC, do we charge it to the SSN or EIN? Dashes or no dashes? And why charge instead of credit?
We have learned much in a dozen years. We now know that the infant's pledge of future labor (a security future) is the equity by which the Department of the Treasury creates the BC trust account into which it deposits the pledge, thereby creating our PUBLIC estate, and from which it issues the birth bond, a certificated security future which it trades for currency with the Fed before being deposited with The DTC.
The moral of the story is this. All of those securities and accounts: the BC trust, the BC account, the birth bond, the Certificate of Birth and the Birth Certificate are represented by a single number, the one, true identifier for the estate, the private side of the account, our exemption, and the foundational security for our interest in the United States (the Certificate of Birth) - namely the birth certificate number: 123-45-123456 (or whatever configuration may appear on the Certificate).
There is no reason in 2012 for any patriot to ever again refer to the exemption number (other than to uphold tradition for something that may have worked in the past).
With this understanding, all of the confusion should melt away. The statement "and charge the same to Account # 123-45-6789" noted on the Certificate of Birth during the Treasury process could just as easily specify the BC #. On the other hand, the statement is basically correct at its core.
How do I know? What's the normal business practice used by U.S. Courts for assessing (charging) the estate? Don't they routinely charge the strawman (arrest the vessel) for the sole purpose of bringing forth a surety to post bond (the estate)?
So it is technically correct to "charge Account # 123-45-6789" (with the dashes in place) since charging the strawman is the normal accounting method for assessing (charging) the private side of the account when creating a payment instrument (such as an acceptance on the BC). Other than the dashes and a lack of knowledge about the Estate, Roger Elvick was a genius in pulling redemption basically out of thin air.
And the member who posted a message about pleading guilty to the facts [#515 & #625] was also spot on when he suggested ordering the Court to "charge the same to the Estate and credit the strawman" (which gets the funds to the Defendant) and then "charge the strawman and credit the case #" (which is the same as saying "for
further credit to account # ________").
Hope this will resolve years of confusion. Most of this is just basic deductive reasoning and logic. Bill
#722
TOPIC: "CHARGE THE SAME TO ACCOUNT 123-45-6789"
joshuasdad100
Sun Aug 5, 2012 6:02 pm
PLEASE SEE LAST POSTINGS. Bill
#723
TOPIC: "CREDIT ACCOUNT # 123-45-6789"
joshuasdad100
Sun Aug 5, 2012 6:02 pm
PLEASE SEE LAST TWO POSTINGS. I hope this ends a decade of confusion. Bill
#724 re. #565
Re: Indictment
fleurdelanuit1
Sun Aug 5, 2012 6:14 pm
Most if not all of the OID's filings were done in error, and without proper standing...They have routinely been going after many of those who filed these type of returns, which mostly were an enterprise of the disinfo marketing guru's for profit (such as CIC). I have personally known some of these individuals who promoted these process and can tell you that they didn't know very much, and they DID NOT have success in 99% of the cases, including their own filings (it still didn't prevent them from taking exorbitant fees from others to do the process) which pretty much shows you their lack of honor.
The best suggestion i can offer is to put in a 'NOTOCE OF MISTAKE', and ask forgiveness...In their system a mistake can always be corrected, especially since no one has been damaged or harmed, and your intent was not to bring any harm...i know a few ppl who have done this personally with success, including dealings with OID & the IRS.
This is not to be construed as legal advice....hope that helped, sorry if it didn't.
#725 re. #721
Re: TOPIC: "EXEMPTION #" - CLASSIC PATRIOT MYTHOLOGY.
derrickwayne...
Sun Aug 5, 2012 6:19 pm
Is Jean Keating correct? Winston Shrout said the bill needs to charged.
Jean Keating; “No it’s not an A4V. It’s a money order!”
Pay to the order of: U. S. Department of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, Governor of the International Monetary Fund
Pay: Three thousand twelve dollars and no cents $3,012.00
Debit/Charge the sum said to WHOEVER sent you the bill (Utility, IRS, etc.)
Credit the memory of my account 123456789
That's how you do redemption. That is the proper way to do it! send a copy to the person that sent you the bill.
“Sign in red ink! Don't ever sign anything in blue ink the sign of a dead man. Never do anything in blue ink.
Everything has to be in red ink!
Your signature has to be the last signature on the page cause they only see the last signature and so they can’t sign anything after your signature, on the bottom right of both sides of the paper!
I can show you an IRS practice manual that every document has to be signed in red ink.”
jeankeating'sA4V.doc
Do a Pay to the Order Of the Department of Treasury
Indorse it for payment,
Pay to the order of the Department of Treasury
Charge the sum to: Medical Facility/Acct Number is the Bill Number/Tax ID
Credit to the memory of myself/ SS#.
turn that over and you put on the back
indorsed in lawful money per 12 USC 41
due to the department of the treasury of the united states.
#727 re. #704
Re: BC TRUST IS THE SURETY FOR THE DEBTOR WHICH = DEBTOR
joshuasdad100
Sun Aug 5, 2012 6:29 pm
"BC TRUST IS THE SURETY FOR THE DEBTOR WHICH = DEBTOR"
Meaning that if you're the surety for my Debtor, then YOU are my Debtor.
THE ESTATE IS THE MOTHER OF ALL DEBTORS.
#729 re. #686
Re: Group Question on Foundation?
dvanderryt
Sun Aug 5, 2012 7:15 pm
Heck I will give it a try;
Hey Group is this correct for the foundation?
1. We (the RM) are presumed lost at sea.
Only after 7 years. the queues quo law of 1666 (?) where as if any man did not claim his property after 7 years was presumed dead or missing at sea. It was sneaked into law during the great fire of 1666.
RM = Real Man, SM = Strawman
2. We have abandoned our estate or are dead.
Only because we didn't know about it. The estate you are talking about is a trust. Can't issue a bond without a trust behind it. We are "given" a name through a bond agreement.
3. Our estate was put in BC trust just in case we return or are not dead.
The way I understand it is this. A trust was set up in recognition of the birth of energy into the world. Thus an estate is created? It is confusing to me in a way to use the term estate...estate is the interest anyone has with land or property.
4. We the RM is beneficiary for the BC trust.
Are the beneficiary.....
5. Our SM is Trustee for the BC trust.
Actually the trustee can be invoked by the government, when you hold the title to your person, or when you appoint it to a judge or some other judicial person.
REMEDY…
6. We as RM prove we are alive.
You only prove you are alive by proving you are alive.
7. We claim our estate.
The interest and some go after monies used unlawfully by the trust.
8. We use our estate as per our entitlement.
Yep
9. We defend our estate from trespassers.
surely one must but, it is not ours to own.
How close am I?
#733 re. #725
TOPIC: PATRIOT MISCONCEPTIONS RE. PAYMENT, CHARGING, CREDITING, etc.
joshuasdad100
Sun Aug 5, 2012 10:58 pm
DERRICK, NONE OF THE THINGS YOU MENTIONED DOWN BELOW ARE NECESSARY. Don't get me wrong, Winston and Jean are remarkable men and I intend to address the "guru" attack another member left earlier today in a future posting. It is so easy for people to hide behind the web and malign intentions with no knowledge of how these men have sacrificed and little appreciation for their contributions to our present knowledge.
Patriots tend to obsess over technical peculiarities, myself included, which often results in faulty concepts going into legends. Here are a few such myths to be trashed: [Theses are stating the method, not myth]
- Money orders are not necessary and only confuse the issue in processing the payment instrument.
- Blue ink is fine. Its usage traces back to ancient times.
- The concept of "charging" the bill is a classic patriot misconception. See my previous email regarding "charging" v "crediting. It's our payment that must be drawn from ("charged" against) our credit, just like a personal check. The only way to do that is through the Estate which personifies the infant's pledge of our labor through the hospital birth document. This is why I say that the Estate is the surety for all debts attributed to the strawman. BUT IT IS NO MORE NECESSARY TO MENTION THIS ON MOST PAYMENT INSTRUMENTS THAN IT WOULD BE ON A CHECK. The payer's bank is visible on a check, and the strawman (which is the portal to the Estate) is visible on the bill. So there's no real reason to mark a payment instrument: "Charge the same to account # 123-45-6789 and credit to account number ________" although one could choose to do that. THE MORE ONE WRITES, THE GREATER THE CHANCE OF ERROR OR CONFESSING THAT ONE IS A NEWBIE TRYING TO LOOK LIKE A PRO.
- If we wish to note the strawman or the vendor's account to be credited, we can.
- We do not endorse our own instrument that's being used for payment. Do you endorse a check when you pay National Grid? We might endorse someone else's instrument when we're depositing it, just like a check. This is so typical of how a basic confusion between apples and oranges grows into a legend. The bank's have an ancient system in place for negotiating instruments and exchanging securities. If you want to know how to use securities, that's where the lessons will be found.
- As to being the last signature on the page, this is yet another apples and oranges scenario. It's hogwash to say that they can only see the last signature on the page. The actual situation is that when we endorse the lower right
corner, we THEORETICALLY prevent another party from endorsing the instrument. This is fine if we intend the instrument should not be negotiated (trade) beyond the payee, but sometimes we might want them to negotiate our instrument.
- Charging the sum to the vendor and crediting the memory of myself is just off the wall. Those statements have no tangible accounting interpretation and only serve to prejudice the recipient against the payer.
Bill
#737
B2B Re: Court security origins
fires1up
Mon Aug 6, 2012 6:25 am
Is it critical to understand EXACTLY how we become the "issuer" in a security resulting from a court case? Robb Ryder claims each case starts as a simple trespass, before being trumped up. In "The ABCs of the UCC", Article 8, the authors state that there are two holding systems for securities, direct and indirect, the latter being the DTC. I assume that criminal complaints for traffic stops are held in the `direct' system. The authors state that "the asset must be either an obligation of an issuer, or a share, participation, or other interest in the issuer or in the issuer's property…" If I read this correctly, it says that the officer (or clerk, or STATE OF….) can be the "issuer" in real terms, but the UCC definition of issuer includes "drawer", (3) "Drawer" means a person who signs or is identified in a draft as a person ordering payment. And "draft" • • (e) An instrument is a "note" if it is a promise and is a "draft" if it is an order.
So if I understand this correctly, THEY, (the court, etc.) can be the issuer in real terms, but put the obligation to pay upon us, by means of the `draft'. Is this correct, and does it matter in terms of reclaiming our securities?
#738 re. #76
Re: Status - what is it?
sportniks
Mon Aug 6, 2012 6:55 am
Peter, in post #41 you say..."we find that your estate was probated (proven up) and placed in a cestui-que trust (your BC). Your BC is the debtor as it is borrowing from your estate to acquire title to property (a legal interest). You sign as the trustee of the BC trust granting the authority to ledger against it."
In post #76 you say..."But the trust is not yours. Only the estate within it is."
Are we talking about three different thing? I am confused on this.
1. The RM (real man) estate.
2. The cestui-que trust.
3. The BC trust.
Thanks, John
#739 re. #721
Re: TOPIC: "EXEMPTION #" - CLASSIC PATRIOT MYTHOLOGY.
eponymous_680
Mon Aug 6, 2012 9:37 am
Deductive reasoning, is the order of the day, so it seems. The birth registration # (what it's known as, in Canada), is the same on all three birth instruments that I know of, the birth certificate, the registration of live birth, and the physician's notice of live birth - the common denominator of each, is the 'registration #'.
This is refreshing, to say the least. "Charge the same to 1986-02-099876 (how the birth certificate # is configured in Canada)...for the 'treasury process'. Or "credit to 1986-02-099876"
So with, "What's the normal business practice used by U.S. Courts for assessing (charging) the estate? Don't they routinely charge the strawman (arrest the vessel) for the sole purpose of bringing forth a surety to post bond (the estate)?"
We can do, what they can do with the debtor - if it 'owes' them, then it can 'owe' us, the beneficiary, as well, do to the fact, that we share an interest in that NAME....am I correct on this? If they 'charge' it, then we can credit it, to do set offs...
#743 re. #733
Re: Group Question on Foundation???
hammond_ted
Mon Aug 6, 2012 10:23 am
Bill, I would like to read more on this ancient system on securities
"The bank's have an ancient system in place for negotiating instruments and exchanging securities. If you want to know how to use securities, that's where the lessons will be found."
#744 re. #704
Re: BC TRUST IS THE SURETY FOR THE DEBTOR WHICH = DEBTOR
hammond_ted
Mon Aug 6, 2012 10:25 am
If the ESTATE is the mother of all debtors, then shouldn't the ESTATE be listed as the debtor on the UCC-1???
#745
LEINHOLDER
hammond_ted
Mon Aug 6, 2012 10:36 am
I found this article on the lienholder and thought I would share it
LIENHOLDER
If it is determined that it is not in the client's best interest to arrest a vessel, then another option available to preserve the plaintiff's maritime tort lien is to file a notice of the lien with the U.S. Coast Guard National Vessel
Documentation Center. The filing of this notice of lien, which can be accomplished with minimum effort and cost, will place the world on notice of the lien and place a cloud on the vessel's title. Generally, most vessel owners will eventually satisfy the lien, because the filing of the lien may be in violation of the terms and conditions of the vessel's preferred ship mortgage or deter potential buyers from purchasing the vessel. This paper will provide a general guide for filing the proper pleadings to arrest a vessel to enforce a maritime tort lien and will discuss the steps that must be taken in order to arrest the vessel
A maritime lien is a property right of a non-vessel owner in a vessel giving the non-vessel owner, or lienholder, the right to have the vessel sold by a federal court sitting in admiralty and the proceeds of the vessel's sale distributed to the lienholder to satisfy the in rem debt of the vessel.[5] A plaintiff enforcing a maritime tort lien is proceeding in rem against the vessel, which is referred to as the res. The res is fictionally personified and hence, can be sued.[6] In the case of liens on vessels, the lien is non-possessory as it does not require the lienholder to posses or control the vessel until the lien is satisfied and is indelible. The existence of a maritime lien is the prerequisite to any admiralty in rem action against the vessel.[7] To give rise to a maritime lien, the accident of which liability arose must itself be maritime innature.[8] A maritime tort lien arises at the moment the accident occurs.
To arrest a vessel, the plaintiff must have a valid maritime tort lien[9] against the vessel or other maritime property.[10] The requirements for a maritime lien on a vessel include: (1) a maritime tort; (2) the object of the
lien, the vessel, must be "in navigation"[11] ; (3) the person in possession at the time the tort lien arose must be in lawful possession of the vessel; and (4) the lienholder or plaintiff may not be an owner, part owner, or joint venturer in ownership of the vessel[12] .
#748 re. #744
Re: BC TRUST IS THE SURETY FOR THE DEBTOR WHICH = DEBTOR
fires1up
Mon Aug 6, 2012 2:23 pm
I'll take a stab at that. The BC is the mother, the SS account is the offspring/debtor, and all other debts spring from the SS account via the strawman/SSN/transmitting utility.
#749
Is there a way to find a financial security on Fidelity or other website?
anara...
Mon Aug 6, 2012 3:53 pm
I sent a International money order based on teachings of Brett Jones and have not heard back from bank. How can I find out if it was cashed or traded, since they have not sent back a letter of refusal nor sent the original instrument back. This was for a foreclosure that was imminent and sent a partial payment for about 75% of the "loan". No response at all.
#750 re. #748
Re: BC TRUST IS THE SURETY FOR THE DEBTOR WHICH = DEBTOR
hammond_ted
Mon Aug 6, 2012 3:55 pm
Good, so if were filling out our UCC's incorrectly then who should be listed as the debtor and who should be listed as the secured party?
#751 re. #76
Re: Status - what is it?
sch704
Mon Aug 6, 2012 4:40 pm
It would help avoid confusion if you'd use correct terminology. A cestui que trust is just a convoluted way to say beneficiary. It means "(the one)for whom the trust (exists)". It is NOT a certain type of trust. There exist only two classes of trusts: express(ed) and implied. Every trust ever created falls into one category or the other. There are no exceptions. One of the foundational doctrines i see Bill inculcating here is to recognize this fact and to understand that virtually all of the trusts we will be forced to deal with are constructive in nature, i.e. they have been construed from words or actions that we have said or done, which provide prima facie evidence of our implied intent. Our goal is to convert those implied trusts into express trusts and thereby exemplify the public record, whether it be perfected or expunged.
Is that about right, Bill?
-Steven Charles
#752 re. #750
Re: BC TRUST IS THE SURETY FOR THE DEBTOR WHICH = DEBTOR
fires1up
Mon Aug 6, 2012 6:08 pm
Ted, here’s what Bill wrote: “The Estate is the Birth Certificate trust. The Estate is the surety for the strawman’s debts. The Estate is the debtor on your security agreement in most (not all) cases.” [#146]
“Whoever holds a security has the OBLIGATION OF PERFORMANCE. They are required to exchange it for equal value. That’s the real message of HJR 192. If you don’t know how to collapse the trusts, how can you use subpoena, discovery, procedure, trusts and such to place them on the defensive? You might glance at Articles 8 and 9 of the UCC. Unless you know how to reclaim your account and securities which is the only real winner. That can’t be done by the strawman, the living man or even the executor as most people have constructed it. You have to have the very specific status IRS requires to process your forms when you foreclose on them. So unless you know how to reclaim the original trust, you’ve got to process their performance obligation inside the box.” [#2]
#755 re. #704
Re: BC TRUST IS THE SURETY FOR THE DEBTOR WHICH = DEBTOR
sportniks
Mon Aug 6, 2012 9:17 pm
Hey Bill, could expand on the proxy's. It seems when in trust terms we are talking about a Trustee, is this correct? John
#757 re. #755
Re: BC TRUST IS THE SURETY FOR THE DEBTOR WHICH = DEBTOR
sportniks
Mon Aug 6, 2012 9:22 pm
P.S. is there a 'FATHER OF ALL CREDITORS'?
#761 re. #724
CRITICAL TOPIC: OID's, GURUS & CORRECTING PAST FILINGS
joshuasdad100
Tue Aug 7, 2012 10:48 am
WHEN JESUS WAS ASKED WHO WAS THE GREATEST IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, He replied
"Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven."
So let us embrace the beginner's mind and open our hearts to truth.
When Jesus spoke to the people on the mountain, he said, "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."
So let us make peace not war.
This Group does not participate in ANY of the self-created plagues that have contributed to the near demise of the patriot community. Our Members shall not:
- slander their colleagues,
- post opinions as if they are facts,
- participate in blanket character assassination,
- facilitate slanderous email traffic,
- promote outrageous patriot myths that serve to misdirect patriots from self-evident truth, or
- post details of personal incidents unless they are deferential to truth and the Word, and relevant to our chosen subject matter: Reclaiming Your Securities.
Is venting our frustration worth denying ourselves access to Heaven? Is spreading gossip worth the price? At least within this Group, we will build and preserve a community which cherishes the Word.
With this in mind, and WITHOUT condemning anyone, here's the truth about OIDs and the so-called gurus
MYTH #1. The OID process didn't work.
FACT: When the 1099 process exploded on the scene, IT HAD A TEN YEAR TRACK RECORD OF SUCCESS. At least one of the "gurus" had used it successfully for nearly a decade. This does not mean that some "teachers" were qualified to teach, recommend or report it. But the fact is that the process was rooted in
success, not profit.
MYTH #2. The OID process was done incorrectly.
FACT: AT THE TIME it was introduced, the process was being routinely processed by the agency. But when they became swamped in 2008, they changed their internal criteria and started handing out the penalties. SHOULD WE BE SURPRISED? The same thing happened to zero returns, EFTs, the BIC process, removals and estate letters. IT IS A FACT that the protectors of the Corporation do NOT believe the masses can handle the remedy, and will destroy anyone who tries to go public. YOU HAVE BEEN A VICTIM OF YOUR OWN SUCCESS, all the while thinking that you were failing.
MYTH #3. The OID process as routinely done today and discussed on the Yahoo groups is correct.
FACT: Unfortunately, 1099 forms, setoffs, acceptances and money orders canNOT be issued by the strawman debtor trust or the real man. One may sneak through from time to time, but neither entity has the standing in admiralty to direct a setoff. THIS IS WHY YOU FAIL. THIS IS WHY THEY PROSECUTE. Because the strawman, as a dedicated transmitter of debt, is presumed to be the Trustee who is stealing funds that belong to the presumed beneficiary (the estate).
THIS IS WHY WE CLAIM OUR SECURITIES so that there is NO CHANCE ANYONE CAN PRESUME TO BE THE BENEFICIARY except us. Much discussion at other Yahoo groups is based upon faulty conclusions drawn from a few fluke outcomes. One of the great patriot vulnerabilities is our tendency to allow the momentum of faulty conclusions to create doctrine. For this, we can only blame ourselves, not the gurus.
FACT: Once you understand the accounting and applicable law, the entire 1099 process with all of its myriad of contingencies and situations becomes self-evident, much as my recent posting about how Courts truly operate was self-evident once explained.
MYTH #4. The "gurus" are evil profiteers who charged exorbitant fees, withheld information to milk the community, and lacked honor.
FACT: Most (not all) of the men who provided the foundation for our present knowledge are courageous, knowledgeable and honorable to a fault. We owe them a debt. Where would you be if Jack Smith hadn't taught you about money, Winston hadn't given you the BC bond, Kennedy hadn't taught you about promissory notes,
bonds, returning process and administrative procedures, David Clarence hadn't discussed the estate, Jean Keating hadn't taught you about trusts, Irwin Schiff hadn't taught you the definition of income, and Lynn Meredith hadn't taught you about everything?
You'd be back in the Dark Ages trying to hide income and boost deductions. Condemning such people with a broad brush is inappropriate - even if you had a bad experience. These people risked everything to bring forth knowledge. Condemning them for not teaching today's level of information is foolish. That knowledge opened many doors. Attacking their intentions is unacceptable.
When Jesus was on the mountain, he said "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” So let us not condemn those who risked much by bringing their knowledge into the always dangerous public forum in furtherance of the Kingdom.
MYTH #5. The new breed of teachers have all the answers.
FACT: Most of today's self-proclaimed "mentors" are operating on conjecture and recycling old technologies that no longer work. They are easy to identify as their conduct seems to follow the same pattern: They inflate their own standing by condemning their predecessors. They expand small bits of knowledge into extended seminars. They do procedures for their "students" behind closed doors so the student never acquires the understanding and remains tied to the "mentor" indefinitely. They tend to preach the gospel but never return emails or take phone calls unless you offer more money. Lectures tend to cause confusion instead of enlightenment which leads to additional meetings to clarify the information. Questions aren't answered until more money is offered. Sometimes they simply disappear, abandoning the student in the middle of the process.
These facts are based upon the experiences of hundreds of patriots. The only reason they merit any mention to the Group is that some members have been approached by non-member "mentors" looking to run the same scam. Please do not confuse such people with those members who have demonstrated competence through
their postings.
MYTH #6. You're in trouble because of a guru.
FACT: Who's to blame when we have a bad experience with a "mentor?" I've had a few myself. In every situation his behavior shouted "con man" but I tuned-out. I CHOSE to listen only to what I wanted to hear. TELLING YOU WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR IS THE ESSENCE OF BEING A CON MAN. And, HEARING ONLY WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR is the essence of being a victim.
MYTH #7. You can correct previous filings with a notice.
FACT: THIS MYTH IS TRUE. One might refile corrected forms or even send a brief affidavit which includes a blank order to quash all such previous filings due to error, an apology for wasting resources, and an offer to pay any fees and costs you may have caused. The reason such Notices work in admiralty is because they take "intent" off the table.
The reason they work at all is because they demonstrate the beginner's mind and humility the Father requires if you are to ascend to the Kingdom. They show that you are a peacemaker.
And so we return to the words of Jesus as it should be. Bill
fact: The present crop of gurus have repeatedly demonstrated incivility:
- was the result of repeated annual successes by one of the so-called gurus. Like every other technology, it spread like fire through emails, calls, blogs and internet radio. I personally remember hearing some of the "gurus" almost beg us to do our own research before even entertaining the idea of acting. I remember being cautioned to not use it for friends and family. I remember being told to accept responsibility for my own actions.
- was rooted in success, not evil intentions. Were you aware that some of the so-called "gurus" achieved predictable results using the 1099 process before going public?
Were you aware that when the agency became swamped with 1099's in 2008 they changed the criteria?
If not, then jumping to the conclusion
#762 re. #749
TOPIC: FIDELITY; NAKED INSTRUMENTS
joshuasdad100
Tue Aug 7, 2012 11:01 am
ANARA - WHAT YOU DID IS UNLIKELY TO WORK FOR MANY REASONS. A bank has no reason to honor your instrument. The question to ask is how would the bank respond if you remained silent on their presentment? Wouldn't they take what they perceive to be theirs? That's what the foreclosure is expressing. Most patriots try these things without having scratched the surface of what's needed to bring it off. I'm not condemning you, just trying to alert you to playing a game of football and you haven't even suited up. It takes time to build the knowledge base one needs to pull such things off. Bill
P.S. A broker can find securities on a Bloomberg terminal. Whether or not they traded yours or gave it to the Comptroller of the Currency or Secret Service is anybody's guess.
#763 re. #757
OF COURSE. SEEK AND YE SHALL FIND
joshuasdad100
Tue Aug 7, 2012 11:03 am
#764 re. #763
Re: OF COURSE. SEEK AND YE SHALL FIND.
sportniks
Tue Aug 7, 2012 11:08 am
From what I have understood so far The Real Man is the Father of all Creditors.
#765 re. #744
TOPIC: PUT ESTATE ON FINANCING STATEMENT?...WHICH ESTATE?
joshuasdad100
Tue Aug 7, 2012 11:18 am
OF COURSE. Very perceptive. The estate would be listed on various financing statements. But how you do that depends on the individuals' previous procedures (if any) to achieve status, appoint fiduciaries, terminate parties, end agreements, post bonds, etc, so there's no blanket method I would suggest. It might involve looking at what's been filed in the County, State and with the agency. Even newbies have some choices. The parties are convoluted on purpose; so the remedy can be a bit convoluted to sort out. I wish it was as simple as plug-in the numbers. Bill
P.S. It's VERY simple to do it wrong. If you did an estate process (I think you mentioned?) then you probably have TWO public estates and don't even know it. How's that for ruining your day?
#766 re. #737
B2B Re: Court security origins
joshuasdad100
Tue Aug 7, 2012 11:31 am
NO, IT DOES NOT MATTER. IT HAS YOUR STRAWMAN'S NAME ON IT, THEN IT IS BEING
ASSESSED/CHARGED/LIENED. They have no credit to be issuing a security. That only leaves you. It is a bet that you will appear and consent to the estate being surety. So, it's a security future. The only thing missing is your signature. I'll be happy to sign - the payment security and my directives as Grantor and Beneficiary to exchange, offset, settle and close or show me the tax filings regarding the payment. Bill
#768 re. #319
Re: LET ME ANWER ALL YOUR QUESTIONS STARTING WITH: What is the quickest way ??
sportniks
Tue Aug 7, 2012 2:20 pm
31 CFR 363 also says
(2) In order to gain control of the securities held in the minor's account, the
minor must first open his or her own primary account.
Will this be part of the process once we are up to speed with understanding?
John
#770 re below
Re: LET ME ANWER ALL YOUR QUESTIONS STARTING WITH: What is the quickest way ??
sportniks
Tue Aug 7, 2012 3:42 pm
Hey Peacemaker, I did the same thing, copied in word and printed so I can read any time and not just at the computer.
You are so right about being dumb-founded, just when I get a great concept another one blows away my old beliefs and I feel lost again. I do know that it will level out as I keep drinking the good tea of knowledge and pouring out the bad and making more room...bring on the tea, I'll get another cup if need be!
John
eponymous_680 embury111@... wrote: re. #768
Good eye, John, I read that too. Personally? I go back over the entire Yahoo group, and read it from the beginning to end, every day, taking hand written notes. I make sure I notice when I gloss over things - like assuming I know what the 'estate' is - and then throwing the question out there, for Bill, or someone else to help me clarify it.
I made up a word document, with all the posts on it as well, it's up to 68 pages now, and I printed it out, and read it in the coffee shop, and take more notes, in the margins...
I know, from my own past experience - that we've been doing this all backwards (at least I have): in trying to figure out, what goes in what box, on forms and templates, I've literally disabled my ability to discern, and understand - it's a sobering thought, but one I'm more than willing to own up to. That's where the truth lies - in the honesty.
I was (re) struck in this statement: "The reason you don't see the value of what's been disclosed in the first 300 postings is because you don't have the basic foundation YET to discriminate between gold and fool's gold. But you do have a wonderful opportunity, if you choose to adopt the beginner's mind. It's really up to you."
This is so true. In the years that I've been studying this material, I've never come across one paradigm smasher after another, than I have reading through this group. Every single day, I'm amazed - the last barn burner, was Bill's myth busting A4V explanation. The thing is I KNEW that what he wrote was correct in what he's saying, because it is what I thought to do a few years back, when I sat down, and went through it logically. I knew 3 years ago, that the BC # was the 'exemption' #, but that seemed 'too simple' - I also wondered why we would endorse our own instrument - that didn't make any sense - but I ignored my own best advice....The truth SHOULD be simple - for every one to understand - so easy, a child could do it - and what does the Bible say about 'children', and the Kingdom?
We've made things so complicated. If I can't explain this to a child, then I'm on the wrong track. The concept is simple (as far as I understand it, as Bill (and others), have laid it out).
In closing, as I understand the doctrine of understanding, just like with Neo, in the Matrix - when the time comes - he won't have to run. He'll just know what to do, as the situation arises....
I don't know about the other's on this group - but I've already decided to be a complete success at Mastering this material.
- peacemaker -
#772 re. #739
Re: TOPIC: "EXEMPTION #" - CLASSIC PATRIOT MYTHOLOGY.
fdmfghr
Tue Aug 7, 2012 4:33 pm
Not necessarily Embury.
Birth reg. is indeed the 3-no.s sequence generally but reg. of [live] birth is NOT necessarily the same no.....I personally know this can be different and may be a 2 no. sequence or 1 no. only, etc. There may or may not be a physician or hospital rec. of live birth.....it would be basis for other two reg. [or one] as case may be no.s.
#775 re. below
Re: TOPIC: "EXEMPTION #" - CLASSIC PATRIOT MYTHOLOGY.
hammond_ted
Tue Aug 7, 2012 5:05 pm
I'm from Massachusetts and we can only get 2 forms, long and short, public and private, county vs. state and only the registration numbers are the same, mine is a 3 digit number 123, that’s it. I went to the hospital and was told all birth records go to the clerks office of the city in which you were born and then on to the state.
eponymous_680 embury111@... wrote: re. #772
I already know this is just semantics, and it doesn't matter what these details are, as it distracts from the basic foundation of 'reclaiming my securities'. My assumption from what Bill has written, is, it's the registration # from the COLB that is pertinent to our cause.
For the one's I've seen - and I've compared many, from each Province (how'd he do THAT, I wonder...?) Unless we're talking about different #'s, I'm speaking of the Birth Registration #. It's the same one on the Registration of Live Birth (form 2), and the Birth Certificate (either the wallet size one, or the new polymer one). The "Physician's Notice of Live Birth" (form1) is rare - but, again, for the one's I've seen, the registration # was consistent with the other two certificates as well. The Physician's Notice of Live Birth, is not the hospital record - it is held at Vital Stats. It's not something anybody that I know, actually knows about - but if you ask for it, they are obliged to give you a copy. In the writings on the Physician's Notice of Live Birth, it is referred to as the 'gold standard' - interesting. This is what it looked like in every case (Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Alberta, etc: 1986-02-099876. The one difference I've seen was where they dropped the "19", and it looked like this: 86-02-099876. How it decodes is, the 1986 is the year of the birth registration, the "02", is the Province Code "02" is for British Columbia. "04" is for Ontario, etc. The 099876, is the unique registration #. Whether it's 5, 4, 3, 2 or 1 digits, is, again, details that can (and usually do), get in the way of understanding.
- peacemaker -
#776 re. #775 2nd
Re: TOPIC: "EXEMPTION #" - CLASSIC PATRIOT MYTHOLOGY.
fdmfghr
Tue Aug 7, 2012 5:25 pm
I agree that the numbering details are a minor item. However, a personal example for ME, born in Alberta, is that the two key registration no. ARE different for the BC and Reg. of Birth. It's something like -08-5975 and 5965.
Circumstances at the time of birth were unusual so perhaps an 'error' in the 2 records. Nevertheless I have copies of both and can assure you that what I say is so. I have been told that this does not matter as it is the SIN no. that remains consistent regardless of all else...this was from the fed government outlet overseers of such matters in area. My own examples were signed by the same party at the time as well!
This however may create a bit of confusion re accessibility when making cites to the bond, trust, etc.
#780
TREATISE RE BC, STATUS, EXEMPTION, ETC.
joshuasdad100
Tue Aug 7, 2012 5:57 pm
Members might choose to spare themselves further speculation about birth certificates and bonds. Lord willing, for what it's worth I hope to post a treatise explaining the entire system in more detail over the next few days,
from pledge to DTC deposit, expanding on previous postings and showing how everything in the Courts exactly parallels the procedures conducted by the County Registrar and Sec of Treasury to certificate and securitize the infant's footprint into the all-encompassing security Matrix that binds us. Bill
#782
executor
hammond_ted
Tue Aug 7, 2012 6:09 pm
“IRS WILL NOT RECOGNIZE YOUR EXECUTOR. The way most people have been taught, the Executor still lacks the one specific qualification IRS requires to act as your collection agency.”
This is a link for estates at IRS.
#788
Group Question
sportniks
Tue Aug 7, 2012 11:48 pm
1. SM is Trustee for RM Estate Trust held in BC Trust?
2. SM is Grantor/Beneficiary for BC Trust?
John
#789 re. #782
Re: executor
derrickwayne...
Wed Aug 8, 2012 4:11 am
Qualifications = court appointed or named in will or anyone in actual or constructive possession of any property of the decedent.
#791 re. #789
Re: executor
ladyfairfax3...
Wed Aug 8, 2012 9:49 am
Qualification = Limitation
Blacks Law 6
#792 re. #419
Re: TOPICS: SETOFF PROTOCOL; UCC’s, ESTATES; MARITIME LIENS;
"JohnTrustee"
Wed Aug 8, 2012 11:31 am
Bill, you said "There is no button or database field in a public computer to enter the living presence"
If we use the old state form UCC-1 were both Debtor and Creditor sign thus creating a commercial lien, my question is...
Wouldn't listing the RM as Creditor and getting the Clerk to record it serve our purpose without having to name a proxy? This would also serve notice the RM is alive and is making claim his/her estate? John
#793
BC Trust History, is this true???
sportniks
Wed Aug 8, 2012 11:46 am
It is my understanding that the RM leaves the hospital on a journey from his Fathers land and is presumed lost at sea so an implied private estate trust is created (RM=G/B, SM=trustee) where SM is a minor and incompetent so a Guardian (Treasury) is appointed to SM/Ward. Then an implied public BC trust is created (SM=G/B, Treasury=Trustee). Trustee/Treasury creates a BC trust account (now Treasury Direct) naming The Bureau of PUBLIC DEBT as custodian for the minor-incompetent SM. At age 18 SM must prove competence to reach majority or stays an incompetent minor, after age 25 RM is presumed dead. Treasury continues to operate BC trust as implied trustee and as Guardian for incompetent minor SM who is just a conduit (transmitting utility) to transmit debt back to the estate.
Security Agreement needs to name BC trust as Debtor (Mother of all debt), and name the Treasury as proxy on behalf of RM Secured Party to prove RM is alive, has reach majority, has not been abandoned, has not abandoned his property, and is competent by making a claim to his estate property.
UCC-1 needs to name BC trust as Debtor and the Bureau of Public Debt as proxy for minor-incompetent SM who is trustee for private estate trust until RM decides if he wants to terminate the trust of keep it.
The reason we need a proxy is because we don't want to be holding those securities in our name. Whoever holds the securities also holds the obligations (liabilities). We want the securities held by proxy and we own the security interests in those securities as beneficiaries.
RM (account must be opened by a natural person) needs to open a Treasury primary account proving majority, terminate the Legal Guardianship, close minor account and de-link it thus moving all securities into primary account.
I see three options:
1. Have the Bureau of Public Debt as proxy pay all of SM debt by way of the new account and then transfer funds into an outside checking account for consumer purchases.
2. Take total control the new account and take the Bureau of Public Debt out of the equation, pay all SM debt or appoint a trustee to do it, and transfer funds to checking account for consumer purchases.
3. We stay a minor-incompetent and have custodian pay SM debt in return for a security interest in its property for say $1 Billion, and transfer funds to checking account for consumer purchases.
Is this understanding close to how you see it?
I would like to hear your thoughts.
John
#794 re. #793
Re: BC Trust History, is this true???
neterrhu
Wed Aug 8, 2012 12:59 pm
Question: Is the UCC-1 a public filing or is it a private filing?
#795 re. #782
RE: executor
dang_78...
Wed Aug 8, 2012 1:20 pm
I noticed something interesting in the link you posted before to IRS qualifications. At the top of the page look for the section titled "Personal Representative".
Click this link and note the 3rd paragraph....This may shed some light who would be qualified as an Executor if there is no executor already appointed.....
"For estate tax purposes, if there is no executor or administrator appointed, qualified, and acting within the United States, the term “executor” includes anyone in actual or constructive possession of any property of the decedent. It includes, among others, the decedent's agents and representatives; safe-deposit companies, warehouse companies, and other custodians of property in this country; brokers holding securities of the decedent as collateral; and the debtors of the decedent who are in this country."
#806 re. #791
Re: executor
fdmfghr
Wed Aug 8, 2012 4:19 pm
If so, usufruct beneficial equity holder should qualify? Like holder of BC, or COLB, etc. receipts.
#807 re. #806
Re: executor
derrickwayne...
Wed Aug 8, 2012 4:33 pm
I think it is simple "executor (or executrix) is named in a decedent's will." Maybe not simple to do.
Naming An Executor
An executor is the person you choose to carry out the terms of your Will, including administration of your estate. When the Will is admitted to probate, the court gives the executor authority to act as the testator or Will writer’s legal representative in administering the estate. The executor's duties include collecting probate assets of the deceased, paying valid debts (including any estate taxes), investing estate funds, and ultimately distributing them to the beneficiaries in accordance with the Will's terms.
Your executor should be someone you consider highly trustworthy, with good judgment. You might choose a trusted friend or relative who is capable of handling financial matters. Many banks will serve as executor, but they will charge for the service. In most cases, when a friend or relative agrees to become your executor, he or she will waive or refuse a fee.
There are some restrictions on who may serve as an executor. Many states will only appoint individuals who are residents of the same state. If you want to select a non-resident executor, contact your county clerk of probate court or an attorney to find out what your state allows. It is recommended that a second choice for executor be named in case the first choice refuses or is unable to serve. An executor should not be a minor, convicted felon, or non-U.S. citizen.
Most jurisdictions require that the executor post a bond to protect the assets of the estate. There are usually waivers available in most states that would excuse the executor from posting a bond, the most common of which is if you request it in your Will. By default, the Will generated at this site provides for such a waiver.
Dead man willing. When did the STRAWMAN die?
#809 re. #807
Re: executor
ladyfairfax3...
Wed Aug 8, 2012 5:43 pm
I think it is simpler than going to court for appointment. IRS SS4 does not require SSN to assign an executor EIN. At least that is the way the IRS manual reads.
#810 re. #809
Re: executor
hammond_ted
Wed Aug 8, 2012 5:48 pm
I have 2 questions I’m still trying to work out. The will is good, but I think its more a public notice and the IRS website says they don’t require the will, so....
1.The Executor still lacks the one specific qualification IRS requires to act as your collection agency.
and
2. What gives the Executor status in Admiralty?
Could it be Lien holder ?
#812 re. #809
Re: executor
markonealus
Wed Aug 8, 2012 6:06 pm
The real question is "When was the strawman ever alive?"
#813 re. #812
Re: executor
ladyfairfax3...
Wed Aug 8, 2012 6:16 pm
Well, given there are really 2 trusts we are talking about, the SSN application date would be the death date as far as IRS/Treasury is concerned. The BC registration date + 21 years as far as the state of origin is concerned. There seems to be several different account administrators that need to be notified. Any thought?
#814 re. #795
Re: executor
younglady1975
Wed Aug 8, 2012 6:32 pm
Maybe the third thing is that the executor has to have "status" as a "non-minor" or someone who has the status and capability of claiming their own securities?
#815 re. #814
Re: executor
eponymous_680
Wed Aug 8, 2012 6:55 pm
Please see posting #114 to help answer the 'executor' question:
"Good thinking. However, the executor does not enter into the status equation at all. In fact, the way it's been constructed by some, may actually obstruct their remedy. Bill"
#816 re. #812
Re: executor
sportniks
Wed Aug 8, 2012 6:57 pm
I don't believe the SM has to have status 'standing' for being alive, he/she is dead and terminates the moment the RM dies. Like Bill and Peter have been saying, we need to prove the RM is a live, has not abandoned his/her property, has reach majority and is competent. We will also need to prove the SM is of majority and competent. John
#817 re. #816
Re: executor
sportniks
Wed Aug 8, 2012 7:04 pm
31 CFR 363.6:
Minor means an individual under the age of 18 years. The term minor is also used to refer to an individual who has attained the age of 18 years but has not yet taken control of the securities contained in his or her minor account.
363.27
(2) In order to gain control of the securities held in the minor's account, the minor must first open his or her own primary account.
We need to prepare ourselves to take control of our securities and it is spelled out right here, go to the link, it will blow you away.
John
#820 re. #817
Re: executor
sportniks
Wed Aug 8, 2012 7:12 pm
Taking control is a competent thing to do, that is why children have guardians, they are not competent to take control...When we claim our right or our estate we take control. John
#821 re. #820
Re: executor
yashuafreind
Wed Aug 8, 2012 7:17 pm
Can you claim your offspring too?
#822 re. #821
Re: executor
sportniks
Wed Aug 8, 2012 7:21 pm
There is a way and I am working on it for my son.
This may apply to your SM 31 CFR 363.6
Legal guardian of a minor or incompetent person refers to the court-appointed or otherwise qualified person, regardless of title, who is legally authorized to act for the minor or incompetent individual.
Is it any wonder the IRS doesn't recognize our SM and our orders for setoff.
John
#823 re. #813
Re: executor
derrickwayne...
Thu Aug 9, 2012 4:42 am
"Well, given there are really 2 trusts we are talking about, the SSN application date would be the death date as far as IRS/Treasury is concerned. "
You can get these at any age I believe.
Does a SSN card mean human of any age can consent to testate and execute the dead strawman estate?
#824
Entitlement holder
iamabaldman
Thu Aug 9, 2012 5:31 am
Is a lien the same as an adverse claim?
#825
Do we Have standing?
sportniks
Thu Aug 9, 2012 7:06 am
This may help you understand what is happening to us and how we are seen by the IRS. John
31 CRF § 363.6 What special terms do I need to know to understand this part?
Individual means a natural person. Individual does not mean an organization, representative, or fiduciary.
Legal guardian of a minor or incompetent person refers to the court-appointed or otherwise qualified person, regardless of title, who is legally authorized to act for the minor or incompetent individual.
Minor means an individual under the age of 18 years. The term minor is also used to refer to an individual who has attained the age of 18 years but has not yet taken control of the securities contained in his or her minor account.
§ 363.27 What do I need to know about accounts for minors who have not had a legal guardian appointed by a court?
2) In order to gain control of the securities held in the minor's account, the minor must first open his or her own primary account.
§ 363.11 Who is eligible to open a TreasuryDirect® account?
In order to open a TreasuryDirect account, you must:
(a) Have a valid social security number;
(b) Have a United States address of record;
(c) Have an account at a United States depository financial institution that will accept debits and credits using the Automated Clearing House method of payment;
(d) Be 18 years of age or over;
(e) Be legally competent; and
(f) Be an individual.
#826 re. #823
Re: executor
ladyfairfax3...
Thu Aug 9, 2012 7:20 am
In the legal sense, never. All corporations are dead entities. And yes you can get a SSN at any age but the application is what confirms the US citizen status. i.e. taxpayer.
#829 re. #825
Re: Do we Have standing?
lexluther1776
Thu Aug 9, 2012 7:53 am
There may be a misunderstanding here, an Individual & Natural Person DOES NOT mean a man or woman, they are words to mislead. They also belong to the group of artificial entities. If you do the digging you will find the answer...
#830 re. #825
Re: Do we Have standing?
ladyfairfax3...
Thu Aug 9, 2012 8:07 am
Check out Title 12 Banks and Banking definitions.
#831 re. #829
Re: Do we Have standing?
sportniks
Thu Aug 9, 2012 8:12 am
You are right about that, as said many times, a RM can't be seen or heard in the public realm, only our incompetent-minor SM that they don't have to listen to... Do you see how it all plays together to hold us in their system. They can declare us as minors which are incompetent no matter how old we are and they create laws so they can do this without approval from a Court of Law, then they create laws to keep us there...They also give us the KEY to unlock the door...That is why I posted it. John
#832 re. #831
Re: Do we Have standing?
ladyfairfax3...
Thu Aug 9, 2012 8:22 am
So another entity must be created to take over responsibility for the incompetent entity? Question: Do you think an original jurisdiction court could declare the RM competent? It does mention declaration of competency. Title 31 seems to offer several different avenues to attain our goal of taking back control. We just have to pick the one that is most suitable for each of out individual situations.
#833 re. #832
Re: Do we Have standing?
sportniks
Thu Aug 9, 2012 8:57 am
It is my belief that almost all RM are seen as being incompetent. After we were birthed we went on a trip across the sea (sea of admiralty) and never returned. They see us as alien zombies moving around and when they ask us to prove who we are, we show them I.D. maybe a drivers license for our SM. We need to show them I.D. of us as the RM and this is what it is all about...The highest claim is the RM who is not lost at sea. The highest claim is claiming we are not lost, we are not dead, we have not abandoned our private estate property, and we are claiming it back. We do this by creating the proof 'records' on paper so the dead world can see it then we have accomplished our goal and they will see the RM as a living being no longer under their control... John
#834 re. #833
Re: Do we Have standing?
markonealus
Thu Aug 9, 2012 9:20 am
Are you not describing the Captain of the vessel. He is the one with standing in Admiralty.
#835 re. #833
Re: Do we Have standing?
lawfulstudy
Thu Aug 9, 2012 9:23 am
I believe some of this may be helpful,
Since 1933, the people have formed new a new unincorporated United States in trust by their silence in accepting the loss of their ability for paying their debts at law. In other words, the suspension of our national money standard created a void in the law. Consequently, a resulting or implied trust rushed in to fill the void. In a resulting or implied trust, there are not terms of how and who is to administer the terms of the trust, therefore you cannot put the blame on anyone besides the people for letting the trust be established. “The United States Government may be the trustee of a charitable trust,” Russell v. Allen, 107 U.S 163; 27 L.Ed. 397, and further; The United States or a state has capacity to take and hold property upon a charitable trust, but in absence of a statute otherwise providing, the charitable trust is unenforceable against the United States or a state.”
You(we all do by our actions) admit to conveying y(our) estate to the public trust, thus all your arguments have little or no merit.
You/we must also remember that you/we are also considered a beneficiary to the trust and as such, unjust enrichment comes into play.
A resulting implied charitable trust is formed by operation, of law.
Hope this helps,,,,,
#837
TO ALL MEMBERS - THIRD NOTICE: CAUTION CAUTION CAUTION PLEASE.
joshuasdad100
Thu Aug 9, 2012 10:02 am
MEMBERS - THIS GROUP IS NOT LIKE OTHERS. Scientists use controlled experimentation which isolates a single variable to test their theories and arrive at supported conclusions. Patriots tend to post their thoughts and let the chips fall where they may.
This Group IS NOT INTENDED to provide a forum to grow speculations into dogma. Please remember the basic instinct among patriots elevate the written word into life-changing decisions.
I CAUTION ALL MEMBERS: PLEASE DO NOT POST SPECULATION. There are plenty of other forums for that, notwithstanding that the danger to your colleagues remains. Please restrict postings to verified information, specific events that can help members, and of course questions.
TWICE BEFORE I HAVE WARNED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR SUBSTANTIAL INJURY for even
mentioning trust and securities in dealing with the Court. So I consider the recent postings to be dangerous. YOU ARE ATTACKING THEIR LIVELIHOOD AND THEY WILL BURY YOU. Ask yourself this, what will you do if the Court sends an enforcement team to drag you in? What will you file? Where will you go for
remedy? What will you say when the judge says, "We're not here for that today. One more word and I'm revoking your bond and locking you up for contempt?"
What will you do if they hold the trial right then and there (I've seen it done) and sentence you to six years in prison to teach a lesson to everyone else?
Please, let's leave speculation, wild theories no matter how popular, unproven methods, gossip, rumors, anger out of our forum. Instead, let us covet the knowledge the Father says we need to avoid perishing.
I suggest the members pray to the Creator for wisdom. It was the Creator that inspired me to start this Group and maintain it. I consider my words very carefully when I post. I would hate to make postings subject to approval or take more drastic action if I think we have become counter-productive.
Thank you for understanding or at least trying to, and I regret if I have offended anyone. Bill
#838 re. #835
Re: Do we Have standing?
joshuasdad100
Thu Aug 9, 2012 10:08 am
VERY GOOD CK. YES, UNJUST ENRICHMENT IS AT THE HEART OF OUR LIABILITIES. When we
fail to obey statutes, which are the directives of the public trust, those who presume that we are the trustee deem that we are in foreclosure for having engaged in unjust enrichment, namely stealing funds belonging to the beneficiary (presumed to be them). The game changes when we defeat the presumptions and correct all the parties. Bill
#840 re. #834
Re: Do we Have standing?
joshuasdad100
Thu Aug 9, 2012 10:20 am
SOME "CLARIFICATIONS" RE YOUR POSTINGS:
1. The "Captain" of the vessel is one of those patriot concepts that convolutes what is conceptually simple. You have a vessel, a prosecutor, a Court and a fishing expedition to bring in a creditor, owner or banker to post bond.
2. ALL of those parties have standing in admiralty.
3. Discussion of the "Captain" is counterproductive. A prosecutor, attorney or grand jury deposits a security with the Court, the Court charges the vessel with the liability to get its consent in the public forum to the presumption under which it's operating, namely that the Estate has already consented to the public trust as the result of the infant's pledge of its future "credit" as certified into the public venue (certificated) by the County registrar as I will explain in more detail in a future posting.
4. Every moment you rationalize how the real man figures into all this, is one less moment to shine in the boundless love of the Father and convince your spouse that you're not nuts.......
NOTHING IN COMMERCE HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE REAL MAN, TRUTH, OR G-D. That's
just the way it is.
How do I know? I have it on the Highest authority (Revelation 13:16 - 13:18; Matthew 21:12). Bill
#842 re. #831
Re: Do we Have standing?
joshuasdad100
Thu Aug 9, 2012 10:27 am
IF A REAL MAN IS COMPETENT, WHY WOULD HE NEED A COURT TO DECLARE IT? He IS the
court, the master of his domain, the underwriter for his decisions. He may employ the court of record (there are thousands of them) to do his bidding. Think it out. Most of the time, simple logic will keep us from stepping off the pathway of truth into patriot quicksand (or worse). Bill
#843 re. #829
Re: Do we Have standing?
joshuasdad100
Thu Aug 9, 2012 10:36 am
PRECISELY, "LEX," ESPECIALLY ABOUT NATURAL PERSONS BEING ARTIFICIAL. However, you will not find the term "individual" defined in the IRC. This is by design. They covet the ambiguity since the entire corporate system consists of misnomered mirror-image reflections of the real McCoys (strawmen/men, religious organizations/churches, statutes (inferior law)/common law "rule of decision," money of exchange/money of account, dimes/dismes, quarters/quarter dollars, Courts/court of record, USA/US, Natural person/man, marriage (civil union)/marriage etc.) Bill
#844 re. #824
Re: Entitlement holder
joshuasdad100
Thu Aug 9, 2012 10:38 am
NO. READ UCC 8-102(A) (definitions) and Article 9. Bill
#846 re. #813
Re: executor-PERFECT EXAMPLE OF PATRIOT ILL-OGIC KILLING US
joshuasdad100
Thu Aug 9, 2012 10:52 am
IN THE RUSH TO GIVE SUBSTANCE TO THE DECEDENT'S ESTATE, HAS ANYONE PAUSED TO
CONSIDER that the strawman is considered very much alive in the context of lex mercatoria (commercial law) where it resides?
Here's where (at least in the eyes of public officials)....
"I'm here representing the vessel."
"What vessel?...Counselor, is there a vessel involved in this case? Let me see the complaint."
"The Defendant, the vessel."
"I see, so you think you're a vessel?"
"Well under US Code--"
"Sir, this is a State Court. Do you have an attorney?"
"You should ask the Decedent."
"Did someone die?"
"The Defendant."
"I see. Do you have a death certificate to enter in the record?"
"I mean it's dead in commerce."
"Sir, this a Court of law. We don't sell things here. You're facing fines and jail time. I'm going to appoint an attorney...."
You get the idea. If you make the offer, you will have to defend it. This poor slob was in the jurisdiction from the beginning.
Those of you who engaged in an Estate process, did you pause to consider defining it as an inter vivos estate? I'm not recommending such a thing, but only that we pause to THINK about what we're doing.
When you take the time to explore, you might discover all sorts of problems BEFORE you get into trouble. Bill
#847 re. #810
Re: executor
joshuasdad100
Thu Aug 9, 2012 11:00 am
TED, I THINK YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS QUESTION TO YOUR MENTOR (I don't recall if you still have contact with him or her) so you can have the advantage of receiving the comprehensive answer you need to actually do it, and can be guided through the various procedures to achieve agency recognition. Bill
#848 re. #48
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
dang_78...
Thu Aug 9, 2012 11:26 am
Bill, reading the 1666 Act the following paragraph makes an implication I am not sure if I am reading this correct but the ling I am pointing may imply the proof of having never been deceased and still being alive may be THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE. Is this assumption correct or even close ?
If the supposed dead Man prove to be alive, then the Title is revested. Action for mean Profits with Interest.
If the supposed dead Man prove to be alive, then the Title is revested. Action for mean Profits with Interest.Provided alwayes That if any person or persons shall be evicted out of any Lands or Tenements by vertue of this Act, and afterwards if such person or persons upon whose life or lives such Estate or Estates depend shall returne againe from beyond the Seas, or shall on proofe in any Action to be brought for recovery of the same [to] be made appeare to be liveing; or to have beene liveing at the time of the Eviction That then and from thenceforth the Tennant or Lessee who was outed of the same his or their Executors Administrators or Assignes shall or may reenter repossesse have hold and enjoy the said Lands or Tenements in his or their former Estate for and dureing the Life or Lives or soe long terme as the said person or persons upon whose Life or Lives the said Estate or Estates depend shall be liveing, and alsoe shall upon Action or Actions to be brought by him or them against the Lessors Reversioners or Tennants in possession or other persons respectively which since the time of the said Eviction received the Proffitts of the said Lands or Tenements recover for damages the full Proffitts of the said Lands or Tenements respectively with lawfull Interest for and from the time that he or they were outed of the said Lands or Tenements, and kepte or held out of the same by the said Lessors Reversioners Tennants or other persons who after the said Eviction received the Proffitts of the said Lands or Tenements or any of them respectively as well in the case when the said person or persons upon whose Life or Lives such Estate or Estates did depend are or shall be dead at the time of bringing of the said Action or Actions as if the said person or persons where then liveing.
#849 re. #848
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
joshuasdad100
Thu Aug 9, 2012 11:37 am
BASIC LOGIC AGAIN. I ALWAYS ASK MYSELF, HOW DO THEY DO IT IN THE PUBLIC? Don't they send in an attorney to give notice that you're alive? We send in a proxy (a proxy is an attorney by definition, an agent, as distinct from an attorney-at-law) with our claim. And he's a paragon of admiralty virtue and knows how to get things done, so to speak. Bill
#850 re. #849
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
dang_78...
Thu Aug 9, 2012 12:22 pm |
Right. I was simply stating that this may be what the "Proxy" delivers to show proof that someone is still living and never died.
On a side thought. What do you think about creating a Revocable Trust?
Revocable Trust
A Revocable Trust is a legal instrument that resembles a Will. However, a Will takes effect at the time of your death while a Revocable Trust is established during your lifetime by executing a declaration of trust and re-titling your assets in the name of the trust. If you create a Revocable Trust during your lifetime you will still need a simple “pour over” Will to direct any assets located outside of your Revocable Trust at the time of your passing to be distributed to the trustee of your Revocable Trust. During your lifetime you may choose to be both grantor and trustee of your trust. In addition your Revocable Trust is revocable and its terms can be changed at any time by you and you can re-title your assets or terminate the trust at your discretion.
Use of a Revocable Trust not only gives you more control how your assets are managed after your death, but also can avoid probate when properly funded. Probate can be time-consuming, slow, and result in additional legal costs. Avoiding Probate is an important goal of estate planning for many families.
#851 re. #114
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
younglady1975
Thu Aug 9, 2012 1:21
Is the second proxy the corporation you structure using your ens legis?
#852 re. #837
Re: TO ALL MEMBERS - THIRD NOTICE: CAUTION CAUTION CAUTION PLEASE.
dstehling
Thu Aug 9, 2012 2:29 pm
Remember the phrase in the movie "I Robot"? "My responses are limited... YOU MUST ASK THE RIGHT QUESTION!"
Let's focus on the RIGHT QUESTIONS... then the ANSWERS will come...
#854 re. #852
Re: TO ALL MEMBERS - THIRD NOTICE: CAUTION CAUTION CAUTION PLEASE.
eponymous_680
Thu Aug 9, 2012 2:37 pm
Agreed - if we try and circumvent the 'why' (understanding). and go straight to the 'how', we are putting the cart before the horse.
Rather, allow the 'how' to arise out of the 'why', which comes from diligent study, and as Bill says: "pray(ing) to the Creator for wisdom"....
#855 re. #847
Re: executor
hammond_ted
Thu Aug 9, 2012 2:56 pm
No, I am no longer in contact with my mentor and I'm not sure he was leading me down the right path, the reason I am here is to learn and understand for myself, like everyone else. If I am offending you with my questions I apologize, that is not my intent.
#859
who here know everything to the real deal of how to get back what was hijacked
johnny_sykora
Thu Aug 9, 2012 4:30 pm
Hi all
I am Johnny
Who here knows everything to the real deal of how to get back what was hijacked by the federal establishment aka: Pirates crooks
I need to know what I've been studying and trying to learn is the correct step by step process.
I been studying this for over 6 months now and I am thinking following the Tim Turner templates methods of copy righting my name and 6 or 7 other documents as follows below that I now be-leave they are Affidavits of truths reclaiming back what was taken and hidden from US what and who we really are... to take control of the all cap NAME unincorporated corporation.
To be a 'Secured Party Creditor' which is also known also as an `American Sovereign' of the Republic of America, you have to file at the minimum 6 documents below, which Bill has sent to you in a previous email. To have access to your$200Billion/USD US Treasury Bond, more filings need to be done. Documents you need to file BEFORE you file the UCC-1:
1) Copyright your Name and the straw-man's name (your name is in upper and lower case) (Straw-man is in all UPPER CASE) This template is attached to this email. You don't have to be a sovereign American to copyright your name.
2) Commercial Security Agreement between you and the straw-man trust
3) Hold Harmless Indemnity Agreement between you and the straw-man trust
4) Power of Attorney over the Straw-man Trust Account
5) Non-Negotiable Security Agreement over the Straw-man trust
6) Indemnity Bond in favor of the real flesh & blood person -YOU.
7) And there are a couple more documents besides the named ones above
Second: Also, since you have not filed the public notices you are not a Sovereign, who is known to the courts and public counties and state recorders, any law authorities, etc, as a 'Secured Party Creditor', you don't have the
standing to file a UCC-1, UCC-2, UCC-3, (UCC=Uniform Commercial Code).
- UCC-1 is an informational filing or notice of a lien - This is a paramount first place lien that can be recorded on property and fixtures.
- UCC-2 is a filing to remove the UCC-1 or make it void on a public record.
- UCC-3 is an Addendum, that you file to add or update the information that was/has been filed originally on the UCC-1.
All of these liens must be filed by a 'Sovereign American, also known as a Secured Party Creditor' or a Corporation, not by one who has the standing as a 14th Amendment US Citizen/slave.
I am beginning to see and understand the maxims of real law that can in turn work me if applied correctly.
I am in need to chat with other who have gone through what I am about to do to take back my right full life that to witch was stolen from me and never disclosed of the fraudulent.
I am also looking for a local group here in Portland, Oregon to meet with and learn from others once a month.
Johnny.
#860 re. #859
RE: THE TURNER DOCS...
joshuasdad100
Thu Aug 9, 2012 4:59 pm
Hi Johnny,
Re. the process you've described:
1) Copyright - not necessary.
2) Commercial Security Agreement - is critical, but the Turner document is fatally flawed (see #6 below).
3) Hold Harmless Indemnity Agreement - This document is harmful as it reveals the user's inexperience since the Sec Agreement should already include an indemnity bond.
5) Non-Negotiable Security Agreement - Same problem as the hold harmless doc. It's a duplicate of what's in the security agreement.
4) Power of Attorney over the Straw-man - This is a contrived document derived from old faulty patriot theories, and potentially dangerous because it offers you and your body as surety for the strawman. VERY dangerous. Your lien is sufficient. Unfortunately, the Turner process does not result in a recognizable lien.
6) Indemnity Bond in favor of the real flesh & blood person - The presence of the real man in any of these documents is fatal.
Status is a very discrete process which is devised based upon sound principles of securities, trust and commercial law. Unfortunately, the process you've described notifies the Secretary that you're a newbie, right for plucking. Sorry to be the one to tell you this. I would never impugn the author's intentions, but the documents speak for themselves. Bill.
#861 re. #855
Re: executor
joshuasdad100
Thu Aug 9, 2012 5:11 pm
Heck no. A question's a question. My answers are for the benefit of the questioner and the group. The questions you asked below require a careful review of what you've done and comprehensive answers. That can be a challenge if you and the mentor have parted ways.
First of all, I don't use the Executor for anything, even though I have also created a decedent Estate as an overlay of the Estate that's already there. Using the Estate with a 98 or 45 # confuses the issue when the Estate already has a number, the BC #. Some of the "mentors" can be very convincing because they believe what they say. However they may not be at the level of understanding of some of the members of this Group. Bill
#862 re. #846
Re: executor-PERFECT EXAMPLE OF PATRIOT ILL-OGIC KILLING US
dang_78...
Thu Aug 9, 2012 7:44 pm
I went back to the link
Within the Personal Representative section......Look at this paragraph.....
"Notice of fiduciary relationship. The term fiduciary means any person acting for another person. It applies to persons who have positions of trust on behalf of others. A personal representative for a decedent's estate is a fiduciary.
Form 56. If you are appointed to act in a fiduciary capacity for another, you must file a written notice with the IRS stating this. Form 56, Notice Concerning Fiduciary Relationship, is used for this purpose. See the Instructions for Form 56 for filing requirements and other information.
File Form 56 as soon as all the necessary information (including the EIN) is available. It notifies the IRS that you, as the fiduciary, are assuming the powers, rights, duties, and privileges of the decedent. The notice remains in effect until you notify the IRS (by filing another Form 56) that your fiduciary relationship with the estate has terminated."
Can this be interpreted to mean whomever is the person we appoint as Fiduciary the appointment is made by filing IRS Form # 56?
#864 re. #862
Re: executor-PERFECT EXAMPLE OF PATRIOT ILL-OGIC KILLING US
derrickwayne...
Fri Aug 10, 2012 6:54 am
“IRS WILL NOT RECOGNIZE YOUR EXECUTOR. The way most people have been taught, the Executor still lacks the one specific qualification IRS requires to act as your collection agency.”
Listening to Winston Shrout there is a fiduciary creditor and fiduciary debtor.
On another forum a chap said the IRS will not accept the IRS as the fiduciary on form 56.
Same chap said the IRS will accept appointment of power of attorney.
What does a court do for a defendant? Appoint an attorney.
What does an attorney do? Collects rents for the SEIGNIOR or SEIGNEUR. Among the feudists, this name signified lord of the fee. F. N. B. 23. The most extended signification of this word includes not only a lord or peer of parliament, but is applied to the owner or proprietor of a thing; hence, the owner of a hawk, and the master of a fishing vessel, is called a seigneur. 37 Edw. Ill. c. 19; Barr. on the Stat. 258.
Trustee -Person holding property in trust. The person appointed or required by law to execute a trust.
So the seignior appoints the IRS Schulman successors, assigns, and subordinates the power to attorney execute rent collection.
#865
TreasuryDirect Acct. - First Baby Step?
dnadesi
Fri Aug 10, 2012 7:52 am
Hi All,
First time poster, long time reader and patriot
What does "certificates of indebtedness" mean as first referenced in 36 C.F.R 363.4? I'm guessing it's secret code for the BC.
363.4 "TreasuryDirect is a book-entry, online system maintained by Treasury for purchasing, holding and conducting permitted transactions in eligible Treasury securities in electronic form as a computer record on the books of Treasury. TreasuryDirect currently provides for the purchase and holding of eligible book-entry savings bonds, certificates of indebtedness, and eligible marketable Treasury securities."
363.6 states "Certificate of Indebtedness is a one-day non-interest-bearing security held within your primary or linked account, including a minor account for which you are the custodian, that automatically matures and is rolled over each day until you request that it be redeemed." Key word here is redeemed.
I'm considering opening a treasury direct acct as a first step because at some point I’ll need to access it to discharge my debts (HR192) and I also need to get the process rolling for my two youngest sons via linked accts. Is this a correct assumption? More questions to follow based on reply.
Full disclosure, I never filed one iota of Patriot paperwork for the simple fact that I'm not quite sure where to begin, but I do understand that eventually, at some point, I will need to start the process of reclaiming my securities. I think just about everyone understands this,(smiles).
Isn't it any wonder that no one can answer the question, "what came first, the chicken or the egg?" Guess we'll plant seeds instead!
CIAO,
One who turns his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination.
Proverbs 28:9
#866 re. #864
TOPIC: POA TO THE AGENCY?
joshuasdad100
Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:18 pm
DERRICK - WE NEVER GIVE A POWER OF ATTORNEY TO THE AGENCY. NOT ONLY WILL THEY
ACCEPT IT, BUT THEY WILL USE IT TO RETAIN ANY SETOFF FUNDS FOR THEMSELVES. This is fact, not opinion. Bill
#867 re. #865
Re: TreasuryDirect Acct. - First Baby Step?
joshuasdad100
Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:25 pm
Hello ????, Welcome to the Group. I'm glad you posted BEFORE you acted. What you've described is a contradiction. If you haven't done any "patriot" paperwork, then we can presume your only status in the public is as the strawman debtor. If you open a TDA as a strawman debtor, any funds you deposit will become property of the state as it does with any bank account. May I respectfully suggest you read through some of the postings in this Group not only about technique, but regarding the philosophy of logic, reason and safety for yourself and your family. It's sort of like saying, "I don't know anything about electricity, but today I'm going to rewire the main box." Okay, but make sure the life insurance is paid up. Make sense? Bill
#868 re. #862
Re: executor-PERFECT EXAMPLE OF PATRIOT ILL-OGIC KILLING US
joshuasdad100
Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:30 pm
NO. A 56 is a NOTICE of a fiduciary relationship. The appointment is separate. It's a complex form, changed drastically for 2012, and you would want to read page 3 very carefully to see the nuances of how it works especially fulfilling Sect 6903 threshold. Remember that we are all in bankruptcy when you read the instructions. They are very accurate (and cute) with that term. I know very few patriots who understand how to properly use the form, and why and when. It takes a good solid day to review it to a point of proper understanding. THIS IS WHAT THEY INTENDED. Since most of them arrive flawed, they can ignore them. Bill
#869 re. #866
Re: TOPIC: POA TO THE AGENCY?
derrickwayne...
Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:32 pm
Okay thank you then following will remain a mystery:
From: joshuasdad100
IRS WILL NOT RECOGNIZE YOUR EXECUTOR. The way most people have been taught, the Executor still lacks the one specific qualification IRS requires to act as your collection agency.
#870 re. #868
Re: executor-PERFECT EXAMPLE OF PATRIOT ILL-OGIC KILLING US
apokalypse1...
Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:38 pm
Hi Bill,
Are you referring to form 2848?
#871 re. #866
Re: TOPIC: POA TO THE AGENCY?
younglady1975
Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:12 pm
I thought we didn't want to be the fiduciary/trustee? Would it be better to form a corporation and have it be the fiduciary?
#872 re. #867
Re: TreasuryDirect Acct. - First Baby Step?
dnadesi
Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:20 pm
So, if I was a patriot having not submitted one iota of paperwork and I understood:
BC, Trust Law, HR192, Cestui Que Trust, RM, SM, De Jure Courts, De Facto Courts, Admiralty Courts, Common Law Courts, The Bible, My Creator, The Constitution, This State v This state, The Bill of Rights, etc. etc..
What would be the first area I would concentrate my efforts on to put pen to paper?
I have a feeling that it is going to be the BC converted over to a new security (on front) and submitted to the treasury but for that I need a proxy because neither I nor the SM can do it. So for that I need a proxy but how do I go about doing that, and doesn't my lien need to be perfected in advance before I do any of this? Does that mean I need to file a UCC1 with a proof of claim that is my proof of status and is that two forms or just one? What about holder in due course? How does all that fit into this and what about the second proxy that's required, is it filed the same way as for the first proxy?
I think my head is about to explode!
#873 re. #871
Re: TOPIC: CORPORATE FIDUCIARY?
joshuasdad100
Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:35 pm
Excellent idea. The thing is, someone beat you to it by decades. The corporation is the United States Federal corporation represented in 28 USC 3002(15), a derivative of the United States of America public trust, and we surely want it to fulfill its obligation under the public trust to act as trustee. So you see, the mechanism is already in place to execute our directives. Bill
#875
Re: TOPIC - READING MATERIAL LIST - to learn the RIGHT QUESTIONS
dstehling
Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:52 pm
Try below links... else just Google "Gilbert Law Summaries Securities Regulation"
Doug
#876 re. #868
Re: executor-PERFECT EXAMPLE OF PATRIOT ILL-OGIC KILLING US
dang_78...
Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:34 pm
Thank you for clearing this up. I am glad to have someone speak on the basis of law and not Patriot pie in the sky arguments. :)
Awhile back I posted in this group if giving someone a power of attorney would work and I think you mentioned we are dealing with trust law and it would not work. Based on this new information you wrote here perhaps we give a power of attorney to an individual or corporation in a fiduciary capacity as the trustee?
#877 re. #868
Re: executor-PERFECT EXAMPLE OF PATRIOT ILL-OGIC KILLING US
derrickwayne...
Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:38 pm
?
How about I revoke Derrick as fiduciary for the taxpayer decedent DERRICK and substitute a third party interest intervener .... hmmm
#878 re. #866
Re: TOPIC: POA TO THE AGENCY?
magnacarta2012
Fri Aug 10, 2012 5:29 pm
Hello to the group,
I have a question Bill, You say...
"WE NEVER GIVE A POWER OF ATTORNEY TO THE AGENCY. NOT ONLY WILL THEY ACCEPT IT, BUT THEY WILL USE IT TO RETAIN ANY SETOFF FUNDS FOR THEMSELVES. This is fact, not opinion."
Fact? Could you please share these facts with the group?
Thank you
#879 re. #873
Re: TOPIC: CORPORATE FIDUCIARY?
rcarne...
Fri Aug 10, 2012 5:58 pm
OOHH YEAH!!...trustee/fiduciary shall be named by the decedent and as trustee/fiduciary, they must be "liable to account" to the beneficiaries and as the trustee, must "pay" that "moneys worth" to the beneficiary(of the estate)...or execute as directed, the affairs of the estate... and our "will" would be our instructions on how we direct/instruct them to execute the trust on our behalf for the beneficiaries .... am I in the ball park?. My head hurts..so I'm a name Eric Holder as the trustee?
#880 re. #879
Re: TOPIC: CORPORATE FIDUCIARY?
eponymous_680
Fri Aug 10, 2012 6:24 pm
I would refrain from name calling - that's not an honorable way to go about your affairs.
- peacemaker -
#881 re. #871
Re: TOPIC: POA TO THE AGENCY?
markonealus
Fri Aug 10, 2012 6:46 pm
I believe the goal here is to be able to be the beneficiary OR the trustee, depending on what suits our goals. Now, that being said, Knowing when it will suit my goals to be one or the other is a task that has yet to be completed.
#883 re. #873
Re: TOPIC: CORPORATE FIDUCIARY?
sportniks
Fri Aug 10, 2012 8:17 pm
Since the United States is already trustee and we need to make them our proxy...could this be because:
1. A proxy has a fiduciary duty to the appointee.
2. Appointee does not have to prove beneficiaryship.
3. They already know they are trustee and have a duty to perform.
4. Trust indentures are private, proxy orders can be public.
John
#884 re. #883
Re: TOPIC: CORPORATE FIDUCIARY?
eponymous_680
Fri Aug 10, 2012 8:45 pm
suggestion: read over post #48 again
#885 re. #884
Re: TOPIC: CORPORATE FIDUCIARY?
sportniks
Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:01 pm
I did and I have read #48 and all of the posts over and over and I am working hard at making sense through my way of thinking and that is why I asked the question, it would be appreciated if you know the answer that you answer it, I mean you no harm, I look for clarification. If I knew the answer I would not have asked, I would have expressed it as a knowing. Always to a better life, John
#886 re. #878
Re: TOPIC: POA TO THE AGENCY?
joshuasdad100
Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:14 pm
I did. Bill
#887
Understanding
sportniks
Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:31 pm
I know understanding is very important and it will happen over time. From all of the posts that have been written it seems like maybe 3 have a good enough understanding to accomplish our end result. From what I have read, writing a proper Security Agreement is the first thing we need to do, yet we have not a clue how to perfect it so it will hold up...we as a group are all over the place (me included) each of us trying to make sense of some piece of the puzzle. I know it is simple just like swimming yet swimming is not easy for a non-swimmer. Is it possible to start learning how to perfect the Security Agreement as a starter and then when all are up to speed on that we move to the next step so we learn and share as a group...just my thoughts. John
#888 re. #885
Re: TOPIC: CORPORATE FIDUCIARY?
joshuasdad100
Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:33 pm
Hi John, I believe you're over-thinking, which is a common tendency many of us have. Remember Jack Smith talking about the "captain of the ship?" Many of us had enough trouble just comprehending the strawman and living man. I myself have spent years probing side streets when Main St had all I needed. Eventually I learned to use the right side of my brain.
May I suggest praying to the Father for recovery from human thought, and meditating on shunting circulation to the right side of the brain. The Father is all knowing and loving. He wants to answer your prayers and lead you from commerce as prophesized in chapter 13 of the Book of Revelation.
Eponymous gave you good advice. Don't get frustrated. Bill
#889 re. #886
Re: TOPIC: POA TO THE AGENCY?
magnacarta2012
Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:04 pm
With all due respect Bill, please excuse me but I clearly see no evidence of anything here as of yet that is "Fact" in direct relationship to your quote...where is the legislature? where are the Court cases? You said "Fact"...You have no facts to support such a comment in my opinion.
#891
Foreclosing on the Bank
peggli
Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:06 pm
Bill,
You had written in some of your much earlier posts, (like #193), about trying to force a bank to reconvey the Deed of Trust to us, but it seems to me that a major hurdle is in the way for most of the recent mortgages that have been created. I see the problem as follows:
Nearly all of the recent mortgages have been securitized, and the original lender may have been bought out by another bank. The note was transferred into a mortgage pool trust, perhaps after having been sold multiple times before being ultimately transferred into the mortgage pool trust. The original lender now holds no interest in the mortgage, and they cannot now order the trustee to reconvey the Deed even if they wanted to. At best, we would be fighting the bank- or the successor bank- to give us a refund of the amount of the mortgage, but not to reconvey the Deed. We would not have any leverage to force the current trustee of the pool trust or the mortgage servicer to release the Deed to us as they are not a party to the origination of the so-called loan.
Your comments please?
Paul
#892 re. #887
Re: Post Your Questions 4 IRS - Understanding
derrickwayne...
Sat Aug 11, 2012 9:44 am
I did a Doug Riddle A4v and got a 45 day later saying IRS will get back to me. There was an address for inquiries. So I am going to make a list of inquiries. If Bill okays this.
1. For the trust/estate whatever DERRICK WAYNE (birth certificate included) what IRS qualification do I need to give the executor for the IRS to act as the living man me collection agencies.
2. What IRS forms do I need to fill out and please highlight specific examples by paragraph in forms instructions and / or give examples.
From: joshuasdad100
IRS WILL NOT RECOGNIZE YOUR EXECUTOR. The way most people have been taught, the Executor still lacks the one specific qualification IRS requires to act as your collection agency.
3.
4.
5.
#893 re. #48
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
markonealus
Sat Aug 11, 2012 9:56 am
Can you explain what is meant by "the asset side of the presentment"
Thanks,
Mark
#894 re. #888
Re: TOPIC: CORPORATE FIDUCIARY?
sportniks
Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:21 am
Hi Bill, thank you for the insight. I believe it is starting to make sense so I will ask one question at a time.
1. To obtain set-off there needs to be an amount of security interest equal to the security that is being held by the security holder. John
#895 re. #884
Re: TOPIC: CORPORATE FIDUCIARY?
picotech9999
Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:54 pm
I always wondered why the DTC would need CeDe as nominee ;) P
#896 re. #889
TOPIC: THE FACT IS...
joshuasdad100
Sat Aug 11, 2012 5:00 pm
Greetings drywall, When you say that I don't have the facts to support my comment, are you implying that you have insight into my affairs and dealings? I'm perplexed how a legislature or Court case relates to my comment as to inner agency policy?
If you choose to redefine the word "fact" to include only the writings of the "legal franchise," then the fact is, by your own standard, you don't exist. Bill
P.S. If you choose not to believe what I say, then I suggest you start sending out those powers of attorney and see what happens for yourself. A very wise man once told me that he likes to learn from other people's mistakes. By the way, that's a fact too, but Congress forgot to enter it in the record.
#897 re. #891
TOPIC: REASONS I LOVE SECURITIZATION
joshuasdad100
Sat Aug 11, 2012 5:16 pm
Hi Paul, I agree these things would be obstacles for you. As for me, I consider every one of those events you cited to be gifts. Each is a taxable event to the bank which they failed to report because they presumed that they were the original issuer of the certificated derivatives. OH HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR THEM. Once I reclaim my securities, it's all taxable capital gains, transfer taxes on terminating my interest in my securities, and worst of all, the nuke: the loss of tax-exempt status for the entire REIT, mutual fund or REMIC. Who cares who sold what to whom? My collection agency takes no prisoners. No leverage, Paul?
Where do I begin?
As in most situations, as you think so shall you be. If you believe you're powerless, you are. Bill
P.S. Welcome to the Group. At some point, you may wish to start rewriting the tapes. I expect to be posting an article that may provide you with a new perspective on the securitization scam.
#898 re. #893
TOPIC: DOUBLE ENTRY BOOKEEPING & MY ONE JOKE FOR THE YEAR.
joshuasdad100
Sat Aug 11, 2012 5:26 pm
SURE, MARK. DOUBLE ENTRY BOOKEEPING. In this society, you cannot post an asset to the books without an equal offsetting liability. This is how Lucifer has moneychangers keep the books. The sum total of all activity today and every day throughout the world is....nothing. How perfectly ironic. Like "Seinfeld," this
is a show about nothing.
The question is, are you master of your domain? Bill
#899 re. #895
TOPIC: DTC
joshuasdad100
Sat Aug 11, 2012 5:31 pm
Cede & Co. is nothing more than a DBA filed in NY County. DTC steals your securities by registering them (meaning it holds a security interest) to itself and relegates you to the lowly position of beneficial owner mentioned only in the books of its Participants. A beneficial owner is sort of like the prettiest maggot in the garbage pail. A maggot still.
The Fed is a DTC Participant, meaning it takes the value of your BC and SS bonds and adds them to its reserves as yet another scam to allow endless fractional lending ad infinitum. A win-win...for DTC and the Fed while you're waiting on tables. Bill
#901 re. below
Re: TOPIC: THE FACT IS...
iamsomedude
Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:09 pm
It appears "the estate" is kept in some "NAME" trust, which is an alter-ego of the State and the transfer (via "registration of birth" by operation of law) was intentionally done to where the state is recognized by and thru its alter-ego or "NAME" in all affairs
5.17.14.2.3 (01-24-2012)
5.17.14.6 (01-24-2012)
Using NAME not now nor has ever been for the benefit of the people ... it has always been for the benefit of the bankrupt (usufructuary) and it is the nature of bankruptcy (usufruct) which allows one to exercise the right of set-off against the obligation presented making the presentment the security to facilitate the charge to estate for equitable conversion to cash collateral and credit NAME SS# to zero or discharge the security obligation in fulfillment of the duties of the bankrupt (usufructuary).
All transactions regarding NAME should result a net zero balance ...
Re: TOPIC: THE FACT IS... re. #896
magnacarta2012
Saturday, August 11, 2012 8:52 PM
Greetings Bill.
I am not claiming to have insight to your Executor de son tort acts. I for one will not be sending out anything. The system is set up for trustees to act for us the people. I am Principal Beneficiary to an estate granted to me by the People of the State. I claim no ownership of anything. I certainly do not intend to use their forms for a POA to do what I can do through a written pledge and assignment for my collateral interests, and for the benefit of all creditors. So tell me...have you already accessed your Estate? Is this what makes you an expert here? If not...What does make you an expert? What successes do you have to share? My mention of "Fact" does not in any way connect to "inner agency policy" because as a beneficiary to the estate. I can care less what internal process they employ. They are expected to follow State law and the terms and conditions to a standby letter of credit. Your mention of the Agency in some way embezzling funds from the estate that were meant for setoff is erroneous. The State comptrollers office would of never allowed such a feat. Nor would the Federal Reserve Bank or any of their Security Intermediaries licensed to do business in the state. Besides...setoff of the debt is done under a standby letter of credit by the Agency assigned by the beneficiary and the State has the EXACT totals of these numbers on record through the state file number associated with the electronic file numbers of record. These transactions are all electronic and governed under the UCC revised Article 9 Secured Transactions. Your suggestion of fraud by the Agency has no merit my friend. What is your intention here? I find your attempted humor dry and condescending. I take offense to that. Good day Sir.
#903
TOPIC- NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD
joshuasdad100
Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:44 pm
Greetings to all. I guess it was inevitable, but it appears that the Group has been touched by legendary patriot intolerance. The anonymous poster, " magnacarta2012," came to pick a fight. We are blessed as always, as he has focused our attention on the Word:
"To the man who pleases him, G-d gives wisdom, knowledge and happiness." (Chap 2, Ecclesiastes).
We are also blessed by some of the issues he raised, albeit they were completely unrelated to the issue of being cautious in the use of a POA with the agency. For educational purposes:
- Your public Estate is not granted by the State any more than your inalienable rights are granted by the Constitution. The Estate is the result of the infant's pledge being "legalized" into the public venue by the County Registrar. I am hoping to post the article on this subject some time tomorrow.
- Public agencies, trusts and actors are not governed by State law as long as they are presumed to be the beneficiary. Statutes, codes and regulations apply to trustees. There's good reason for the phrase, "The judge can do as he likes."
- The State comptroller's office has no more involvement in policing the processing of setoffs through the agency than the local sanitation department. That's just bizarre.
- Hundreds of patriots have been left high and dry in the middle of "Estate" procedures by "mentors." They can regain their bearings if they understand that the Estate is nothing more than a trust created to leverage securities.
Addiction to statues is a common illness among patriots. Let us distinguish between applying statutes strategically to achieve our remedies, and looking to statutes to justify our existence. It is wise to remember that U.S. Inc. was conceived to provide a palatable veneer to the bankruptcy, and its bylaws can never, and should never, be the measure of a man, his wisdom, or his faith. Bill
#904 re. #206
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
sportniks
Sun Aug 12, 2012 7:18 am
Is it because the RM isn't identified with a number the reason he/she can't be seen by the agency? John
#906 re. #2
Re: FORECLOSURE MESS
markonealus
Sun Aug 12, 2012 9:08 am
Hey Bill -
In this message you say:
"You have to have the very specific status IRS requires to process your forms when you foreclose on them."
I am researching to find out what this status might be.
I found:
UCC §8-102 (a)(5)(I)a person that is registered as a "clearing agency" under the federal securities laws;
Is having some entity under our control that is registered as a "clearing agency" part of what we need to get in place?
Thanks,
Mark
#907 re. #904
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
rcarne...
Sun Aug 12, 2012 9:41 am
The dead only RECOGNIZE the dead...
Define recognize: To try; to examine in order to determine the truth of a matter. Also to enter into a recognizance.
Define recognizance: re·cog·ni·zance (r-kgn-zns, -kn-)n.
1. Law
a. An obligation of record that is entered into before a court or magistrate, containing a condition to perform a particular act, such as making a court appearance.
b. A sum of money pledged to assure the performance of such an act.
2. A recognition.
3. Archaic A pledge; a token
or DO THEY?? I believe the Living can be recognized thru Declaration of Status. This has been established and the referencing CAN be identified by a number thru. Registered mail/ court filings, county recorders...is this not correct??
#908 re. #908
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
eponymous_680
Sun Aug 12, 2012 9:47 am
I like the 'pledge' part of re-cognize (derived from the Latin word cognoscere (to know; become acquainted with, aware of; recognize). Almost like we have to awaken, in order to restate the original pledge made at the birth event....
- peacemaker -
#909 re. #908
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
rcarne...
Sun Aug 12, 2012 10:29 am
John Trustee, I don’t know if what I posted answers your question. However from what I have been following and also from a few of the responses from this groups posters and other groups that have provided "answers" or "insight" this is my understanding,(see my post) however I am just a student in these endeavors as well and in no way an Expert... and it is said in some circles" that when the student is ready, the teacher appears?" I guess Sir Isaac Newton’s teacher was an Apple!, jk. lol....but I did show up on this group as you did?.. it is also said.... ASK AND YE SHALL RECEIVE.. just say'n....
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
#911
MAJOR TOPIC: THE BIRTH SCAM - THE UNIFORM SECURITIZATION SCHEME
joshuasdad100
Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:05 am
GREETINGS, AS PROMISED, I HAVE UPLOADED A FILE ("THE BC SCAM") to the Group explaining the boilerplate method which underlies every commercial event of your lives from the original birth pledge to the typical banking, Court, and commercial transactions of daily existence. As you will see, the UNIFORM
SECURITIZATION SCHEME ("USS") is a template that appears time and again in the resale of your credit card applications as bank notes, the ledgering of Court indictments, warrants and summonses, the purchase of groceries, and the pledges, certificates, trusts, accounts, securities and Estates that make up the diabolical birth Matrix that began your journey.
The article may not be equivalent to personal mentoring, but I hope it will assist your understanding and raise the level of dialogue throughout the community. It was written in response to a subject that was receiving many
inquiries at the Group after consulting with the Father. The article is nothing more than a reflection of His inspiration to find our way back to the Kingdom from the realm of buying and selling.
You can download the file by selecting the "Files" link in the blue box on the left side of the screen where you are reading this message.
Please do not expect this sort of time expenditure for other topics. Like you, I have but one life to lead. Nonetheless, I hope it is helpful to your deliberations and remain your humble servant. Bill
#913 re. #907
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
joshuasdad100
Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:14 am
YES AND NO. The living will have no standing in the corporate Court. Any attempt to introduce truth is likely to result in contempt. You can also not use the agency for your collections. However, in rare occasions you can succeed in converting true "conviction" into segregation. It can be a painful process, and what worked a year or two ago may not work now. It all depends on how far their conscience has been bruised or activated. Bill
#914 re. #906
Re: FORECLOSURE MESS
joshuasdad100
Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:16 am
No, Mark. And I don't believe we'd be able to attain such credentials anyway.
Bill
#916 re. #904
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
picotech9999
Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:20 am
As mentioned in earlier posts, nothing living can be seen in the dead-paper system. That's why the living must "connect" to a paper entity. This process is done at birth. P
#918 re. #873
Re: TOPIC: CORPORATE FIDUCIARY?
sportniks
Sun Aug 12, 2012 3:09 pm
Isn't 2nd proxy/United States as trustee for United States of America public trust? John
#919 re. #268
Re: TREASURY PROCESS - WHERE DO I BEGIN? - Right here.
sportniks
Sun Aug 12, 2012 3:51 pm
Bill, the four pieces of paper to the treasury are 2-UCC-1's, the BC and the BC Bond. Being that almost everything I have learned needs to be erased and learned the proper way, I will need to rewrite the BC Bond I was taught from Winston for this to work the way you are explaining, is that correct? John
#930
Myths
sportniks
Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:46 pm
Since we are learning to drop the old Myths:
It seems `accepted for value by grantor' would be used because "for value" is defined as a pre paid account that we are accepting, and the `grantor' is an admiralty proxy. It seems `exempt from levy' is not necessary. John
#932 re. below
Re: Myths
sportniks
Mon Aug 13, 2012 6:49 pm
Grantor for the trust that is being created upon transfer of the security (res) to the trustee.
"eponymous_680" embury111@... wrote: re. #930
Grantor of what? I'm asking this question for a reason....
#935
THE BEST ADVICE I WILL EVER GIVE TO THOSE FACING IMMINENT TRAGEDY...
joshuasdad100
Mon Aug 13, 2012 9:59 pm
FORGET ABOUT SECURITIES, TRUSTS AND ESTATES FOR A MOMENT. When time is too short
and knowledge too sparse to save the house, avoid the arrest, or prevent any of life's other challenges, I like to seize victory from the jaws of defeat by asking the Creator what lesson he's trying to teach me.
It might be as simple as learning to love your enemy as Yehoshua so eloquently preached in Matthew, or He might be challenging you to look past your most secret sins directly into His face.
This simple (some might say simple-minded) approach has worked on a grand scale for me more than once. My very presence here today in possession of knowledge beyond anything I might have imagined is the direct result of the day the public decided it needed to add my arrest to their statistics for trying to lead my life honorably. Once the dust settled however, I KNEW the Father had answered so many of my prayers, although not in a way that I had imagined. Once you realize what He intended, you will have transformed tragedy into triumph. Like so many who have met the Christ head-on, you just may wind up reflecting on your difficulties with fondness.
Why not look for the light amid the darkness? If you do, the unthinkable will soon become a badge of honor. Bill
P.S. I would like to ask the members of the Group to reflect on why they joined Reclaim Your Securities, and consider posting their thoughts for the Group.
Thank you in advance.
[Was not going to post the many replies to the previous post, but this one ‘begged’ me to]
#936 re. #932
Re: Myths
eponymous_680
Mon Aug 13, 2012 10:21 pm
Ever watch Kung Fu Panda? Remember the tortoise, Oogway? I won't confound you any longer, and answer your questions with more questions.....may peace always be in your heart, and the road always rise up to meet ye.
Oogway: My friend, the panda will never fulfill his destiny, nor you yours until you let go of the illusion of control.
Shifu: Illusion?
Oogway: Yes.
[points at peach tree]
Oogway: Look at this tree, Shifu: I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time.
Shifu: But there are things we *can* control: I can control when the fruit will fall, I can control where to plant the seed: that is no illusion, Master!
Oogway: Ah, yes. But no matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Shifu: But a peach cannot defeat Tai Lung!
Oogway: Maybe it can, if you are willing to guide, to nurture it, to believe in it.
Shifu: But how? How? I need your help, master.
Oogway: No, you just need to believe. Promise me, Shifu, promise me you will believe.
- peacemaker -
#946 re. #591
Re: TOPIC: Do you REALLY understand the system? MOST DO NOT.
essentialer
Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:42 am
"when we appear as the actual Depositor of record and give them a payment instrument PROPERLY drawn by the PROPER parties and a directive to process, . .."
What is the payment instrument, and who are the proper parties?
#951 re. #782
Re: executor
picotech9999
Tue Aug 14, 2012 9:54 am
Perhaps more specifically here personal rep and duties
P
#955
Treasury process short version?
sportniks
Tue Aug 14, 2012 12:09 pm
This is my understanding, please don't take it as truth until you can prove it, also there is more that goes into each one of these.
Our SM is the transmitter of debt from the public back to the BC trust, the purpose of the Security Agreement and the Treasury process is to use our SM trust to transmit funds from the BC trust into the public for set-off by our authorithy so we are in control.
On the Security Agreement the BC trust 123-45-12345 is Debtor. The proxy is grantor/beneficiary for SM trust 123-45-6789 as Secured Party with a security interest in the BC trust of say up to a limit of $100 Billion in return for paying the SM 123-45-6789 debt. (We are G/B for both party's).
On first UCC-1 the BC trust 123-45-12345 is Debtor and Grantor/Beneficiary for SM trust 123-45-6789 is Secured Party. (We are G/B to each party).
On second UCC-1 the Grantor/Beneficiary for SM trust 123-45-6789 is Debtor and Grantor/Beneficiary for United States of American public trust is Secured Party. (We are G/B to each party).
We accept for value by Grantor and sign the BC long form, date it the date of our 18th birthday, special deposit it to the US Department of the Treasury and charge the same to SM 123-45-6789.
We write a BC Bond for $100 Billion with Bond orders (terms of trust) and deposit it with the US Treasury (Trustee) along with our 2 UCC-1's and the BC long form (security).
Please criticize, pick apart and let me know your thoughts as this is a group effort and I am here to learn truth. John
#957
Re: THE BEST ADVICE I WILL EVER GIVE TO THOSE FACING IMMINENT TRAGEDY... Ho'oponopono - my reflections
wakerobinii
Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:46 pm
All morning, I found myself reflecting upon “ho’oponopono“ the ancient Hawaiian tradition of reconciliation and forgiveness. According to Hew Lin, co-author of ZERO LIMITS, the administrator who took over a deranged, out-of control mental hospital emptied out the ward in less than a year by clearing and cleaning on himself: I’m sorry. Please forgive me. I Love you. Thank you.
Could I do the same, as I struggle to help my brother and elderly Dad overcome financial hardship caused by the bankster fraud? It is a given that what shows up on the outer is but a mirror of our inner state. What is my lesson in all this? Martyr, Savior, Rebel, Tyrant, Sovereign, it seems I wear all hats. How can I make peace with this energy, welcome it into my innermost being, and find acceptance for the roles we all play in this drama?
For 33 years, I had it all. A great business, awesome staff, work I loved, money to travel, do what I wanted when I wanted, a loving relationship, great family, supportive habitat. In a years time, I lost my livelihood to foreclosure, my home, car, motor home. My retirement savings were stolen from my broker by the courts. My husband and I were left practically penniless.
How could the banks steal two million in sweat equity and get away with it? How could the lawyers put my beloved broker AND HIS WIFE in jail, and steal my life’s savings, when my broker delivered on his promises faithfully every month. He wasn’t the crook. The ones who went after him were.
As I traveled the road to redemption this past decade, I am no longer in denial. The blind can see, the deaf can hear. I question everything.
So today I question how to reconcile those parts of me that are the aggressor, the rapist, the pillager, the unconscious, un-awakened, duped deceiver. Whatever I can ‘see’ in someone else remains somewhere within me to be cleared out and ‘owned’ and accepted and loved. Â Tall order, that.
I notice how connected I feel to the folks on this forum and within this community, this ‘global brain’ encouraging us to question, take right action, stand with courage and care. What must we learn from the Judge who abuses power, the bank CFO who steals our mother’s account, the fraudulent rulers who have taken such pains to control us through hidden registrations, securitizations, and schemes that are deceptively brilliant, effective because most refuse to see? We are in this place together for a reason. We find answers in hours that took our predecessors decades to uncover. We share freely, openly, our wins and our disasters, ever mindful of those who have paid such a dear price.
Yet as I maneuver down one rabbit hole and then another, I sense something profound working it's power, first from within me, and a few moments later, this message from Bill arrives to put into words what I am feeling. I smile. I feel loved, supported, alive. I can trust that whatever unfolds holds the perfect answer, when I can finally see the bigger picture.
We all get through it. It was terrifying, to have to face the rage, helplessness, anger, frustration, and fear that accompanies such lessons. Yet embracing those repressed feelings fully led me to these forums, this education. I marvel at how much I have learned this past decade. Most of all, I have learned to love and accept myself, to quit judging harshly, to cut myself some slack. When I am gentle with myself, it is easier to be gentle with everyone around me. It is from this place that true strength has emerged to fearlessly stand before Judges and bankers and bullies.
First Mate aka Becky
#961 re. #946
Re: TOPIC: Do you REALLY understand the system? MOST DO NOT.
trooper753
Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:42 pm
Essentialer, it appears he is saying, and the way I have always understood it- that an 'order' from the court is the check.
Char ~ I fight what you fear!
#965 re. #961
TOPIC: SIFTING THROUGH THE PATRIOT SPOILS TO FIND THE FRUIT
joshuasdad100
Tue Aug 14, 2012 9:34 pm
CHAR, THIS IS SUCH A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THE ENDLESS WAYS WE'VE DEVISED TO HANG
OURSELVES. I'm so glad you brought it up. I remember the first time I heard the phrase: "Where's the check?" Technically, it may be correct, but actually all it does it define us as psychos and sets us up for defeat: "A check? Sir, do you have a history of mental illness?" And yet, the acorn grew into a tree despite few really understanding what was being implied.
When the Court receives a charging instrument or complaint, the Uniform Securities Scheme kicks in (see the BC Scam article in the Files section). Like any depository institution, they open an account, issue a number, deposit the security (charging instrument or complaint), and begin issuing securities (Court bond, arrest warrant, summons to start). An Order is just another bet against future performance (security future) funded by the deposit of the charging instrument or complaint which are assessments against the Estate. But a check?
What's a check? A security which, like all securities, is intended for disposition (even-exchange under Public Law 73-10). Can you deposit it in a bank? Of course n---
Well actually, you can. Correction: THEY can. Orders CAN be deposited into a bank by the Court. I've seen them bearing the deposit endorsement. However, the bank sure as heck is not going to use its license to monetize an Order if you bring it in (although it could).
But to describe a Court Order as a check is to invite ridicule and threats of contempt. Rather, we might ask for the bond or restructure the trust on the record or claim our securities or any one of many other approaches which advance our position and avoid the rolls of the eyes, or my favorite response, "Sir, you can't believe everything you read on the Internet."
"Really? Actually, Judge, I read a blog somewhere that said you were a moron."
One by one, I hope we can inspire the community to apply strategic logic to the theories and enticements that abound. So we learn to pick through the spoils to get to the fruit.
"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit." Bill
#966 re. #955
Re: Treasury process short version?
sportniks
Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:00 am
Is it necessary to attach the Security Agreement to the 1st Ucc-1? I was told both yes and no in earlier teaching of A4V. John
#968 re. #48
Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
sch704
Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:18 am
OK, Bill; I have a question or two for you in re: Message #48 "SPLASH". OK, maybe more.
Is it possible you need to shave everything down a bit with Ockham's Razor?
"Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily". [or my favorite- “Among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected”]
I can see how being an owner might translate into an obligation in certain circumstances. Biblically speaking, the owner of an ox could be held liable for damages caused by the animal. If the animal killed a man and had demonstrated a tendency to push and gore in the past, the owner was subject to the death penalty. In other words, the liability was only circumstantial and was balanced or even nullified by the benefits of owning the animal. Being able to plow a field, haul a cart full of grain or even provide meat for a hundred or more people were significant benefits; and no liability ever existed as long as the beast was well behaved. I know what you're thinking, all of you. You're saying to yourselves, "Bill is talking about securities and this bozo is on about cattle!". Granted, my deficient knowledge of securities law and practice is evident; but technically Bill did not make any qualifications to his statements. However, I could make similar points regarding the ownership of a security. Only the owner of the security can collect dividends, interest payments and a return of investment principal, for example.
Whenever I read statements about the Admiralty or even Common Law that seem to defy mainstream knowledge or understanding like: "Living people cannot be seen in Admiralty", or "Living men don't use capital letters or abbreviations in their names in Common Law", I have to think back a few hundred years and try to
imagine what life was like when the current system of obfuscation did not exist. I confess in doing so I must rely on my own perception of that era and admit it may be flawed. That being said, I find it difficult to believe that every merchant who owned or operated ships of trade on the open sea or across the landscape of international trade between the shores were ever told they must utilize a group of fictional entities as proxies, first to themselves and then to each other, in order to access any form of remedy from the law! I have no doubt that corporations of various sorts existed and provided protection for men even in that dark past. Why else would they have proliferated as they have in this evil time? So, IF it's true that living men cannot be seen in Admiralty, since when and how so? I have been told repeatedly that only my strawman was convicted in federal court and I was held to be the surety for six long years. OK, I see all of your heads going up and down; so my question here is this: "How was it possible for the Admiralty to direct the bailiffs to find me and put those cuffs and shackles on me?". I saw no indication of anyone having trouble focusing on this flesh when it came time to pierce the veil of blindness from Admiralty to the land of the living! So, please explain to me where, when and
how this strange transmutation occurs. Furthermore, if we go back to your suggestion that we need a proxy to have and another to hold our security interest in the BC, that transmutation must occur somewhere between the time that I establish a priority lien against the BC and when the first proxy entity somehow gains a security interest in that lien.
Another way of saying all this is to examine another similar "fact". Everyone "knows" you cannot mix the private with the public; yet it is done millions of times a day all over the world. Every time we write or endorse a check, the private (living) mixes with the public(Admiralty commercial venue and fictional entities). That's why I think we all should use Ockham's Razor and clear the stubble.
I know I said I had other questions; but if I go on, this will become exceedingly muddled and ultimately incomprehensible.
Sincerely submitted by;
Steven Charles
#969
Trusts
sportniks
Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:45 am
Bill, I want to thank you so much for helping me to finally and I do mean finally understand that everything in the sea of commerce/admiralty must move through 'TRUST'...I will forever pay that forward. John
#970 re. #966
Re: Treasury process short version?
sportniks
Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:49 am
To answer my own question, I would say no since the Security Agreement is not only res, it also contains the terms of the trust which are to be kept private between the party's of the trust. John
#973 re. #916
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
sportniks
Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:46 am
Then we are seen only as the name printed on the long form BC?
#974
Re: Understanding re. various previous post asking basically the same thing
givb332
Wed Aug 15, 2012 9:12 am
Dear Sir or Ms; evidently, johntrustee; seems to be having the same problems we all have. Where do we go to get answers of ALL? I have read and re-read everything that pertains to our problems yet no one seems to have the information or method properly finalized.
Thank you.
Glenn Vanden Bosch
#975 re. #974
Re: Understanding
sportniks
Wed Aug 15, 2012 9:25 am
Glenn, How would you suggest we as a group go about gather or gain the understanding to get the information or method properly finalized...this is my main focus and main goal. John
#976 re. #955
Re: Treasury process short version?
illusionsnom...
Wed Aug 15, 2012 10:24 am
I like this after first reading... You seem to see a simply straight ahead solution.
On first UCC-1 the BC trust 123-45-12345 is Debtor and Grantor/Beneficiary for SM trust 123-45-6789 is Secured Party. (We are G/B to each party).
above is meant to say that our Birth Certificate SS# Trust is debtor. And, secured party is G/B for a different?? trust which is called our Strawman Trust?
Kelly
#977 re. #976
Re: Treasury process short version?
sportniks
Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:52 am
Kelly, the BC trust # is the number on our BC. like 123 45 123456. Bill explains it in the Uniform Securitization Scheme he posted. It is my understanding that the Secured Party is Joe Henry Doe, grantor/beneficiary for JOE HENRY DOE trust 123-45-6789 (grantor=proxy). This makes sense because the SM is the conduit (transmitter) that carries the debt from the public to the BC trust and we want the SM to carry credit from the BC trust to the public so first we must move the security interest (res) into the SM trust then we move it (assign/transfer) to the trustee of the public trust so it becomes holder in due course. Then we can place the securities into the hands of a qualified party who holds the security interest (holder in due course) for set-off.
John
#979 re. #935
Re: THE BEST ADVICE I WILL EVER GIVE TO THOSE FACING IMMINENT TRAGEDY...
sewerwo
Wed Aug 15, 2012 1:18 pm
“P.S. I would like to ask the members of the Group to reflect on why they joined Reclaim Your Securities, and consider posting their thoughts for the Group. Thank you in advance.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, I first read mention of this group on another group. When I checked into it there were only 50 or so messages posted - this was 7/14. I thought "finally I'm getting into something from the start so I won't feel like a lost ball in high weeds".
Though I've not posted before (no need to add my confused self to the mix), I've read every post since, and went back over a number of them a few times trying to "get it". I found comfort in seeing that I'm not as dense as I thought, as there are many others who have evidently spent untold hours reading and listening to audio/videos, going down one rabbit hole after another.
My "awakening" started in 2005 thanks to Hurricane Katrina (another story for another time). I've come to learn of just how little truth we're actually taught in school about our true history. After my 1st year of endless paths going nowhere I decided to attempt to put the puzzle together via a time-line of events and documents, trying to see how we got to where we are.
The more I dug and the more pieces I put together, the more I found that regardless of what many folks may think, the bible has played a larger part in our "recent" history - world history - than one might imagine. So now I've started to read the bible again with a new perspective. I like that the spiritual side is brought in with this group, it needs to be.
Up to this point I've played the game by their rules as I was taught, and have been blessed with staying out of legal and financial troubles. I figure I don't have a lot of time left so one may wonder why bother with all this now? Though I may not be in a position to better my lot in life now, there are too many others that need the system to be changed. Too much greed and corruption, too little truth and compassion. And if I can help effect that change, good. If not...well I can think of many things to waste my life on... uncovering truth is not one of them.
Even though I've yet to comprehend whatever it is that I need to uncover, I give much thanks to you Bill, and the other knowledgeable folks who post here. Bear with us folks who have a hard time "getting" what you have come to know. Even though I sometimes now feel like a lost ball in quicksand, I'll keep at it. Given enough time, effort and direction, most of us will eventually get it.
I am not my brother's keeper...I am my brother as we are all of one. Thank you again for what you've brought here.
#980 re. #887
Re: Understanding
eponymous_680
Wed Aug 15, 2012 1:31 pm
How about this - the answers you seek - or the pat answers you seek, to the questions that continuously arise from this yahoo group - as people grope and grasp at 'how how how?!?!?!- come from UNDERSTANDING THE 'WHY' - keep asking "why?". Again, the HOW arises OUT of the 'why' - the 'doctrine of understanding'.
May I gently suggest something? Stop speculating, and formulating more myths out of thin air. Please forgive me, if I offend anyone, with my martial arts references, and my answering questions with questions....I care about this group deeply, and want to make sure it keeps on track. This is 99% about sloughing off excess dogma, garnered from a way of teaching, which had people filling out forms without the slightest clue as to how to follow through with them - and, as mentioned, in post # 174 - I know, personally 6 people, who paid the ultimate price for their speculation. They wanted the 'how', before they even began to understand the 'why'.
Again, please forgive my intrusion, but I refuse to have this group go the same way every other group I've been in go: down the tubes, and into the gutter.
Again, remember the 2nd Matrix film, where Neo goes to visit the Merogvingian. He didn't have a clue as to the 'why', and ended up in Purgatory (the subway station), he ended up just being an 'errand boy'.....he wasn't yet ready to meet the 'Architect'....
()
Morpheus: We are looking for the Keymaker.
Merovingian: Oh yes, it is true. The Keymaker, of course. But this is not a reason, this is not a `why.' The Keymaker himself, his very nature, is means, it is not an end, and so, to look for him is to be looking for a means to do... what?
Neo: You know the answer to that question.
Merovingian: But do you? You think you do but you do not. You are here because you were sent here, you were told to come here and you obeyed. [Laughs] It is, of course, the way of all things. You see, there is only one constant, one universal, it is the only real truth: causality. Action. Reaction. Cause and effect.
- peacemaker –
#981 re. #968
CRITICAL TOPIC. CAUTION: THE SEDUCTION OF "MAINSTREAM THINKING"
joshuasdad100
Wed Aug 15, 2012 2:53 pm
Greetings Steven, THE PROBLEM WITH MAINSTREAM THINKING AS A YARDSTICK IS THAT IT'S ALMOST ALWAYS WRONG AS YOU'RE ABOUT TO SEE. The first thing I do on those rare occasions when I mentor someone is to strip away the false concepts and let them decide for themselves if they wish to open their eyes to self-evident truth. Because truth IS self-evident once you can see again.
Yes an owner receives dividends and interest. But what is a dividend? DIVIDENDS AND INTEREST ARE A FRACTIONAL RETURN OF WHAT WAS STOLEN FROM YOU. THEY NEVER GAVE YOU YOUR SECURITY WHEN YOU "BOUGHT" THE STOCK OR BOND. Instead, DTC "registered" it on their books and relegated you to the status of "beneficial owner" and "credited the account" of the Direct Participant. For birth bonds, the Fed is the Direct Participant. This means the Fed enters the credits as money of account on its books, posts 3 - 10 percent to their reserves, and leverages the "money" nine more times by the practice of fractional banking (fractional securitization) and also gets to borrow against the credits as an asset. DTC also milks the stone by issuing a bankers acceptance against the security, which converts YOUR security into THEIR security interest which they can then trade as an asset. I explained this Uniform Securitization Scheme in the BC Scam article I recently posted. So you, the owner, get a nice dividend, while DTC and the Fed, holders of a presumed security interest when DTC "registered" the security, expand the money perhaps dozens of times over to their own benefit (using YOUR security).
The problem with Mainstream thinking is that no one pauses to ask themselves: "What's a dividend?" Why would they? Just about every public scam is as well-entrenched in our brains as our own name. People go nuts over a 10,000 point market, but who can define the term "point." They cheer marriage even though the pastor says, "By the power invested in me by the State of Kentucky." They value ownership while ignoring that their deed calls them a tenant. The more you examine it, the more it appears that mainstream thinking is global
insanity. From buying groceries to Court cases, no one pauses to examine the transaction carefully. Here's a FACT to remember: the purpose of every security issued under public policy (Public Law 73-10) is a disposition, a tax-exempt even-exchange of securities. In EVERY case, the Scheme is to open an account,
assign a number, deposit the security via disposition, and start leveraging more securities against our Estate for profit and feudal control.
People such as yourself who obviously have a background in common law usually have the strongest beliefs and the hardest time abandoning them. When examined cognitively, Common Law is the law of the merchant (as you point out), from ancient Rome, Greece and Egypt to the present rulers of Saudi Arabia, Syria and the U.S.
Mainstream thinking reflects false flags begun hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of years earlier by the European Jesuit Order, the banking cartels, and others with the intent to enslave others. The present system of security interest supremacy dates back at least to 1694 when William of Orange borrowed 1 1/4 million pounds and basically gave away the farm. So when you look to "mainstream thinking," you're looking to a carefully crafted deception - theater of the absurd - so well entrenched that almost no one is left capable of assimilating truth.
As to focusing on the flesh in court, I regret you went through that but it was strictly business. I've explained how in some of the postings. It's not that they can't see you. OF COURSE THEY CAN SEE YOU. But like a snake only sees the infra red spectrum of light, every Court event involves a security first. If you signed a paper or thought to argue with them, that was all it took to consent to the paper in their hands. Those who know what to say (or not to say) often walk free, where others wind up warehoused. They see you all right, as a surety.
So now the job is to turn those experiences into a triumph by examining most deeply what the Father was trying to teach you. I left a recent posting on that subject you might check out.
I hope this has been helpful. Bill
#982 re. #973
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
neterrhu
Wed Aug 15, 2012 2:55 pm
So the Estate is created when the certificate is deposited, creating an account with the registered agent? And the only way the public can access the credit from this Estate is through them creating a public, legal fiction/person which is the SS trust. Trust = Person. Is this correct?
#983 re. #980
TOPIC: UNDERSTANDING THE WHY, BEFORE THE HOW
joshuasdad100
Wed Aug 15, 2012 2:59 pm
EMBURY IS SO CORRECT. PLEASE SEE MY VERY LAST POSTING. WHAT GOOD IS A SECURITY
AGREEMENT if you don't understand how the world really works? You would be a prosecutor's dream with a lovely security agreement he can ignore, instead of Neo holding an incidental piece of paper while he's kicking a--.
Does that compute? I hope so. My last posting explores a perfect example of how our most basic concepts are usually false. Bill
P.S. "First you use this (his head), and then I'll teach you to use this (the sword)." Uncle Argyle to William Wallace, "Braveheart." (Sorry to repeat this.)
#989 re. #893
Re: TOPIC: UNDERSTANDING THE WHY, BEFORE THE HOW.
eponymous_680
Thu Aug 16, 2012 2:04 pm
Here's the Wikipedia definition:
For agreements pertaining to the national security of participating states, see Treaty.
A security agreement, in the law of the United States, is a contract that governs the relationship between the parties to a kind of financial transaction known as a secured transaction. In a secured transaction, the Grantor (typically a borrower but possibly a guarantor or surety) assigns, grants and pledges to the grantee (typically the lender) a security interest in personal property which is referred to as the collateral. Examples of typical collateral are shares of stock, livestock, and vehicles. A security agreement is not used to transfer any interest in real property (land/real estate), only personal property. The document used by lenders to obtain a lien on real property is a mortgage or deed of trust.
The security agreement sets out the various rights the grantee will have with respect to the collateral, which are in addition to all other rights which the lender may have by law, such as those rights contained in Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code which has been adopted in some form by each state in the United States. The Security Agreement also addresses issues such as permitted sales or other transactions with the collateral in the ordinary course of the grantor's business and notices that may be required to be given by the grantee to the grantor if certain actions are taken. There are many forms available for purchase from legal supply and banker supply companies, in addition to software that will produce a security agreement according to specific user input.
A security agreement may be oral if the secured party (the lender) has actual physical possession of the collateral. Where the collateral remains in the physical possession of the borrower, or where the collateral is intangible (such as a patent.,[1] accounts receivable, or a promissory note), the security agreement must be in writing in order to satisfy the statute of frauds. The security agreement must be authenticated by the debtor, meaning that it must either bear the debtor's signature, or it must be electronically marked. It must contain a reasonable description of the collateral, and must use words showing an intent to create a security interest (the right to seek repayment of the loan by foreclosing on the collateral). In order for the security agreement to be valid, the borrower must usually have rights in the collateral at the time the agreement is executed. If a borrower pledges as collateral a car owned by a neighbor, and the neighbor does not know of and endorse this pledge, then the security agreement is ineffective. However, a security agreement may specify that it includes after-acquired property. If such a specification is included, then a pledge of "all automobiles owned by borrower" would include the neighbor's car if the borrower were to buy that car from the neighbor.
In order for a security interest to attach to the collateral in the possession of subsequent purchasers, it must be perfected. If the security agreement is for a purchase money security interest, perfection is automatic. Otherwise, the lender must record either the agreement itself, or a UCC-1 financing statement, in an appropriate public venue (usually the state secretary of state or a state business commission under that person's authority). Perfecting the interest creates constructive notice, which is deemed legally sufficient to inform the rest of the world of the lender's rights in the collateral. Where a borrower has used the same property as collateral with respect to multiple security agreements made with different lenders, the first lender to record the interest has the strongest claim to that property.
- peacemaker -
Re: TOPIC: UNDERSTANDING THE WHY, BEFORE THE HOW. re. #983
markonealus markonealus@...
Thursday, August 16, 2012, 9:24 AM
Hey Bill -
OK no one else wants to ask, so I will.
Exactly what is a security agreement?
Why would one need to have one?
How is it possible that this document will mean anything to anyone?
Thanks,
Mark
#993 re. #989 2nd
Re: TOPIC: UNDERSTANDING THE WHY, BEFORE THE HOW
joshuasdad100
Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:39 pm
Mark, that's a college course. BUT most of your questions are answered in previous emails which is why no one else is asking.
Have you Googled "security agreement," "security interest," "sample security agreement" and similar tags? There's a world of information at your fingertips. Wikipedia alone is a goldmine.
I used that very method to learn how to write a contract from BOA, and a basic trust from a top law firm. At least that gives me clarity on the public perspective and the general concepts before I go fishing. Once you pause to read even one such document, your question about the need for one will be answered.
I could give you a one sentence answer, but you wouldn't learn nearly as much as reading what's available on the web. Bill
P.S. I CAUTION YOU IN THE STRONGEST TERMS THAT THE PAPERWORK IS LAST ON THE LIST. FIRST YOU MUST LEARN THE CONCEPTS. Frankly, most people don't get that formula, and eventually pay the price.
#996
Understanding the power of the knowledge
sportniks
Fri Aug 17, 2012 5:32 am
Does everyone see the potential power and freedom being offered here in this group? Once we gain the understanding and establish our status we will be in a position to help our family and friends if we so choose. By being appointed co-beneficiary by the grantor for the trust that was created by the deposit, be it a complaint or the like, we can be granted total power and authority to speak and act on behalf of the grantor and for the good of the trust. We can send private letters to the judges, invoke an expressed trust, demand equal exchange,
everything Bill talks about we will be able to do under trust law and the terms of the trust…this is very powerful stuff and I am forever grateful to Bill for exposing himself to the dangers while giving us the knowledge he has been privileged with. Thank you Bill…John
#998 re. #996
Re: Understanding the power of the knowledge
iamsomedude
Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:19 am
Would one first have to "reclassify" the "deposit" to a "special deposit" instead of the "general deposit" it apparently currently occupies?
I would think this would be the first action ...
Rumsfeld used to say there are the known-knowns, the known-unknowns, the unknown-unknowns ... so would it be reasonable to also conclude there is a public, a private-public, and private-private and as well as equity-equity (special) and statutory/legal equity (general)?
#999 re. #998
Re: Understanding the power of the knowledge
sportniks
Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:24 am
It is my understanding that once you claim the trust as grantor/beneficiary, express it as an expressed trust, appoint the Court as trustee (which they already are since they hold the res) then I see the deposit as being special, a trust deposit. In your letter you could tell the trustee (judge) that you have claimed, withdrawn and re-deposited under special deposit the complaint securities. This would clearly show your intent and as you know "the intent of the settlor is the law of the trust". Intent is by words or actions.
There really only exists the private and the public, however the public does have a private side which is still public. John
#1002 re. #980
purgatory, the wizard, and neo
locomotivate
Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:07 am
His comments of neo being in purgatory at the subway station are WRONG. What this was showing was that he was under the care of the minister of transportation, the train man. The minister of transportation has all the vessels under his care. That is what the wizard of OZ showed when Dorothy came in - she was picked up by the horse and carriage and taken to the brush and clean up co. - where you had two different sets of clean up people, one that took care of Dorothy and one group that took care of the rest, living and dead/fiction. Neo did not know why he was at Merovingian’s so he sent him back to the train keeper as his property......
#1006 re. below
Re: Understanding the power of the knowledge
sewerwo
Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:12 pm
"One can opt out of the relationship (but must do so honorably & thoroughly)...but most are unaware of how to fully do that."
Are you saying you are aware of how to fully, honorably and thoroughly AND have opted out of the relationship? If so, is it your intention to share that knowledge with this group?
Re: Understanding the power of the knowledge re. #999
Roberto Io
Friday, August 17, 2012 1:47 PM
I think most here as most others out there are deluded into believing that we are the beneficiaries of the B/C or any subsequent trust...we are not! we are the trustees in that relationship. Can the created ever be greater than the Creator? Who created the B/C? They did. Who created the entity/the name in all caps? They did. It is theirs! And to claim anything or attempt to copyright anothers creation is copyright infringement on someone else's intellectual property. It is their stamp and seal on all documents, and it clearly states it is THEIR property, and they can revoke/rescind those privileges if they see fit...if it were truly our creation and under our control then that would not be possible... Remember we are the one's who appy for everything including B/C, SSN, Driver's license etc...look up definition of apply = 'to beg'.
Bonds are issued and sold fromTHEIR creation and held by bond holders...we are the sureties for the bonds that are sold on the market thru the DTC...we have no rights or entitlements from any B/C bond (a creation of theirs) but merely some beneficial interest, but not the way most out there think. The B/C is a warehouse receipt...our slave title! And we are the goods..
At best, we are owed some of the dividend on the instrument if they choose to recognize us and make us a party to the relationship. Otherwise they may simply terminate the contract if it's not in their best interest. One can opt out of the relationship (but must do so honorably & thoroughly)...but most are unaware of how to fully do that.
just my thoughts..
#1010 re. #1002
Re: purgatory, the wizard, and neo
iamsomedude
Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:46 pm
Wasn't Neo at the train station because he entered the matrix as the alter-ego of the avatar?
He just did not know why.
It appears Merovingian was forced to give up his "claim" to Neo for Trinity's "higher claim" of "equity interest" vs. Merovingian's "legal equity interest"
Merovingian and the Train Dude "found" "abandoned property" but Trinity had an "equitable interest" of which she enforced.
Willing to give her life to get his.
#1011 re. below
Re: Understanding the power of the knowledge
fleurdelanuit1
Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:58 pm
Hello John, the facts lay in them being the ones who created the entities...their rules, their banking system, and all for their benefit...He who creates controls/owns etc...
Now it has been my experience that whenever one raises questions regarding religious writings/beliefs that one invites ridicule and attacks of a negative variety due to cognitive dissonance setting in. All I ask is that people keep an open mind with what I say here and fully investigate on their own. They needn't take my word for anything.
The only reason I still equate the word god to mean the divine creator when others use the term is because I feel that is what they mean. The word actually derives from and means satan, which is exactly who the god of all the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) is...satan...and if people would actually go back and read the old testament/Torah/Koran with open eyes & mind they would clearly see that it could only be satan talking...it is continuously mired in violence, incest, and oppression...Their bible preaches and is the manifesto for all the enslavement of mankind...what was Adam allegedly banished from the garden of Eden for? 'eating from the tree of knowledge'! would the true loving Divine Creator wish for man NOT to know the truth? No, only satan would desire to hide the truth from us...and only satan would ask that Abraham sacrifice his own son to prove his loyalty...not the true loving Divine Creator...
it is the Abrahamic religions and their leaders whom have enslaved humanity and raped, pillaged and murdered the masses...and to look to their leaders and follow their flawed creed & rules for freedom & salvation is akin to the sheep going to the wolves and hoping & pleading on their mercy in order to be spared...they will be eaten alive! One need only look at the Natives around the continents of the world, and closer to home here in North America...the power elites have broken every single treaty with them and not honored their universal rights...and the Natives had a massive army to back them up. and they were still slaughtered.
Now I don't mean to sound pessimistic...I do believe there is freedom from tyranny and oppression...but I firmly believe it will not be found within a system that was created by the very people who have enslaved humanity, the very system that was designed for THEIR benefit! and no one else's...if that was their intent then they wouldn't have enslaved humanity to begin with or create such a convoluted maze for us to continuously chase our tails...that is the 1st clue that it all only benefits the corrupt elitist' of the world...who will ONLY grant access to those whom THEY deem worthy (the nobles whom THEY choose to grant titles of nobility)...
The best way would be to simply create a NEW system that is open and transparent...a model for all to follow, not simply the privileged elite...and not wrapped in a maze...a riddle inside a mystery...
There is NO remedy to be found thru the Vatican, the bible, the banking system or any corporate govt. out there...these entities have been in power for 1000's of yrs, and the theme has continuously been the same: 'their designed system is perpetrated for the enslavement of humanity, for the benefit of the privileged few'...it is a system of hereditary bloodline, period!...show me a precedent in history where slave masters willingly & honorably let their slaves go, and with alleged riches?
To repeat, we are going to the slave masters, the rapists & murderers for our alleged freedom & salvation??? ironic don't you think? and it baffles me that people still believe they will gain access to some funds that the PTB created & control...sheep going to the wolves for remedy...what do u think the outcome shall be?
Again, it is not my intention to insult anyone's beliefs...please don't allow cognitive dissonance to set in, and the ego to dominate in taking what I have said personally...that is only a sign that one is not secure in their own beliefs...these are simply my thoughts...go research history with an open mind & heart
regards
Re: Understanding the power of the knowledge re. #1006 2nd
JohnTrustee
Friday, August 17, 2012 3:58:00 PM
Hey Roberto, To help me digest what you just said, do you have any facts to back it up, it will be easier for me. I do believe you are right about them being able to revoke our privileges, however I speak only of rights, and I expressly waive all of their benefit privileges and hereby claim my rights...big difference. I here you speak as a owner and not a grantor/beneficiary and to this I wish no conflict as we are each entitled to our own opinion and I believe that was yours even though to me it sounds like you were stating facts and to this I will except responsibility for what I thought I heard.. John
#1014 re. #973
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
picotech9999
Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:57 pm
It depends on who you mean by "we". Men /women are not seen, but the trustees and surety for the "Estate" can be seen (appear).
If your body vessel is taken for surety, then the man/woman goes to "security holding".
Normally they will take property or land first, but if there are none listed, the body may have to do.
Many tricky pieces in here all in the USS pattern ;)
P
#1019 re. #1006 2nd
TOPIC: WHO OWNS THE BONDS? WHO OWNS THE STRAWMAN? WE DO.
joshuasdad100
Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:02 pm
Roberto, the belief that they created the strawman and the BC is a common misconception. THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS NOT THEIR CREATION. AND THEY ARE NOT THE BENEFICIARY. This is one of those concepts that I find the need to break down when I mentor someone so that they can better assimilate the vast power in understanding securities and trusts. People who hold that belief haven't diagrammed the actual transactions. I've done that for you though, if you will download the BC Scam article in the files archives. Following the Uniform Securitization Scam, the BC was issued from the Department of Treasury account
opened to accommodate the deposit of the Certificate of Live Birth against the funds in that account. Those funds consisted of the pledge of OUR labor represented by the Certificate of Live Birth. What people need to understand is that the public trust has no credit of its own. It has no capacity to create anything. It is an impossibility of law and Law that the strawman is their creation. This is why currency is backed by the "full faith and credit of the people" of the United States. This is why they will pull any uncivil stunt to get you to sign the appearance BOND. The public has no commercial energy – IT NEEDS YOURS.
Is a car owned by the men who built it? Who owns the grass that grows on "your" lawn? The party doing the physical issuing is irrelevant. It is our credit, and they're bonds.
Now if they paid us for the bond, then they might be able to re-issue a derivative against it. But they have no credit to pay us. From the Certificate of Live Birth to the quarter you use to "buy" a piece of candy, they all belong to us.
The strawman trust belongs to us, not them. When we correct the proper roles, THEY have the problem, not us. I hope this makes sense. Give that article a good read and see what you think. Bill
#1020 re. below
CONTRACT LAW IS IRRELEVANT. IT'S THE SECURITY.
joshuasdad100
Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:17 pm
RCARNE - THE SUPREMACY OF CONTRACTS IS ONE OF THE MOST COMMON PATRIOT MYTHS THAT HAS CAUSED SO MUCH PAIN FOR PEOPLE IN THE PAST. The contract is secured by an
exchange of securities, which establishes a couple of trusts. When you claim the securities (both of them since both were issued against your credit through the Estate) then they have substantial TAX liabilities, REPORTING requirements, and FRAUD CONCERNS which ARE collectible through the agency, which ARE saleable to financial institutions, which ARE subject to freezing, lien and enforcement. Plus, they are now finally subject to their own laws, which are the directives of the public trust. When you attack the contract, THEY STILL HOLD YOUR SECURITY and the profits and proceeds from all the securitization. This is why so many patriots have come to blows with the public despite every possible measure to withdraw, pull numbers, and end contracts. Sure, it can work now and then, but it takes extraordinary skill and courage. AND THEN, YOU'RE OUT OF THE SYSTEM AND ITS ADVANTAGES.
If you believe that a proper claim with knowledge of enforcement strategies will not work, it won't. But as your knowledge of securities and trusts grows, hopefully the reality will become part of the new awareness that provides remedy, be it deflecting attempts to rob your beneficiary status, or cashing out. Bill
"rcarne@..." wrote: re. #1011 2nd
As long as you have standing contracts with them via your signature you Can Claim all day long if you want they don’t care.. until you void out those contracts and give back the property (U.S. Citizen) SS# and DL and Bank accounts as well as invisible contracts you’re under their jurisdiction. Can't pull the
codes from my phone but have all the info at home. You’re either in or out...alien or Citizen. Privileges or rights, this is how the government of Arizona is able to cut off new U.S. Citizens from receiving State benefits... it is written that u.s. citizens do not enjoy the same rights and privileges as state citizens. Tashiro v. ??? Can't remember.. powers of the king are divested or fall to each individual state Citizen...post it when I get home...
#1022 re. #872
TreasuryDirect Acct. - First Baby Step?
joshuasdad100
Fri Aug 17, 2012 5:20 pm
Very interesting question. But when you said, De Jure Courts instead of de jure courts, it shows that the general understanding is not there. I'm not saying this to cause you any embarrassment. Most people can't imagine the amount of time I've devoted to settle all of the conceptual issues that I'm able to propel my understanding ahead. The thoughtful genuine answer, which I've mentioned before I believe, is that putting pen to paper is the last house on the block. EVERYBODY WANTS TO GET TO THE PAPERWORK, and then when it APPEARS to fizzle, they move on to the next flavor of the month. I'm here to encourage learning and introspection and provide a forum where those few who know the truth can connect with those who would like to. Bill
#1023 re. #865
Re: TreasuryDirect Acct. - First Baby Step?
joshuasdad100
Fri Aug 17, 2012 5:21 pm
...securities. Bill
#1024 re. #821
Re: executor
joshuasdad100
Fri Aug 17, 2012 5:27 pm
Yes. Bill
#1025 re. #1023
Re: TreasuryDirect Acct. - First Baby Step?
sportniks
Fri Aug 17, 2012 6:34 pm
Bill, here is a question I keep hearing and thought you could enlighten us...Why US department of the Treasury and not IRS for set off, I understood the Treasury is a bank and IRS reports to them? John
#1027 re. #1019
Re: TOPIC: WHO OWNS THE BONDS? WHO OWNS THE STRAWMAN? WE DO.
fleurdelanuit1
Sat Aug 18, 2012 12:22 am
Thank you Bill, I have downloaded the file and shall read it in the near future. I don't necessarily agree with all of your points regarding the B/C, but I shall refrain on commenting until I read your article. I do agree with much of what you say, but I will raise some more points regarding the B/C once I’ve read your article.
I and others close to me have had some interesting experiences re: B/C (which has also led me to state what I stated)...for the most part I operate solely thru the Cert of Live Birth which brings about interesting experiences and reactions at times...I used to get hassled using it as ID, but now I regularly use it to get documents notarized and also get it accepted in court cases with ease, without any subsequent photo ID.
I will share some interesting stories in the future regarding traveling with the S.O.B., and operating thru that title rather than the B/C title and the subsequent different results and reactions.
regards,
Roberto
#1028 re. #999
Re: Understanding the power of the knowledge
picotech9999
Sat Aug 18, 2012 11:29 am
In some jurisdictions, attorneys must hold trust accounts a "single" accounts rather than in the attorney's collective trust account when instructed by the client. I see this as a parallel arrangement, moving from general deposit to special deposit. Just a wild guess ;) P
#1029 re. #1028
Re: Understanding the power of the knowledge
sportniks
Sat Aug 18, 2012 11:56 am
Yes they do, we weren't talking about an attorneys account, we were talking about the courts making a general deposit of your security they created by the attorney filing the complaint. John
#1030 re. below
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
picotech9999
Sat Aug 18, 2012 12:22 pm
It begins to be "tricky" The beneficiary can not ask for a benefit (unclean hands , self-interest) so a fiduciary is needed (Can you spell that as proxy???) I'm sure the grantor is seen and can express implied trust conditions--- "I meant ......blah"
Some trusts are irrevocable - no idea about grantor's power there. P
On 8/17/2012 3:28 PM, JohnTrustee wrote: re. #1014
Can't grantor/beneficiary for the trust also be seen (appear)? John
#1032 re. #1029
Re: Understanding the power of the knowledge
picotech9999
Sat Aug 18, 2012 2:38 pm
I thought I made the parallels pretty parallel, but maybe they weren't. P
#1033 re. #1030
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
fdmfghr
Sat Aug 18, 2012 3:10 pm
Does it have to be 'tricky'? Can one not claim official bene'y status with "Name" spelled as derivative of living one, like signed 'jane anne' with proxy being Jane of family of Doe?
The 2d version is still a sort of public presentation far as I can see, not so?
Beneficiary janie then is still acting on behalf of Fiduciary role?
#1034 re. #1028
Re: Understanding the power of the knowledge
sportniks
Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:06 pm
Try and think of it as the only roll of the attorney is to find fish with a BC account (Defendant), he/she draws up a complaint and files (deposits) it with the court, opening a court account (case number) and creating a trust. The court issues the case bond (securities), and the complaint is the initiating security future. The attorney is trying to get your house or FRN's, they are not involved with the trust or the court and securities. It is confusing because it is backwards from how we were taught and that is because they structured our schools to teach us not to understand how it works so they can control us... John
#1038 re. #1033
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
eponymous_680
Sat Aug 18, 2012 7:39 pm
Let's see how Webster's 1828 dictionary defines 'proxy':
PROX''Y, n. [contracted from procuracy, or some word from the root of procure, proctor.]
1. The agency of another who acts as a substitute for his principal; agency of a substitute; appearance of a representative. None can be familiar by proxy. None can be virtuous or wise by proxy.
2. The person who is substituted or deputed to act for another. A wise man will not commit important business to a proxy, when he can transact it in person. In England, any peer may make another lord of parliament his proxy to vote for him in his absence.
3. In popular use, an election or day of voting for officers of government.
Let's also look at 'pledge':
PLEDGE, n. [L. plico.]
1. Something put in pawn; that which is deposited with another as security for the repayment of money borrowed, or for the performance of some agreement or obligation; a pawn. A borrows ten pounds off B, and deposits his watch as a pledge that the money shall be repaid; and by repayment of the money, A redeems the pledge.
2. Any thing given or considered as a security for the performance of an act. Thus a man gives a word or makes a promise to another, which is received as a pledge for fulfillment. The mutual affection of husband and wife is a pledge for the faithful performance of the marriage covenant. Mutual interest is the best pledge for the performance of treaties.
3. A surety; a hostage.
4. In law, a gage or security real or personal, given for the repayment of money. It is of two kinds; vadium vivum, a living pledge, as when a man borrows money and grants an estate to be held by the pledgee, till the rents and profits shall refund the money, in which case the land or pledge is said to be living; or it is vadium mortuum, a dead pledge, called a mortgage. [See Mortgage.]
5. In law, bail; surety given for the prosecution of a suit, or for the appearance of a defendant, or for restoring goods taken in distress and replevied. The distress itself is also called a pledge, and the glove formerly thrown down by a champion in trial by battel, was a pledge by which the champion stipulated to encounter his antagonist in that trial.
6. A warrant to secure a person from injury in drinking.
To put in pledge, to pawn.
To hold in pledge, to keep as security.
PLEDGE, v.t.
1. To deposit in pawn; to deposit or leave in possession of a person something which is to secure the repayment of money borrowed, or the performance of some act. [This word is applied chiefly to the depositing of goods or personal property. When real estate is given as security we usually apply the word mortgage.]
2. To give as a warrant or security; as, to pledge one''s word or honor; to pledge one''s veracity.
3. To secure by a pledge.
Pledgor?
pledg·or‚ [plej-awr]
noun Law .
a person who deposits personal property as a pledge.
Pledgee?
noun
a person to whom a pledge is delivered
How about 'grantor'?
Grant"or (?), n. (Law) The person by whom a grant or conveyance is made.
Grantee?
Gran*tee" (?), n. (Law) The person to whom a grant or conveyance is made.
Lienor
Individual holding a lien.
Lienee
Individual owning property on which another party (lienor) possesses a right of lien.
- peacemaker -
#1039 re. #1038
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
sportniks
Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:05 pm
Here is something that might help. Everything in the public is a trust, the public world is a giant trust and that is all it is. There are only 3 parties to a trust...the grantor/settlor, the beneficiary, and the trustee, and that is it. No other parties have a nexus (connection) to a trust. If we look at it like that then we are either a grantor/settlor who grants the trust property into the trust and makes the rules, terms and laws the trust has to follow (has to
follow, no choice), beneficiary who collects on the trust and makes demands upon the trustee to perform his/her duties, and the trustee who holds the legal title and who is responsible for the trust and beneficiary. The public being a trust can only see those 3 entities. The public wants to win so it calls every trust an implied trust so it can imply who is who. Only the RM can put real property into a trust which equals grantor. Only a RM can hold equitable title to real property which equals beneficiary. Only a legal fiction and hold legal title which equals trustee. The public is always trustee=Debtor, the RM is always the beneficiary=creditor, the RM is always the grantor=one who makes the rules. The public is always trustee yet it implies it is beneficiary and we don't contest so it wins. The public always implies we are trustee and we don't contest so we are. Standing is standing up and declaring we are grantor/beneficiary and they are trustee, we don't have to prove it we only need to believe it and express it with intent through our actions as well as our words...that is the key everyone is looking for. Your proxie is you as grantor/beneficiary not the RM, they already know we are the RM as grantor / beneficiary they are just waiting for us to claim so... John
#1040 re. #1039
Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
sportniks
Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:35 pm
The cool thing about being G/B is we can demand performance (as beneficiary) from the trustee (United States) as defined in 28 USC Section 3002(15) which includes IRS, Treasury, Courts, police, etc. and we can change to rules and terms of the trust (as grantor) and make them jump through our hoops, or we can pretend we are G/T and give them full control by our silence and let them do that to us... John
#1041 re. #980
Re: Understanding
wingjockey...
Sat Aug 18, 2012 10:08 pm
Who What Where When Why ............ How. These are the questions. They are straight forward. That's simple enough, right?
A biology professor I had in college had this unique method of grading. At the end of each week an oral exam was given. The students sat around in a circle facing each other. The professor walked around the ring and presented a jar, a lottery if you will, to each of us. What was in the jar were folded bits of paper, each one concealing a specific subject of the different topics that were assigned in the week's studies. The goal of each student was to give a discourse about the subject and do it so thoroughly so as to leave the rest of us with nothing to ask. A student who could present a question pointing out something that was missed or vague got extra credit. The class was graded on a curve. The one with the most thorough explanations with the ability to develop good questions carried the highest grade. John Trustee gets my vote for most deserving of the highest grade.
Thank you John. You have a great ability dealing with riddles and I have learned more from your efforts to understand than I have from anyone else.
Bill, Pete, Peacemaker,....you have my gratitude and fire my curiosity. Despite being accused of not seeing value in what's been disclosed in the first 300 postings ...because (I) don't have the basic foundation YET to discriminate between gold and fool's gold....I am a beginner. I have yet to find one who would personally help me develop the understanding behind good discernment. I have great appreciation for those things that bewilder me in those postings. And I, like probably many lurkers here, are watching straight thinkers like John who are trying to construct some understanding out of your puzzles. Yet he laments;
From what I have read, writing a proper Security Agreement is the first thing we need to do, yet we have not a
clue how to perfect it so it will hold up...we as a group are all over the place (me included) each of us trying to make since of some piece of the puzzle.
Here is your challenge:
Using just the 5 W's, Who What Where When & Why, tell us all we need to know about the "Security Agreement", do it so thoroughly so as to leave the rest of us with nothing to ask.
Next, using just the 5 W's, Who What Where When & Why, tell us all we need to know about the "2 Proxies", do it so thoroughly so as to leave the rest of us with nothing to ask. You will be graded by your peers.
Peacemaker, if the questions of this group are not satisfied it will dry up and die like a land without rain. If you do not see our want to understand and need for explanations then what is there here for us? See there, I have removed "how" from the challenge. Who is up for it?
To whom much is given, much is expected ...... Jehovah has blessed those of you with all this wisdom for what purpose?
Do you not know infants require the "milk" of the truth?
Can you recognize by his question if the student requires an explanation in calculus or fundamental mathematics?
Would you formulate your responses appropriately?
We have a world in need and most of us are eager to be of help. And the quickest way I can think of to help is to ask questions we can learn from. I have left that up to those who know enough about the topics to formulate reasonable questions. I have much to read in the meantime and am sorely burdened trying to separate (discern) the wheat from the chaff.
Bill, I do not want to pass this opportunity to thank you for the tremendous work you have presented. Time and knowledge are both precious and the value of what you are casting upon the waters I pray returns to you a hundred fold. I want to extend this gratitude to all of you who are contributing to our edification. Thank you, sincerely.
#1045 re. #989
Re: TOPIC: UNDERSTANDING THE WHY, BEFORE THE HOW.
wingjockey...
Sun Aug 19, 2012 12:40 am
Thanks for this Peacemaker. It's good coverage of who what where when why and how it could be important.
Hello Mark, good questions got a good answer to our benefit.
#1050
Re: Understanding the power of the Knowledge/CONTRACT LAW IS IRRELEVANT. IT'S THE SECURITY. re. below
joshuasdad100
Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:17 pm
Hi Richard, it's not personal. There are so many groups out there people can visit. I'm striving to remain on message. Your second email so vigorously defended your position in the first email ("you Can Claim all day long if you want they don’t care"), I really saw no other choice than nipping it in the bud. What message could possibly more damaging to the very essence of the Group (and the history we've experienced and the truth of how society operates (see 15 USC 77ccc - definition of Indenture))? You see, they surely do care when they know you mean business, can capture their bond, can sell their liability overseas, can process the claim through U.S. Fed Ct of Claims, and so on. Using one's knowledge of trusts and securities, there isn't much we can't do, but frankly I'm not of a mind to hit people over the head with it. I'd rather just plod along as time permits for whoever thinks the theme is worth following. I hope that makes sense. You're a bright guy. Why not start a group about contract termination? I'm sure you'd do a good job. Good fortune to you. Bill
Re: Understanding the power of the Knowledge/CONTRACT LAW IS IRRELEVANT. IT'S THE SECURITY. re. #1020 2nd
richard carne
Friday, August 17, 2012 10:38 PM
.....why was the subject title changed??
#1058 re. #977
Re: Treasury process short version?
ravingraven2000
Mon Aug 20, 2012 3:49 am
(for further discussion...)
"grantor=proxy"??
IF the proxy cannot be the strawman, and cannot be the living man, then can it be the grantor?
I'm not saying your statement is wrong, I am just not sure it is correct.
also
"Then we can place the securities into the hands of a qualified party who holds the security interest (holder in due course) for set-off."
If the holder in due course holds the security interest, what do you hold?
#1060 re. #1058
Re: Treasury process short version?
eponymous_680
Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:45 am
This doesn't look correct to me either Raven.
How can 'you' - if you cannot be seen in commerce - be the grantor, or beneficiary?
These are legal terms. That's where the proxy comes in. Something that CAN be seen on paper - replete with all the powers in admiralty....the first 100 posts deal specifically with this.
As for the HDC - holder in due course - there are so many writings on holder in due course doctrine, it's not even funny.
Let's read up on it, see what powers the HDC has, put it in context of SPLASH. What the secured lienor is, and how the secured HDC fits into it.
- peacemaker -
#1062
As to the Why
locomotivate
Mon Aug 20, 2012 6:43 am
The Why can be found in the bible.
The ultimate Trustees are the Vatican. Well really we are, but that is why we are here in this group.
We are trustees, custodians, children of God, God made in the flesh, part of Him, beneficiaries of the planets trust, set up FOR US. Time to step forward and claim what is ours. Time to honour the way God created the system.
Most still argue, about money or, or, or......wrong!
1933 happened for a reason. That reason can only be discerned by going within and having a very good understanding of the King James Bible. Then enforcing the Trust and keeping the agents honorable, is a whole other story. So, as to the Why.....it is much older than all of us in this group!
See Santos Bonacci, Dean Clifford. They have pieces of the puzzle, but not the whole piece. Their videos are on YouTube.
The commercial process should be done by the agents.....once you know who you are, and step forward, do a notice of intent and claim of right (better than any UCC lien in my view, as - Who are you, and who’s Law are you under) they are supposed to be here for you....and do the necessary paperwork to take you out, meaning in her, but not of her, we are not supposed to need to know all the commercial crap behind the scenes. Just my opinion. Anyone doing this for money rather than honour wont get it.
Our finance minister (Canada) complained about not having enough creditors....meaning not enough people who knew the message in the New Testament and knowing who they are. Well, I say to him and all the minion liars, er sorry Judas goats, lawyers, that have been blocking us from the top down. I say to them, they are committing Treason against God.....and they need their asses reamed for not doing what is right. The problems on this planet can be directly attributed to them stealing from our trusts. Alien manipulation, and the Watchers are NOT DOING THEIR JOBS TO REMOVE DISHOUNARBLE SCUM.
I, and some of my associates have experienced all this first hand. Got the paperwork to prove the theft! Until we force them to do this, with righteous indignation, as a group, and educate more and more people with the right heart condition, it is going to be extremely hard for us to bring in Gods Kingdom. Deliberate malicious enslavement is the norm now, and they know it.
Basically they are giving God the finger now....and He does not tolerate that for very long.
#1076
I AM A real man DMV
dvanderryt
Mon Aug 20, 2012 6:59 pm
I though I would share my experience I had today. I went to the Dept. of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to renew my Driver's License. I did not bring two letters addressed to me as proof of address. Instead I asked to do an affidavit and swear it.
She gave me the affidavit and I put my name as David Wayne of the VanDerryt family and my address I put C/O 1234 my street then; my town and I spelled out Florida and left the zip code off.
I signed it with my first and middle name only.
I gave it to her and she read it over carefully. She looked at me and dropped her left eye lid (winked) ever so grinningly. She told me to sign my name for the card and she looked into my eyes sternly as if to say here is your chance kid. (I am 50 and she must have been 65)
Well, I have my Real man's name on my DL and an accepted affidavit swearing it.
It felt kinda good
DVD
#1080 re. #1076
Re: I AM A real man DMV
derrickwayne...
Tue Aug 21, 2012 3:33 am
"She looked at me and dropped her left eye lid (winked)" I think she is sweet on your bro' :)
So it is the family name, the zip code.
Did you do by: or for: anything like that? authorized agent?
#1082 re. #1076
Re: I AM A real man DMV
hotmercury1960
Tue Aug 21, 2012 5:21 am
David, I have questions -
Did you bring the SSN and BC? Do you think that signing David, house of family name takes you out of their jurisdiction when a cop stops you?
My educated guess is they are only looking for a surety/contract - does not matter how you sign it - it still goes by SSN and BC - the address thing is just another ploy for verification. If you were to put Without Prejudice, David: house of family name OR Non Assumpsit - I am sure this would not have been accepted - because of the presumed contract issue.
I do not mean to burst your bubble.
Tony
#1083 re. #1080
Re: I AM A real man DMV
dvanderryt
Tue Aug 21, 2012 5:23 am
Sweet on me or not; I am sure she knew very well what I was doing.
I didn't want to "Go Big" on the affidavit so, I just put enough to make sure it was absolute. I am David Wayne of the VanDerryt family and I live in Florida at c/o ....
I signed it David Wayne as I did my DL.
From what I have learned I believe I have gone into contract with the State of Florida's DMV as a Real Man.
I may be wrong and I would like to hear from others what they think.
#1086 re. below
Re: I AM A real man DMV
dvanderryt
Tue Aug 21, 2012 5:32 am
Thanks John,
You know I thought of that "did you have to agree to their terms of statutes and codes for the privilege of getting a drivers license " Since I was renewing my DL they only gave me an eye exam and asked for my ID which was a SS card and my BC. I did not do anything else differently as far as signing any contracts. I only did the affidavit and the signature for the card. Would this void my past agreements? Since I used a "different name." I wonder. Not a question I can answer because of my limited knowledge.
DVD
Re: I AM A real man DMV re. #1076
JohnTrustee
Monday, August 20, 2012 10:09 PM
Way to go David, I would like to hear more, you may have hit on something and if you did I am so happy for you and everyone else. My big question is...did you have to agree to their terms of statutes and codes for the privilege of getting a drivers license even though it is for the RM? I only ask honestly as it will help me understand the outcome. John
#1089 re. #1076
Re: I AM A real man DMV
derrickwayne...
Tue Aug 21, 2012 5:53 am
All he did was avoid bringing in two forms of address.
He reclaimed his security.
Good for you David.
#1097 re. below
Re: [Reclaim_Your_Securities] Re: I AM A real man DMV
kdcinstitute
Tue Aug 21, 2012 11:11 am
All I have is US DOT and the words ‘private conveyance.’ I have not been stop by the police in 2 years and they get behind me all the time. plates been expired for 2 yrs. I always LOL when they get behind me cuz I know they can't do nothing but look. I'm invisible to them. I've run stop signs and red lights, but I do it with care. I showed a friend how to be invisible to the cops and he can't believe it. His DL’s been suspended for 4 months and he hasn’t been stopped ..and he drives with no plates, just US DOT number and the words ‘private conveyance.’ Just make a bill of sale for your "automobile" make up a new VIN number of your choice, file with the recorder of deeds or records, give notice, and send copy to secret service giving them notice. And your done...but you didn't. hear that from me.
JohnTrustee wrote: re. #1086
David, keep us posted as to what happens, it is good to think outside of the box. Several years ago I signed my DL 'without prejudice' took copy of it and typed 'For Identification Only' made copies of my master travel agreement with all 50 states, my declaration expressly waiving the benefit privilege of the States, US, etc.. then I got stopped in AZ by a state police for speeding, & wasn't wearing a seat belt. He asked if I new how fast I was traveling, I told him no but I do try and travel at least 10 miles per hour over the speed limit. When he asked for my DL and insurance I told him I don't carry my DL with me as I am not for hire and just traveling. I gave him my copy for ID and my other stuff that I had signed as RM and had notarized and recorded in county. After a few minutes he came back to the car and gave me back my stuff, I never did find the insurance card. He leaned through the passengers window and shook my hand and told me to have a great day.
Last year I got stopped on my Harley because the cop did a check on my plates that I never registered in my name or changed title to when I bought it in 2005 (I had put 'Not For Hire' 'Right to Travel' on the plates, I don't have an indorsement but have ridden my whole life. Same thing happed although he was a rookie and wanted to argue with me as I am from Oregon and this was in New Mexico. Again he gave everything back and we parted. I don't recommend this to others, however it has worked for me and what you did may work for you. I will change what I have been doing and perfect it through trust, and I do hope this works for you. John
#1102 re. below
Re: REQUEST FOR A MENTOR
sportniks
Tue Aug 21, 2012 2:25 pm
Peacemaker, to correct any confusion, an executor and a trustee are not the same, they both have a fiduciary duty and sometimes an executor is looked at as a successor trustee, however they are not equal when it comes to trusts and trust law, and this is very important to understand. We have to stop talking executors and wills and probates and death of the RM. A trust is a living thing that can last for generations after the grantor/settlors death, whereas a will is over very quickly and the executors duties are also. Our property was put into a trust not a will and a trustee holds legal title for the trust. There are many articles and papers written as to the differences between the two and I really think everyone needs to understand that in reclaiming our securities an executor has to be erased form our minds, it is not an option. John
eponymous_680 embury111@... wrote: re. below
Executor = trustee
- peacemaker -
Re: REQUEST FOR A MENTOR re. below
derrick wayne
Tuesday, August 21, 2012, 6:08 AM
John have you looked at the riddle of the executor qualification?
Maybe it is best to avoid this term, it is so bizarre that the taxpayer isdead. Is there an executor in a trust?
Re: REQUEST FOR A MENTOR re. below
JohnTrustee
Sunday, August 19, 2012 11:58 PM
Hey Samuel, I feel your pain, My understanding is the first thing we must do is understand we are the grantor/beneficiary of all public trusts we are a party to unless we choose, as grantor, to not be. If it is our intent for the IRS to be trustee then we need to make that clear to them and the easiest way is to start signing everything as grantor/beneficiary, taking control. Remember they only see grantor, beneficiary, and trustee. And they always imply us to be trustee, 'they imply', 'we express'. When we express our intent we correct the misconstruement of implied trust to expressed trust. Never sign anything without at least putting a (...) (Ellipsis) in front of your signature that way you are qualifying it (not general) and you can add any title (you are reserving that space). Then look in the mirror and see only a grantor and a beneficiary. Then study trust and the power of G/B and what a trustees duties are. That is a great start. John
"Samuel" wrote:
Any mentors in the Central Texas (Austin) area? Greatly appreciate any help.
Regards,
Samuel
#1113 re. #1097
RE. THE DMV POSTINGS
joshuasdad100
Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:24 am
THERE IS MUCH MORE TO THAT STORY THAN MEETS THE EYE. DOT is used to register a claim in the strawman. Hundreds of patriots have used it to register a claim in the strawman by the Estate. However, the public Estate is actually a surety on the public's books for the debts charged to the strawman. The "Estate" that people are registering is a different estate, one which is registered as a foreign entity. This is fine except the name is similar to the BC name so there is confusion between the debtor estate and the creditor estate. This is
something perhaps understood by a handful of those who have registered at DOT, the rest are flying blind. Once in a while someone gets it right and files a UCC with the estate listed as both debtor and creditor, with a slight difference in HOW they are listed. None of this matters if the creditor Estate has no credentials to act, unless you wish to go direct to cashing out.
Better to use a non-estate proxy to do the job as we've been discussing.
DOT numbers can (and likely will be) challenged from time to time. It varies from State to State and cop to cop. One shouldn't fly the plane without a true command of what to do if (when) challenged.
IF YOU HAVE THAT COMMAND, then you can transform the public attack into a wonderful opportunity to teach them to avoid the expense of messing with you again.
THE OTHER OPTION is to keep the license and teach them the same lesson anyway when the opportunity appears. You can choose to act as Trustee when it's beneficial to the beneficiary (like a smooth traffic stop with kids in the car) and shift to beneficiary when it's useful (like dealing with the Court). You do NOT have to be Siamese twins to wear two hats. G-d gave you two hands. You can change the flag at will. Bill
#1114 re. #1113
REGARDING THE DMV POSTINGS (#2)
joshuasdad100
Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:16 pm
The Department of Transportation can also be used to register a claim AGAINST the Estate.
ONE THING TO REMEMBER, the recent use of DOT to register a claim because it's the "highest venue in the admiralty" concerning vessels, is another example of our tendency to expand thread of information into faulty conclusions. No one in the public will recognize such a claim as a maritime lien. The public facilities one uses to achieve a remedy should be the ones that will elicit predictable responses from public officials. Otherwise, you can expect a bit of a conflict.
Bill
#1118 re. below
CAUTION - CAUTION - CAUTION
joshuasdad100
Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:35 pm
IRS WOULD NEVER BE A PROXY UNLESS YOU WISH TO GO TO PRISON. Ask yourself some simple questions:
Why would you assign your lien rights to the bookkeeper?
Why would you name the IRS as a beneficiary?
Isn't the IRS already a trustee on the SSN?
MEMBERS - THIS THREAD DEMONSTRATES THE DANGERS OF PUBLIC SPECULATION. Thousands of miles away, some poor bastard is devoting his life to constructing a process using IRS as a proxy because he read somone else's speculations.
NOT AT THIS GROUP PLEASE. Speculation is done privately between ourselves AND OUR MAKER. That's when self-evident truth appears. I like to research, deliberate, diagram, discuss with my brain trust, reconsider, then consult with Him. Thinking out loud on blogs can be very uncivil without knowing it. When we post, it should not be speculation. Thank you for understanding. Bill
Re: Treasury process short version? re. below
locomotivate locomotivate@...
Monday, August 20, 2012 1:44 PM
Thank you for this. This answered some of my queries...but not all.
So you are making the IRS the third party proxy, once the interest has been released. (Jesus owned nothing. He was, is, just beneficiary) if I comprehend this correctly. I wont take anything personally, just doing my best to learn and come to honor.
"JohnTrustee" wrote: re. #1060
Hey Peacemaker, I believe that the hardest hurdle for everyone is to understand 'trust'. Admiralty deals with the high seas, and in our case mostly 'vessels'. We are considered a vessel and Peter in #206 explains it when he says "ALL VESSELS ARE TRUSTS!!!"...estates are trusts/vessels, trusts are vessels/estates.
We have to stop looking at things in legal terms and look at them in trust terms, that is why we do a Security Agreement where the debtor (vessel/BC trust) breaches the agreement upon signing it and at that moment we have a perfected maritime lien against the vessel (BC Trust 123-45-654321). In a trust the only parties that have a nexus are grantor, beneficiary, trustee, and sometimes the res, everyone else is a trespasser (breacher) upon the trust and can't be seen. The agency (IRS) implies us (SM) as the trustee/debtor although in posting #217 (SM=beneficiary of estate) so they don't have to see us or listen to us and we let them get away with it by arguing some off point stuff or we remain silent. They know that they are trustees, agents for United States as defined in 28 USC sec. 3002(15) and are only waiting for us to correct the fact that our BC is an expressed trust and this only happens when the grantor (RM staying private) intently expresses (as grantor) the trust and defines who is grantor, beneficiary and trustee. He/she also needs to express the terms of the trust as to what are the duties of the trustee (IRS/Agency). The RM does not say I am alive, I am a real man, the RM speaks only as the grantor for the trust and also as beneficiary for the trust(beneficiary enforces trustees duties), that way there is only one party left that hasn't been mentioned and that would be the trustee, and for the IRS/Agency to have a connection they have to be trustee, and again they already now it, once the IRS/Agency receives trust res they hold it as trustee. I hope this is helpful. John
#1130 re. below
Re: Treasury process short version - Proxy works for grantor
derrickwayne...
Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:09 pm
Noun 1. proxy - a person authorized to act for another
placeholder, procurator
agent - a representative who acts on behalf of other persons or organizations
2. proxy - a power of attorney document given by shareholders of a corporation authorizing a specific vote on their behalf at a corporate meeting
power of attorney - a legal instrument authorizing someone to act as the grantor's agent
Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2012 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.
proxy
noun representative, agent, deputy, substitute, factor, attorney, delegate, surrogate. She sent him as her proxy to board meetings.
Noun 1. grantor - a person who makes a grant in legal form; "conveyed from grantor to grantee"
alienor - someone from whom the title of property is transferred
granter - a person who grants or gives something
This grantor = proxy is speculation based on the above.
Grantor > proxy is closer. proxy works for the grantor
From: JohnTrustee john@... Re. #1058
You are in their world, a giant trust and you can only be seen as grantor, beneficiary or trustee, not as a RM...this is their world and Bill is teaching how to operate in their world and us their system for ourselves to live and prosper. The proxy=grantor, therefore it would look like "grantor and beneficiary, Joe Henry Doe for Birth Certificate trust 123-45-54321" not as RM Joe Herny Doe, you are presumed dead or lost at sea so they will not see you as a RM, they only know that your grantor, beneficiary and trustee exist. John
#1149 re. #604
RE: BC numbers are changed on BC
sportniks
Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:41 pm
Here’s a question, my certified copy of my long form BC in 1972 had numbers say 123-45-54321 and a two year old short form had the same 5 digit first numbers 123-45 but the last numbers were changed 654321, one extra. I just received a new long form in the mail and it has the same old numbers because it is an original hand written BC, with the new set of 6 numbers stamped above and to the right of the original last 5 numbers. I can speculate on this but I would like a solid answer as to what took place...any knowing as to what happened????? John
#1153 re. below
Re: IRS - why the caution?
joshuasdad100
Sat Aug 25, 2012 12:25 pm
HERE'S A PENNY'S CHANGE: WHY WOULD YOU WANT YOUR ACCOUNTANT TO BE YOUR PROXY? A fiduciary, sure, but not your proxy! Give your claim to the accountant??? It's been tried. Think Bernie Madoff. Bill
"circumnavigator2", wrote: re. #1118
Isn’t the IRS close to the largest accounting organization in the country?
Isn’t it an accountant’s task to ‘balance the books’? Isn’t a the BC
bond a security and is not a charging instrument a security? Are you not
attempting to set-off the securities one against the other? Isn’t that an
accounting task?
Just my two pence worth . . .
John
#1156 re. #1153
Re: IRS - why the caution?
peterpapoulias
Sun Aug 26, 2012 4:41 am
It's no much about the HDC and more about the EH (entitlement holder) UCC8. There are 2 types of fiction. 1st is an ens legis (legal entity, a fiction of the mind ) like a corp. 2nd is a fictional representation (like the grantor ).
The grantor is a fictional representation of the real man. Like a photo of yourself is a fictional (2dimensional) representation of you. The grantor never speaks in the public. You never say you Re the grantor. You are just ACTING in the CAPACITY of trustee. The electricity folks. The grantor communicates in the public on paper. Same thing for the beneficiary.
It is all about accounting in the public. Think electricity and you will u see the flow of energy (currency). For a circuit to be closed it must go back to ground (the private).
Here is a scenario :
You work for GM budding cars (commercial energy). But who benefits from the labor? Simple just look at the pay stub. What. Umber is always on it? The SSN which is the beneficiary of the BC. The labor is coming from the grantor. The beneficiary is getting the evidence of that labor as debt. But remember the beneficiary did not earn or create that energy so it is all income profit to the SSN. When you file a 1040 you Re font as the trustee to the BC reporting the dividends paid out to the beneficiary. That is taxable.
Our goal is to ground out the charge. Where is the ground? It's in the private.
IRS = internal REVENUE service
Revenue = revenue (French) for that which must return. The private is a venue, so is the public. So the energy goes from the private into the public. Now we must REVENUE it back to the private (ground it out). Look at the congressional record of 1942. It's all there. Since the grantor is lost at sea and the IRS only exists in the public. Where does the currency (energy) go that the IRS collects?
It goes to the entitlement holder (US Treasury). Your BC Is a certificate of indebtedness issued by the debtor to the creditor. The DTCC has you BC ledgered as a security and the US Treasury is ledgered as the entitlement holder. Go the DTCC web site and read there PDFs. One of them explains the process of ledgering securities. Guess what type of security they use as an example? Yup you guessed it YOUR BC !
The US Treasury claims parens Patriea (spelling may be off) FATHER of the estate as the bible explains the father is the executor of the child's estate.
So the BC is the debtor as it borrows from the estate to acquire title. And the borrower is always guilty and always pays.
You need to have a trust that holds the highest claim (maritime lien). So you can claim the debt and ground it out.
Look up maritime liens.
More to come later. But this should get you thinking ;)
Pete
#1157 re. #1156
Re: IRS - why the caution?
ravingraven2000
Sun Aug 26, 2012 6:30 am
What?
So now we want a Bank / Banker to HOLD our money rather than HAVE our money?
Hmmmm, have to give that one some thought.
Bankers (and their accountants) as Fiduciary, interesting concept.
( yes, that was sarcasm :) )
#1186
Usufructuary must give Security (Surety) to Owner - Reclaim Our Security
dstehling
Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:21 pm
Usufructuary must give Security (Surety) to Owner - Reclaim Our Security - pdf
My small contribution to our collective knowledgebase here...
For your review, correction, comment or amendment.
Doug
#1191 re. below
Re: TreasuryDirect Acct. - First Baby Step?
joshuasdad100
Thu Aug 30, 2012 9:44 pm
Beneficiary / depositor / authorized representative for the Grantor.
"dnadesi" wrote: re. #1022
Hi Bill,
If a Patriot that hasn't filed one iota of paperwork is considered a SM debtor, as your reply indicated below, then what would be the name given to one that has successfully traversed the maze of reclaiming their securities.
So, we want to go from SM debtor to------------->??? (please fill in the blank)
#1192 re. #1191
Re: TreasuryDirect Acct. - First Baby Step?
ladyfairfax3...
Thu Aug 30, 2012 10:37 pm
Authorized Representative for the Grantor.
I really like that one Bill! That's a new one. Mind if I append?
#1193 re. #1192
Re: TreasuryDirect Acct. - First Baby Step?
joshuasdad100
Fri Aug 31, 2012 1:30 pm
They can't see the Grantor if you claim to be same. So we represent the Grantor, a fiction. Bill
#1194 re. #1118
Re. CAUTION - CAUTION - CAUTION.....CLARIFICATION
joshuasdad100
Fri Aug 31, 2012 1:37 pm
A PROXY IS NOT THE SAME AS A FIDUCIARY. We can appoint a fiduciary for specific purposes and give notice with a Form 56, but you would never want to give a blanket POA for the agency to stand-in as your proxy. If you do, they will take your property every time. Bill
IRS WOULD NEVER BE A PROXY UNLESS YOU WISH TO GO TO PRISON. Ask yourself some simple questions:
Why would you assign your lien rights to the bookkeeper?
Why would you name the IRS as a beneficiary?
Isn't the IRS already a trustee on the SSN?
MEMBERS - THIS THREAD DEMONSTRATES THE DANGERS OF PUBLIC SPECULATION. Thousands
of miles away, some poor bastard is devoting his life to constructing a process using IRS as a proxy because he read somone else's speculations.
NOT AT THIS GROUP PLEASE. Speculation is done privately between ourselves AND OUR MAKER. That's when self-evident truth appears. I like to research, deliberate, diagram, discuss with my brain trust, reconsider, then consult with Him. Thinking out loud on blogs can be very uncivil without knowing it. When we post, it should not be speculation. Thank you for understanding. Bill
#1195 re. #1194
SPEAKING OF FORMS 56...
joshuasdad100
Fri Aug 31, 2012 1:38 pm
DO THEY WORK? You bet. They can even be used to terminate/collapse the strawman trust, not that you would necessarily want to. But if you do, their records will show it as dead - WITHOUT EVER HAVING SUBMITTED A DEATH CERTIFICATE. That, alone, is proof they understand. Bill
P.S. This is not speculation.
#1201 re. below
Re: TreasuryDirect Acct. - First Baby Step?
maharaj333
Fri Aug 31, 2012 4:06 pm
Proxy: "The PERSON who is substituted or deputed to act for another"
What is a person? What can be 'seen' and recognized in the Matrix? What did Bill say our 'status' would be, after we flip things around, right way around? : "Beneficiary / depositor / authorized representative for the Grantor."?
Words ending in "or", seem to have power. 'Grant-or', 'Settl-or', 'Creat-or', 'Deposit - or'....
I think he's pretty much said what (one of) the proxy(s) is, without coming right out and saying it.
- peacemaker –
Re: TreasuryDirect Acct. - First Baby Step? re. #1193
Paul Eggli
Friday, August 31, 2012, 3:50 PM
Bill,
In order to become the representative of the Grantor, does this entail filing any paperwork with any agency, or is this a matter of merely stating that we are the authorized representative of the grantor, and taking all actions as acting on the grantor's bequest as his representative? This IS being the PROXY, right???
Thanks in advance for your reply!
Paul
#1220 re. below
Re: TreasuryDirect Acct. - First Baby Step?
picotech9999
Sun Sep 2, 2012 11:17 am
There is no beneficiary with clean hands -- that's why a fiduciary is needed .... P
On 9/1/2012 5:00 PM, circumnavigator2 wrote: re. below
Why can't the auth rep provide notice of his/her won appointment? Who has a better record? John
Re: TreasuryDirect Acct. - First Baby Step? re. #865
G G
Sat, 1 Sep 2012 15:02:51 -0700 (PDT)
So as I see it, after you express your trust (reassigning the roles...you as grantor), you would need to draw up a POA to assign YOU (seen in public) as the representative of You (Grantor, invisible in public).
Is this totally off base?
#1221 re. #1220 3rd
Re: TreasuryDirect Acct. - First Baby Step?
claimingitback
Sun Sep 2, 2012 3:47 pm
I am under the impression that BC transfers/assigns security interest to grantor (fictional representation of real man) and grantor assigns to beneficiary for grantor (fictional representation of real man). John
#1222 re. #1221
could this be true
arthur_louis...
Sun Sep 2, 2012 4:01 pm
This was written by the so-called Judge Dale (retired)
Could this actually be true?
FORECLOSURE:
If you are involved in a FORECLOSURE or you are thinking about filing for BANKRUPTCY protection to buy you more time, instead of trying to defeat the corrupt Bank and your Creditors in a State or Federal Court, where the cards are certainly stacked against you, plan to file for BANKRUPTCY and do it this way, too insure that you come out on top!
All BANKRUPTCY FORMS are printable; can be obtained on line and they can be completed in longhand with an ink pen. The Forms to use are: B-1 through and including B-8. You only need to prepare and file the first five or six pages to obtain a Case Number and then you must sit through a Credit Counseling session, which can be done all in a day. When you are completely finished with preparing your petition, you should have filed about 58 pages in total and the filing fee is around $280.00.
Here’s the reason for using the Bankruptcy Courts:
List all your debts on one schedule and when it comes to listing your assets include your BIRTH CERTIFICATE and its CUSIP NO. The value of the Mutual Fund Investment for your Birth Certificate can also be found on line using the CUSIP Number under Fidelity Investments. You will discover that it is worth multi-millions but you must have the CUSIP NO. on your asset schedule or the Birth Certificate will be discharged as frivolous by the JUDGE or the TRUSTEE.
The Bankruptcy Judge will then appoint a LAWYER TRUSTEE to dissolve the Mutual Fund Investment; pay off your debts and the balance must be paid to you! This procedure usually attracts the attention of the (DOJ) Department of Justice because they don’t want the LAWYER TRUSTEE to screw up and short change the Vatican; the Federal Reserve and the Corporate United States and so they tend to warn or threaten the LAWYER TRUSTEE to be very careful!
Most of these Mutual Fund Investments usually involve a group of between 10 to 25 Birth Certificates and so only a fraction of that Mutual Fund belongs to you! The Bankruptcy Judge will not certify the final disposition until the LAWYER TRUSTEE can prove his math and every aspect of his work because the Judge inherits responsibility for the Trustee’s errors, if he made any!
After the first LAWYER TRUSTEE resigns, you can probably cut a deal with the DOJ or you can proceed on with the same Bankruptcy proceeding and the newly appointed LAWYER TRUSTEE! Now isn’t that easier and better than attacking or defending yourself against the Bank and a bunch of greedy Creditors; knowing full well that the cards are stacked against you because of the Vatican and the Federal Reserve System?
While you are in Bankruptcy, you are protected. No one can proceed against you for any debts or foreclosure, as long as you have a bond or sufficient assets; the Birth Certificate guarantees that aspect and while in Bankruptcy, you won’t have to pay on any of those past debts!
Your debts will eventually be discharged and the balance of the Trust Fund is to go into your pocket! It’s a WIN, WIN situation any way your shake it and the Vatican; Government and Bank loose the Trust Fund assets they planned to steal from you all along!
NOTE: There is a process to follow to determine your CUSIP NO [or] you can ask a Stock Broker friend to help you [or] hire a Broker on the side to assist you. There are people in the Patriot movement who also know how to apply the formula, which converts your Birth Registration Number and or Social Security Number into a CUSIP Number. I paid to have mine done and discovered that I am worth about 167 million. It’s all FIAT money but as long as it can be spent, who cares?
I hope that this entire expose has enlightened and elevated your personal knowledge and will benefit you now and in the future. Pax vobiscum (Peace be with you).
#1223 re. #1222
Re: could this be true
drbradb1
Mon Sep 3, 2012 6:00 am
Hi Art, if anyone has a consistent method to apply for linking the BC to a CUSIP # I am all ears. I have paid 2 agents that claim they could do it and talked to a couple of brokers with class 9 level credentials. The agents "selling"
their services were cons and the brokers said they didn't know how to check without more info. Since joshusa's dad has insider info maybe he will divulge the "secret method". Until then ask for proof. As you know, Art, I had more on the line than losing a house. I wanted to believe there was a reliable method. My guess is some will post that they "know" but for some esoteric reason I am not worthy. If that is true then they are no better than the Rothschild families in reality. imho. ha.
Brad
#1228 re. #1156
Re: IRS - why the caution?
maharaj333
Mon Sep 3, 2012 11:32 am
Peter Papoulias wrote:
"It's not so much about the HDC; more about the EH (entitlement holder) UCC8"
In going through the UCC 8, looking at entitlement holder (EH):
§ 8-102. DEFINITIONS.(7) "Entitlement holder" means a person identified in the records of a securities intermediary as the person having a security entitlement against the securities intermediary. If a person acquires a security entitlement by virtue of Section 8-501(b)(2) or (3), that person is the entitlement holder.
" If a person acquires a security entitlement by virtue of Section 8-501(b)(2) or (3), that person is the entitlement holder."
§ 8-501. SECURITIES ACCOUNT; ACQUISITION OF SECURITY ENTITLEMENT FROM SECURITIES INTERMEDIARY.
(14) "Securities intermediary" means:
(i) a clearing corporation; or
(ii) a person, including a bank or broker, that in the ordinary course of its business maintains securities accounts for others and is acting in that capacity.
(16) "Security certificate" means a certificate representing a security.
(17) "Security entitlement" means the rights and property interest of an entitlement holder with respect to a financial asset specified in Part 5.
I'm really enjoying reading the UCC - thanks Peter!
#1230 re. below
Re: could this be true
essentialer
Mon Sep 3, 2012 1:39 pm
I am interested to know if this company was one of the cons? If so, I can then avoid using them.
DATA CUSIP SYSTEMS
490 North Main Street
Woodstock, Virginia (22664)
Re: could this be true
Lewis Mohr
Monday, September 03, 2012 1:16 PM
Dear Brad: I agree. I have never encountered anyone who can explain how to get the bankers to divulge the trust account number. L -o-
#1231 re. #1230
Re: could this be true
ladyfairfax3...
Mon Sep 3, 2012 3:12 pm
I have it from good sources that 96+% of the time this outfit gives good info.
#1232 re. #1102
ESSENTIAL READING - THE ESTATE PROCESS (pt. 1)
joshuasdad100
Mon Sep 3, 2012 8:27 am
You would NOT want to simply walk away from your estate process. Rather, YOU ARE MARRIED TO IT. Here's what you need to know:
1. The Estate for which you secured a foreign EIN is NOT the Certificate of Birth estate that is the surety for the debts of the strawman. IT IS A SEPARATE ENTITY. Your "mentors" probably forgot to make that clear, or more likely, did not understand that themselves. If you secured the 98, 27 or 45 No., you now have three entities in play:
STRAWMAN DEBTOR 123-45-6789, a domestic trust, the entity that they charge with all debts they wish the estate to pay.
The COB estate, 123-45-123456, a domestic trust, the surety for the STRAWMAN. The name of this entity is as it appears on the long form: Marie Ruth White, MARIE RUTH WHITE, Marie Ruth WHITE, etc.
THE NEW ESTATE, 27-1234567, a foreign trust, Secured Party to the foregoing IF you filed your UCC-1's properly. MOST OF YOU HAVE NOT. If you created a fourth trust under a new name and registered it in the commercial registry as S/P, the UCC is still defective.
2. If you try to register the NEW ESTATE on a UCC1, it will appear to be the same party as the original estate debtor, so it needs to be done cleverly, and it's number needs to be featured prominently.
3. CRITICAL: Your Estate procedures are an impediment to any trust procedures you may be planning to secure your status or cash-out. For instance, IF YOU USED FORM 56 TO KILL THE STRAWMAN AND COLB ESTATE, there's a good chance that the agency's records will SHOW THAT THE STRAWMAN IS DEAD. This is not speculation. It might be advisable to call them to confirm. If you call them as the Strawman,
you may encounter a very disturbed agent. If you need them to perform in some way, the call should be made as the Executor. When you confirm that the strawman is dead, then perhaps you will see the power of the 56. A pronouncement of death without a death certificate. (Life insurance anyone???)
4. How will this death status impact any attempt to cash-out? This is a good question for which I don't have a definite answer. However, remember Roger Elvick's "command the memory of STRAWMAN 123-45-6789" language? Perhaps it's starting to make better sense. Just remember, SEC. IV OF THE CESTUI QUE VIE ACT
OF 1666 SAYS THAT IF THE PERSON PRONOUNCED DEAD RETURNS, HE OR HIS EXECUTOR MAY RECLAIM THE PROPERTY.
5. Here's another problem. Those of you who created a second trust to act as Secured Party have recorded it on your UCC’s as an individual. But it is not. IT'S A TRUST. A replacement for the strawman. Those filings are incorrect.
These are just some of the issues for "Estate people" to address. I would not be upset if it seems like, once again, you have to rethink and change your processes. Good lessons always come from these things, AND THERE'S NOTHING IN COMMERCE THAT CAN'T BE CORRECTED. Dead or alive, the money is still ours.
As before, I caution members about posting blanket statements without qualifying the information. Those postings, and chit chat postings, are being removed to streamline the Group for new members. Please don't be offended if one of yours disappears.
Remember, it's all about understanding. Bill
#1233 re. #1232
ESSENTIAL READING - THE ESTATE PROCESS (pt. 2)
joshuasdad100
Mon Sep 3, 2012 8:28 am
HUNDREDS OF PATRIOTS SPENT THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OVER MANY MONTHS to achieve
their Estate "status." Most of you are stalled in that process. That should be a lesson in itself.
The reason you don't know how to proceed is because you were not given the CLEAR UNDERSTANDING you need to control your commercial fate. You were strung along. You ignored your gut and believed what you wanted to hear. You were convinced that only your "mentor" had the wisdom to figure things out. You conceived of him as the hero willing to take the risks while plowing the field for you. In reality, you were treated as children and you accepted that role as you did with Tony King. After all, if you did not understand that you had created a third estate (private, COLB, NEW ESTATE), how could you possibly proceed intelligently?
THIS SITUATION SHOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THAT, WHETHER ITS THE ESTATE PROCESS OR
UNDERSTANDING SECURITIES AND TRUSTS, IT'S ALL ABOUT UNDERSTANDING. The postings
in this Group have already given you the roadmap to your remedy. MOST OF YOU DON'T SEE THAT (yet), but in time you might.
If I love my neighbor as myself, I CANNOT CONDENSE HOURS OF DISCUSSION AND RESEARCH INTO A FEW PARAGRAPHS without risking the greatest harm to my brothers. The outcome is so predictable. With inadequate understanding, we will create yet another platter of victims for the beast to consume. So my postings will continue to promote that understanding within the limitations of my own schedule, even at the risk of causing frustration."
Members should conduct themselves as His children and refrain from venting frustration, attacking others, condemning intentions or otherwise imparting negative energy to a loving undertaking. We must not act as provocateurs. Such behavior requires that membership be revoked. If we can't conduct ourselves peacefully, then how can we credibly claim to hold the Government to the same standard? THIS GROUP WILL NOT BECOME ANOTHER FORUM FOR PROVOCATEURS TO SPREAD FEAR AND HATRED AMONG THOSE WHO ARE SO EASILY TURNED FROM THE FATHER. Chronic arguers and naysayers are not welcome.
IF YOU FEEL COMPELLED TO GET IT NOW, then I will try to find you a mentor. But ethical people who really know their stuff are few. I will pray for your understanding. Bill
#1239 re. #1230
Re: could this be true
drbradb1
Tue Sep 4, 2012 5:59 am
Hi Eileen I hope you are doing well. I have not heard of this company. They were not one of my 2. But since my incarceration I suppose many more have flooded in to service those who ask for it. Since they are 96% accurate (really where did those figures come from?) then if it doesn't pan out for you then you can console yourself knowing you were the unlucky one out of 25 and the other 24 got good value. Got other things to do today (thanks father) so I may not reply til later.
Brad
#1241 re. #1239
Re: could this be true
ladyfairfax3...
Tue Sep 4, 2012 6:32 am
Hi, I apologize for not being more clear. The stat I quoted before was for Birth Certificate CUSIP searches. The service is much more accurate with court case results. CUSIP number searches aren't easily done, from all reports I have heard. Therefore, 100% accuracy would be nearly impossible, given all possible variables.
I plan on using them. Just saving up.
#1243
RE. THE CUSIP #
joshuasdad100
Wed Sep 5, 2012 10:09 pm
Sure, there are some interesting things one can do with a CUSIP # for a court case or the SSN. But consider this.......
If the Grantor claims all securities, accounts, trusts and deposits represented by, associated with, or derived from, the global designation 123-45-123456, then haven't you claimed the Case bond, the SS account, the SS bonds, and every other security? Do we really care how the derivatives are identified?
For your answer, check out 31 CFR 356.5..."When we issue additional securities with the same CUSIP number as the outstanding securities, we consider them to be the same securities as the outstanding securities." Is that a remarkable quote?
THEY'RE ALL THE SAME SECURITY. If you snare the Certif of Birth, you've snared them all. 356 governs the sale of "marketable Treasury" securities (think Certif of Birth).
The options are many once we claim the COB. The problem is that most patriots issued their claims years ago and then walked away at the first sign of resistance. That's not how you play poker with a big bluffer. Bill
#1244 Re. below
RE. THE DMV POSTINGS
swlaahkj333
Thu Sep 6, 2012 4:53 am
Hello Paul, have been watching the posts here and it seems to me that many are alluding to the matter of duality without saying so in so many words. Does not "knowing who are" including knowing the roles we may play? Is there any limitation, and if so who imposes the limitation? How may a living man be 'seen' using FRN's at the supermarket? When in Rome ... John
RE. THE DMV POSTINGS re. below
"Paul Eggli"
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:43:00 -0700
John,
I, for one, do not quite understand what you have written below. Expand please.
Paul
RE. THE DMV POSTINGS re. below
circumnavigator2
Wednesday, August 22, 2012 9:44 PM
Bill makes excellent points below regarding beneficiary and trustee. However, is not the option of the ‘messenger’ hat also available to us? Who shoots the messenger?
John (waiting for the incoming flak)
RE. THE DMV POSTINGS re. below
Paul Eggli
Thursday, 23 August 2012 10:44 AM
David,
You are mixing up an awful lot of things here.
The paperwork filed with the DOT that Bill was referring to had nothing to do with driving your auto or being a remedy for a court appearance. This forum is for those seeking an education and guidance on reclaiming our security interests that various government agencies and companies have claimed for their own use to our detriment. Bill will not specify for anybody how they should fill out any papers, because he feels that if he did so, then they would not have an understanding of how to defend that paperwork when they get tested and challenged.
This forum will not assist you in your search for your "living status".
Best to you!
Paul
RE. THE DMV POSTINGS re. #1113
David VanDerryt
Wednesday, August 22, 2012 5:27 PM
Bill,
Pardon my ignorance. I want to try to clear a few things up and I am not real sure how to ask the right questions yet.
Then what you are saying; confirms what I was thinking, when I took my actions. I appeared to the DOT as a real man and they excepted that. As a matter of fact they signed an affidavit to the fact. So, I can still have a DL but, when it comes to a battle in court; I also have a better leg to stand on since the ticket will be signed David Wayne without prejudice and they had better have a good reason to drag me in.
You said: "Once in a while someone gets it right and files a UCC with the estate listed as both debtor and creditor, with a slight difference in HOW they are listed. None of this matters if the creditor Estate has no credentials to act, unless you wish to go direct to cashing out." Can you expand on this for me. Are you talking about a UCC-1? I believe I have a file on that topic somewhere. I think there is a YouTube video on it too.
I get leery when I think about going into UCC law and paperwork because; I feel like once you start filling out UCC forms it is like getting a DL and you are stuck. I know that is probably not true and there are some forms that will help but, right now I am not ready to proceed unless; it will really help me in my search for my living status.
Thanks for the insight (and thanks everyone for the comments and such for my dad. I thought everyone knew I had been going through this)
I am everything if not an anything
DVD
#1246 re. #1243
Re: RE. THE CUSIP #
dang_78...
Thu Sep 6, 2012 8:31 am
Bill,
This makes a lot of sense. Claim the original security (the COB) and we have the power. Any hints where one can study up on how to do this ?
Thanks again for your honest insights. :)
#1249 re. #217
Re: Funds in treasury come from a conversion, NOT liens upon estates.
maharaj333
Thu Sep 6, 2012 3:54 pm
I just want to clarify this, what was stated in the 3rd paragraph:
"YOU ARE SO RIGHT ABOUT NOT LIENING OUR BROTHER. But UCC 9-311(a)(3) makes it clear that the holder of a certificate enjoys the presumption of a perfected lien. The BC is the evidence of our lien against the strawman. It exists whether we claim it or not. It was born by our actions. The BC treasury process just makes the lien digestible in the public."
Are you saying, as per UCC 9-311(a)(3) : If the security certificate is in registered form and is delivered to the secured party pursuant to agreement, a written security agreement is not required for attachment or enforceability of the security interest. Mere delivery suffices for perfection, even if a necessary indorsement is lacking?
I kind of glossed over this before. We already have priority security interest, but because, we haven't expressed that interest in the fiction public, using our proxy/pawns, we cannot be 'seen'?
#1255 re. #1246
Re: RE. THE CUSIP #
joshuasdad100
Sat Sep 8, 2012 5:05 pm
Two ways. One is various banking manuals, books on trust estate and tax law, admiralty, equity, read Title 31 CFR, and so forth. It's easier if you have a mentor who knows what he's doing. I know, they're few and far between, and the waters are filled with sharks. One of the reasons I started this group was to bring them out of the woodwork. A very few have appeared. When someone asks, I try to hook them up if I can. Let me know if you want me to ask around. Bill.
#1258 re. below
Re: redressright at youtube
maharaj333
Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:16 pm
See the PDF entitled 'BC Scam' - in the files section - Bill goes into what the 'beneficial owner' is. It may be an oxymoron, along the lines of 'sovereign citizen'.....
- peacemaker -
redressright at youtube
John
Monday, September 10, 2012, 11:48 AM
Well I think the W8-BEN that redressright talks about is worth looking at again. Unfortunately I have never been able to tolerate his presentation, but what can I do? The only thing I can do is to ask this group, and hopefully Bill in particular, for a heads-up as to whether this avenue is worth pursuing. If so, I'll slog through it and provide a transcript (without the chuckling over his own jokes all the way through.)
IRS instructions for it includes: "Beneficial owner. For payments other than those for which a reduced rate of withholding is claimed under an income tax treaty, the beneficial owner of income is generally the person who is required under U.S. tax principles to include the income in gross income on a tax return. A person is not a beneficial owner of income, however, to the extent that person is receiving the income as a nominee, agent, or custodian, or to the extent the person is a conduit whose participation in a transaction is disregarded. In the case of amounts paid that do not constitute income, beneficial ownership is determined as if the payment were income.
Foreign partnerships, foreign simple trusts, and foreign grantor trusts are not the beneficial owners of income paid to the partnership or trust. The beneficial owners of income paid to a foreign partnership are generally the partners in the partnership, provided that the partner is not itself a partnership, foreign simple or grantor trust, nominee or other agent. The beneficial owners of income paid to a foreign simple trust (that is, a foreign trust that is described in section 651(a)) are generally the beneficiaries of the trust, if the beneficiary is not a foreign partnership, foreign simple or grantor trust, nominee or other agent." [Last sentence highlighted]
Is this heading in the right direction? I form a simple foreign trust with the trust being a foreign person, and myself as the beneficial owner?
#1266 re. below
Re: Seeking primary docs for this site to get started in the process
joshuasdad100
Thu Sep 13, 2012 11:53 am
Hi Ken,
The docs aren't successful. The knowledge is. I spent the week with a bunch of bankers, and believe me, it wasn't the docs that got their attention and held their ears. And the docs won't protect you after you send them into a court and they haul you in to test who you are. Or if you go for a proper banker's acceptance, or distribution or redemption. The docs won't do squat for you or anyone else. Thousands of patriots have claims against their respective strawmen and haven't done anything with it, because they lacked even the remotest comprehension of what they had really achieved. This forum is less than two months old, but it has produced gold in many of the postings for those who are inclined to pursue the information in them. Bill.
Seeking primary docs for this site to get started in the process
Ken Norbury
Wednesday, September 12, 2012 5:10 AM
I am having problems understanding the process mentioned on this group site. Can anyone lead me to the principal docs that have been proven to work that are referred to in the home page statement for this group? I want to review what others have done successfully, with the goal to execute my own process.
thanks
Ken
#1267 re. below
Re: redressright at youtube
joshuasdad100
Thu Sep 13, 2012 11:56 am
Roy, you're correct...you wish to be outside and lose the advantages. But if you wish to enjoy the advantages of the beneficiary who can enforce the trust indenture, then a BEN could be helpful. Both are entirely unnecessary from the commercial perspective. Bill
Re: redressright at youtube re. #1258
Roy Lewis
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 1:47 AM
I am new here but this is the first time I have seen discussion of the W-8BEN on this forum. I don't think this is the form to be using. The form you need is the W-8 which is not available on the IRS web site. The W-8 removes you from their jurisdiction while the W-8BEN puts you squarely in it. Think that might be why they want to hide it? I don't know if you can request (and get) the W-8 from IRS but it would be worth a try.
#1268 re. #146
Re: TOPIC: COURT, SECURITIES, CASE BOND & TRUSTS --THE INSIDE STORY
collinclevenger
Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:21 pm
When you file a counterclaim in court does this make the other party(corporation) the trustee with an obligation to perform?
My husband and I were presented with a summons and a foreclosure complaint against us. We had already completed an Administrative Process with the bank through a Notary Witness. We have Certificates of Dishonor that we filed back into their public system via UCC1 filing to give notice of our security interest
in both the note and mortgage. The security agreement was made by tacit agreement or implied in fact contract with the bank and we outlined all of our interests based on UCC 3-305, 3-306, article 8.
In response to the summons/foreclosure complaint, we sent a letter/affidavit of interest presenting our registered interest in the securities and presented our UCC1 -registered claim against the party listed on the default notice they included in the lawsuit(which by the way- was a different party than the party bringing the foreclosure.) I don't think they thought we would notice.- Then we presented our counterclaim -the agreed upon(registered lien) value due to us on our securities. Since this bank has brought suit and presented themselves as the "holder" of the securities we put in our Counterclaim that they be made liable to pay the value of our registered claim. There is so much more to all of this- but I think I am hitting some of the high points.
We do not think they will respond(mainly because we believe the Lord showed us this in his Word and everything He has shown us about this process has come to pass thus far).
As a creative idea- I wonder if we could motion for Default Judgment and put in an ENTITLEMENT Order with the court. If the court is a depository institution- would that make them like a Securities Intermediary? Since we are the makers of the security we are the secured party with an Securities Entitlement under UCC
8-102- which makes us Entitlement Holders- which qualifies us to issue and Entitlement Order under UCC 8-102(8) which give us Entitlement to Enforce as the Appropriate person...
The Securities Intermediary have duties and obligations as outlined in UCC 8-507 to the Secured Party/Entitlement Holder.
I may be missing some things- but can anyone find any nuggets in this?
Thanks so much!
Kimbra
#1270 re. #1268
Re: TOPIC: COURT, SECURITIES, CASE BOND & TRUSTS --THE INSIDE STORY
gbolt24856
Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:48 pm
How does this apply to a party filing a civil suit against a corp. defendant or does it? IF it does is the security interest the amount being sued for? Thnx
#1290
STEP 1
ravingraven2000
Sat Sep 15, 2012 2:26 am
Hi All,
I pitched this a while back, and although it didn't really go anywhere, I will do so again. For those that are in this group to figure out the steps / elements required to get remedy, maybe we could start a thread for the expressed purpose of figuring out and developing the steps.
For those that have gone through the posts and/or studied this long enough, we have all figured out that "they" cannot see (nor give a shit about) living men/women. There are a million or two examples of that. IT IS A COMMERCIAL WORLD, RUN BY SECURITY INTERESTS. That is Babylon folks.
So, step one - we need a proxy. Not someone we hire, not someone who is me representing myself as the agent for my proxy agent for me (or other speculative nonsense)... but a proxy which represents our interest that "they" can see.
Birth Registration anyone????
It is in the commercial world, as they can see it, they have given it recognition (by seal). It represents "something" or the wouldn't have bothered creating and registering it.
Does it have any value? Who's value is it? Who is holding it? What does it mean? Who can go and get a copy (in Ontario, mom, baby and court) How may parties to a trust again? hmmmmm
So if it all starts with knowledge, lets focus on what that first doc is, and what it means and what we could / should do about / with it.
If you go back through the list of posts I posted earlier regarding proxy 1, run it through your mind and spirit, see what comes back.
#1299 re. below
Re: APPOINTMENT
picotech9999
Tue Sep 18, 2012 2:57 pm
Very Interesting
P
On 9/15/2012 4:51 PM, ted wrote:
he may not do it on his own, but by the power of appointment act you can sign for him by accommodation......
#1300 re. #1299 2nd
Re: APPOINTMENT As Securities Future
picotech9999
Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:00 pm
Warrants are securities aren’t they? ;) P
#1301 re. #1300
Re: APPOINTMENT As Securities Future
ladyfairfax3...
Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:01 pm
Warrants are checks.
#1302 re. #1301
Re: APPOINTMENT As Securities Future
yashuafreind
Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:56 pm
and its the sheriffs job to deposit them
#1304
securities
locomotivate
Wed Sep 19, 2012 5:44 am
To the system, anything that is issued with the debtors name on it, is a security. To you it is a charge depending on which side you are on. A charge becomes a security on the other side. The BC bond is the original security they draw from. Everything originates from there. It is all in bankruptcy. Money is a grand illusion. God owns it all through the grand trust of the Vatican. It all goes back there. You must hold their feet to the fire or they will hold yours to it. Statutes and acts are commercial offers to persons, nothing else, they get you to be the surety for it.
What is a person? A fiction.
Persons = debtors, slaves.
People = creditor, but they turn it around, and we willingly or otherwise contract with them.
You can only interact with the fiction through the person or a proxy, you cannot do it any other way. You are either the SLAVE or the king.
The court, government, corporation, etc. makes you the trustee for the debt, charge, or any other paper, by attorning (turning over) you, by pro-se-cuting you, by your consent. They flip the triangle in court so you become the trustee and are on the hook for the so-called charge. It's all a game, learn how to play it....enforce their rules!
You are presumed to be a corporation, unless you re-butt the presumption. The judge is a trustee.
Watch Dean Clifford and Santos Bonacci on youtube. They do not have the answer though, but can give you a good understanding on what is really going on. Uncle Joshua's Dad already gave you the answer here. You just have to put it all together. We cannot tell you outright, read the bible, the new testament. 1933 was actually your redemption, those with eyes to see and ears to hear will know this.....
You have always given the person the res, or the value.
Time to reclaim the person.
The only way though is through the processes described herein. Through becoming the Grantor and then the beneficiary.
Watch the wizard of OZ, still the best description of the process.
What did the Lion want?
What did the scarecrow want?
What did the tin man want?
What IS the wash up and brush up corp?
The movie the Matrix is also a grand description of what is going on.....
Come out of her my people.
He who hates surety is sure.
God is not a respecter of persons.
#1307 re. #re. below
Re: STEP 1
duquelong
Wed Sep 19, 2012 8:50 am
I found testator, donor, administrator, beneficiary, survivor IRS cases of estate and trusts.
State law has long recognized that such words as ‘wish’ and ‘desire’ evidence the intention of a testator to dispose of property and may be given mandatory construction.
usually executor in a will
usually adminstrator appointed by the court (the court? tax court / bankrupty court?)
I Duque Long testate/wish that personal representative Duque long EIN XXXXXXXXX be recognized by the Bankruptcy Court/Treasury/IRS as adminstrator for the Taxpayer DUQUE LONG.
Re: STEP 1 re. #?
ravingraven2000
Wednesday, September 19, 2012 11:01 AM
Hi Ted,
Man's brain is designed to fill in blanks all the time, and trained by "THEY" via public fool system programming, TV programming, radio programming, etc. to make sure it fills in the blanks as THEY want them filled in.
I think if someone took the time to read through all the links I posted earlier regarding Proxy no. 1, with an open heart and mind - set NOT to jump to any conclusion but rather to see it for what it is, the answer would be clear.
"... but a proxy which represents our interest that "they" can see."
#1312 re. #1304
Re: securities
maharaj333
Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:28 pm
I would say this - "neither lender (creditor), nor a borrower (debtor), be" -Shakespear.
That old paradigm, of creditor/debtor, needs to be laid to rest. This is about security interests, and who has the highest entitlement - would that be the beneficiary?
- peacemaker -
#1328 re. below
Re: STEP 1
duquelong
Thu Sep 20, 2012 2:12 am
The one with the power to appoint by the powers of appointment act of 1951 and/or state law which in my case is the principal?
I always wondered why the high school has a principal...
ravingraven2000 ravenmailme@... re. #1307
Cool.
So, specifially - who is I?
#1329 re. #1307
Re: STEP 1
duquelong
Thu Sep 20, 2012 2:35 am
For clarity EIN here is Employer Identification number not exemption identification number.
The I may be the one with power from Uniform Trust Code. Still researching I am.
#1346
you can....
locomotivate
Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:22 am
....endorse it all you want....but you have to give them a mandate! or they cannot act.....
I know this from personal experience......I endorsed, but did not give them a mandate to carry it out.
Like we have said here......3 things are needed.
If one is shown to be living, would the State then take over as the "proxy" because the "financial asset" would be "indorsed" over the State as "securities intermediary" and now NAME is the "appropriate person" to issue order and commands to the "securities intermediary" who would then "service the account"?
It is my understanding that you have to grant to become the beneficiary, like Bill has said. Yes endorse, but not for general deposit......for.....special deposit....look that one up.
and......I would say also that a security agreement is needed. That is what I am missing. Well not missing, I have most of it, but want to make sure that I have everything needed.....if you have those three components you are good to go.
Is there a security agreement you could release for study purposes Bill? Would be greatly appreciated!
Hope this helps....please correct me if I am wrong.
Of the sovereign sentient
#1353
GSA FORMS - OPTIONAL FORMs 90 and 91 - A QUESTION FOR BILL
thebradleys2012
Sun Sep 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Hi Bill, We're trying to complete a set of GSA forms and have so many questions after the Tony King confusion and being abandoned by a so-called mentor. I really can't say we understand what we're doing or what the forms are supposed to do. We got hung up at a study group meeting on the 90 and 91. NO ONE what they mean at the top and what the contract is or anything. I can tell because they're sounding like patriots repeating what they've heard with the same conviction my son has when he gets in trouble and tries to weasel out (like every other day).
If you have a moment, would you be able to explain this? We presume you've been busy as you haven't posted lately and the void has been filled mostly by well-intentioned nonsense.
Thanks very much. Gratefully,
Sheila
#1354 re. #1353
Re: GSA FORMS - OPTIONAL FORMs 90 and 91 - A QUESTION FOR BILL
nohgdds...
Sun Sep 23, 2012 3:41 pm
I will echo the request for clarification on the GSA forms. I am pretty happy with how I completed mine but I mailed them to the Clerk of Court at the US District Court where my criminal tax case is. Instead of processing them they put them in the file! Oddly enough, although they are present and visible in the hard copy file with the court, they are blacked out of Pacer and are not downloadable or readable. I suspect the Clerk was the wrong place to have sent the forms...but I am at a loss to know of anyone better. Any suggestions out there?? Thanks!
#1355 re. #1353 & #1554
TOPIC: GSA FORMS NO. 1
joshuasdad100
Sun Sep 23, 2012 4:51 pm
HI SHEILA AND ROY - THIS IS A HUGE TOPIC SO LET'S SEE WHAT WE CAN WHITTLE AWAY.
First of all, the GSA forms were designed to work, and they WILL work (and here's the qualifier no one wants to hear).... WHEN USED BY SOMEONE WHO UNDERSTANDS SECURITIES AND TRUSTS. With that understanding they're an open book like most procedures.
For example, in an earlier posting do you remember when I said that THE ESTATE IS THE SURETY FOR THE DEBTS THAT ARE CHARGED TO THE STRAWMAN. I noted that the strawman is nothing but a debt entity; a creation to transmit debt to a creditor, owner or surety. Perhaps you recall a lengthy posting in which I
explained how they CHARGE THE STRAWMAN to entice the Estate to pay, which is why Roger Elvick used the language: "and charge the same to account JOHN HENRY DOE 123-45-6789."
In a file I posted for the Group, I explained that your estate is your inheritance from the Father and reviewed how the recording of the birth record as a certificate by the County registrar creates a mirror-image PUBLIC ESTATE which is derived from the presumption that since you were born on this land, you're a member of the posterity and therefore a surety for the debts of the United States - specifically that portion attributed to your strawman.
Therefore, YOUR CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH REPRESENTS YOUR PUBLIC ESTATE, the surety for the strawman. The birth number is the number that represents that the surety.
Some members recognized the value of that information and chose to pray and analyze it for significance. Others elected to huff and puff in typical patriot fashion about the glass being half full. What those lost souls fail to realize is that their negative energy has blocked them from seeing the remedy that's ALREADY in their hands. Here's an example...
The GSA forms are nothing more than bonds with which you buy out the lien which has been placed on your property. In a criminal case, the case bond which they issued (against your credit) from the case account which was opened to receive the Indictment security as a deposit, represents that lien.
Let's complete the very first sentence on the 90 and 91 in light of the Estate's role as underwriter:
"Whereas JOHN HENRY DOE, of CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH NO. 145-68-123456, by a bond for the performance of U.S. Government Contract Number 123-45-6789 became a surety for the complete and successful performance of said contract, which bond includes a lien upon certain real property further described hereafter, and"
Fancy language, but easily understood when you examine it under the looking glass of your knowledge. Notice the language: "by a bond for the performance of U.S. Government Contract Number 123-45-6789..."
Ring a bell? THIS IS THE SMOKING GUN EVERYONE'S BEEN LOOKING FOR - RIGHT UNDER THEIR NOSE.
Here's how it translates:
"Whereas the Public Estate (the COB trust), represented by CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH NO. 145-68-123456, BECAME A SURETY for the debts attributed to the Strawman Social Security trust account "contract" due to issuance of a bond by the Department of the Treasury (the birth bond exchanged for currency) which ensures
the strawman's performance on its debts..."
Right there, in the first sentence, they're telling you exactly what I told you months ago, namely that THE ESTATE IS THE SURETY FOR ALL OF THE DEBTS ATTRIBUTED TO THE STRAWMAN. Is that not a revelation of sorts?
With this knowledge, suddenly forms 90 an 91 are no longer a mystery, but they offer a road map into what actually happens to your birth bond...The forms go on to say:
"which bond includes a lien upon certain real property further described hereafter,"
Translation: the birth bond is considered to be a lien on all of the securities issued on behalf of the Estate, such as the Court's case bond. In the very next sentence it says:
"and Whereas said surety established the said lien upon the following property" at which point you list the case number as the property. What this tells you is that THE SURETY, namely the party you listed above, JOHN HENRY DOE, THE ESTATE, is a surety for the Case bond that they issued in the Estate's name to charge the strawman.
And what you're doing with the GSA bonds is buying that lien out, classic admiralty, you're functioning as a creditor who is posting bond so that the property, the case bond, AND YOUR BODY AS COLLATERAL, can be released.
First you release the lien with the 90.
Then you release the property, the case bond, with the 91.
They HAVE to release the collateral.
That's all I have time for right now, but I KID YOU NOT, IT'S ALL ABOUT UNDERSTANDING. As I've been saying from the beginning, if you develop your understanding, if you understand Articles 8 and 9 of the UCC, you can figure most anything out. Bill
P.S. My apologies to whiners everywhere. We have all been bred to be lazy thinkers.
PPS. Roy, there are probably dozens of reasons why your GSA's failed, beginning with the Clerk. The Clerk is NOT the Court. The JUDGE TRUST is the court. The Clerk only knows to file. Did you put them through the court of record? Did you include a trust, an appointment confirmation, a POA and such? There is so much
more than throwing darts at the wall, and it all comes down to understanding.
#1356 re. below
TOPIC: FAULTY PREMISES
joshuasdad100
Sun Sep 23, 2012 5:00 pm
LEWIS, YES THE SYSTEM REPRESENTS LUCIFER'S COMMERCE, but your other presumptions are faulty, with all due respect. THE REASON THEY DON'T "FOLLOW THE RULES" as you put it is that they are presuming themselves to be the beneficiary of the constructive trusts they create in your name in equity. The Constitution, statutes, codes, regs and case law comprise the public trust indenture governing those trusts, and guess what, that Indenture ONLY applies to the Trustees, the U.S. persons they created in our names. ONCE YOU RECLAIM YOUR STATUS AND SECURITIES - once you
RETURN TO COMPETENCY -
THEY revert to the role of Trustee regarding every one of your securities they accepted for deposit.
You want them to follow the rules instead of you? Then you need to take the time to become competent (reclaim your securities) so that YOU make the rules, not them, on behalf of the Beneficiary, which is also you. Hope that clarifies things. Bill
Lewis Mohr lewismohr@... wrote: re. #1304
All true. However, when the attorneys and the judges of the slave plantation trust do not follow the rules and send out thugs with guns, you going to be just as dead no matter how correct is your claim and discharge. Get me a reliable method of determining the actual CUSIP number of the birth certificate and I will run one more rat through the bankruptcy court and discharge a student loan and cash in the BC security and ask for change back. That is the only proof any one ever needs that the commercial process is valid. Moving around debt is easy. But one must be in control of a larger amount of debt.
You all must understand that the system is run by spawn of Satan who do not care about law. If no one can tell me how to get to the registered security number of the birth certificate then this commercial process is all nonsense. It is kind of like owning a thousand tons of molybdenum mining talings in Colorado with a known 20 ounces of gold per ton, but no one has the chemistry to get out the gold. All the talk about how one thinks it should be done is Mary Jane smoke filled coffee shop air bull shit. L -o-
#1357 re. #1355
Re: TOPIC: GSA FORMS NO. 1
nohgdds...
Sun Sep 23, 2012 5:50 pm
Hi Bill
Thanks for the detailed reply. I think I understand the points you were trying to make...you're a pretty good teacher.
In answer to your questions at the end of the email, let me see if I can address those.
Yes, I sent them to the Clerk of Court, not the Judge Trust. Didn't know the latter existed.
As far as putting them in a court of record, hmmm, I thought USDC was a court of record. But I am guessing from your question that my answer must be "no" as I didn't specifically invoke a court of record when I sent in the bonds.
Did I include a trust, appointment confirmation, POA and such? No on all counts. I simply didn't know that needed to be part of the process to get remedy. HOWEVER, I am eager and willing to learn. I feel like I am "this close" (hold thumb and index finger 1mm apart) and that I just need the final pieces of the puzzle to end my and my family's nightmare. Anyone out there who can point me in the right direction?? Thanks!
--Roy
#1358 re. #1357
Re: TOPIC: GSA FORMS NO. 1
ncontract
Sun Sep 23, 2012 7:23 pm
Thank you for this Post, could you tell me what is a trust, appointment confirmation, POA ?
Thanks
Cyril
#1359 re. #1358
Re: TOPIC: GSA FORMS NO. 1
nohgdds...
Sun Sep 23, 2012 7:36 pm
Hi Cyril
This taking a total stab at it, but here's my best guess:
Trust: as living men, we have to work through a trust to be "seen"
Appointment confirmation: this might have something to do with Form 56 as one must appoint a fiduciary to carry out the purpose of the trust for the benefit of the beneficiary(ies)
POA: pretty sure on this one, power of attorney
Beyond that, I am lost as to how it all fits together. Anyone who wants to take a better shot at this than I did, please have at it!
--Roy
#1361 re. below
Re: TOPIC: GSA FORMS NO. 1
miras12348
Sun Sep 23, 2012 8:23
Since I do not know about gsa forms what is gsa and I am interested in learning about it
May God be your guide.
Re: TOPIC: GSA FORMS NO. 1 re. #1358
Jeremy Miles
Sunday, September 23, 2012 8:19 PM
What do you rely on to be your authority to use these forms? So much rehash of this old crap [GSA forms etc.].
#1364 re. #1361 2nd
Re: TOPIC: GSA FORMS NO. 1
joshuasdad100
Mon Sep 24, 2012 2:59 pm
IT'S CRAP ONLY IF YOU LACK UNDERSTANDING. IF I WERE TO TRY TO DO SURGERY ON
SOMEONE, it would surely be viewed as butchery by the family of the deceased and everyone who followed, except for qualified surgeons who understand the process WHEN DONE CORRECTLY. My work would have nothing to do with their highly skilled undertakings. The GSA forms are crap because no one taught you the correct way to wield the scalpel: what they mean, how to complete them, how to support them, how to process them so they're "proved," and how to let the recipient know the consequences of stealing your property. It's like trying to build a building after a lobotomy. You didn't stand a chance. How could they have worked?
When a public official terminates your "interest" in property, he creates a taxable termination (26 USC 2612) for which HE is liable. Read 26 USC 2203 - it's shocking. The debt IS collectable, AND enforceable, AND saleable, for the surgeons among us.
As to the authority, what gives you the authority to sign a bank check? The authority is reflected by the BC (the Estate). The first sentence of the 90 and 91 tell you the capacity of the Estate as surety. The SF 28 is a dissertation on the BC surety and the SS debtor. Every time they "charge" the strawman they are telling you they want the Estate to act as surety. We're not speculating. We're giving them exactly what they want. Once you understand who you are, you realize that ONLY you can order the release of the lien and collateral. Aren't
you the only one who can assess the strawman a tax?
For those among us who are not surgeons, may I respectfully suggest that we open our ears, refrain from speaking our every thought, and pray for the beginner's mind. WHEN WE OPEN OUR MIND AND OUR HEART, the Father is known to deliver miracles. Bill
#1366 re. #1356
Re: FAULTY PREMISES/JT McBride
fires1up
Mon Sep 24, 2012 3:56 pm
Bill, Post Master General JT McBride did an interview recently, in which he stated that diplomatic ID's are available from the Divine Province, and that these are proven to 'work'. He said they are available 'now'.
Also, access will be given to the Court of Chancery, operating above the Roman Curia.
He mentioned an IRS remedy, and working with people at the highest level in banking to launch the Post Office bank.
He has a country code and has been accepted by the UN.
Lastly, an international drivers permit is available, as is a certificate of title to your, or should I say 'the', property.
Question: what is it about what JT is doing that it will reduce a man to complete self-reliance? I believe that's what you had indicated. Is it possible he has it covered?
curious johneye..........
#1368 re. #1366
Re: FAULTY PREMISES/JT McBride
joshuasdad100
Mon Sep 24, 2012 4:29 pm
Last I heard, Jim was in prison. In the past, he was relying on private administrative process, and that's like bringing Acts of the King of Gaul into Rome and expecting things to go smoothly when a Centurion stops you. He might have more recent developments. In the right hands, anything can work of course, because it's not the paperwork, but the man standing before Pontius Pilate that makes him want to get you out of "his" Court. When that man is present, Pilates understands that he is standing before that man and not the other way around. Bill
#1369 re. #1368
Re: FAULTY PREMISES/JT McBride - LET ME ADD...
joshuasdad100
Mon Sep 24, 2012 4:39 pm
LET ME ADD that Jim is a bright guy, and courageous. Make sure to be specific in your questions as to field effectiveness, what is likely to transpire, and the parameters of how often it's been put through the test, and where.
#1370 re. #1364
Re: TOPIC: GSA FORMS NO. 1
hammond_ted
Mon Sep 24, 2012 4:53 pm
Good stuff Bill, however I was under the impression that the Executor was out of the equation as Proxy ? or was it just the way that Clarence was using it? Also is there any validity in USC title 31, 3113.?
Thank you
#1371 re. #1359
RE: TOPIC: GSA FORMS NO. 1
swlaahkj333
Mon Sep 24, 2012 4:59 pm
Good people,
In my view the living man should have nothing to do with forms. Only the proxy, Mr George Smith or the dead trustee SMITH, George for the GEORGE SMITH trust would be involved with forms of any kind.
In my view the public trustee SMITH, George was created for a number of reasons one of which is so we would not be caught out charging one another since it’s a fiction it’s not happening . . .
The living-breathing soul of the man known as George of the kindred Smith acts only on the private side, like the back of a cheque (BOE) for endorsement or by private and confidential correspondence to the Judge in chambers never for the purpose of public filing.
The public filing is the venue of the messenger (or proxy) Mr George Smith or the debtor strawman (public trustee) SMITH, George or the public trust GEORGE SMITH.
Knowing who we are is not just the simple recognition of blood and flesh and spirit, it is knowing the parts the actors have been allocated on the stage as Shakespeare reminds us in “As you like it” and to ensure we do not get the parts mixed up, that is the real competency by which we shall be judged in this world, in my view.
John
#1372 re. #1371
Re: TOPIC: GSA FORMS NO. 1
ladyfairfax3...
Mon Sep 24, 2012 5:54 pm
I happen to completely agree with circumnavigator2. They can't acknowledge the living man. Why bother muddying up the business. Just take the living man into a hidden capacity as related to the PUBLIC. The STRAWMAN/SSN# is incorporator/grantor of one or more Proxy Entity(ies) who is the TRUSTEE for the TRUST(s) or ESTATE(s) that is ultimately controlled (but not owned)by the living man.
This is my humble contribution to the conversation.
#1376
Coin and currency
europeaneagle90
Tue Sep 25, 2012 1:43 pm
Can someone give me the law and codes that shows that they cannot ask for a specific coin or currency? Thanks in advance.
#1389 re. #1371
TOPIC: CLARIFYING THE PARTIES.
joshuasdad100
Wed Sep 26, 2012 3:27 pm
I APPRECIATE WHERE JOHN IS TRYING TO GO HERE, let me assist in simplifying and clarifying.
The public trust has established two entities in your place:
First entity: the Estate, the trust account(s) operating under the birth designation 123-45-98764. That number represents all the accounts, trusts, deposits and securities associated with or derived from the original deposit at
the County. The Estate is the surety for the strawman, paying all of the liabilities charged to it through the strawman. That account is also represented by the name on the long form Certif of Birth be it Joh Henry Doe,
JOHN HENRY DOE or John Henry DOE.
Second entity: the Social Security trust account represented by the number 123-45-6789. That number, and the name JOHN HENRY DOE, represent that trust and all accounts, securities and deposits associated with or derived from it.
The number is always a more accurate identifier than the name, so don't get lost in all of the other diversions patriots love to debate. It's all irrelevant. Bill
#1390 re. #1376
Re: Coin and currency
joshuasdad100
Wed Sep 26, 2012 3:42 pm
Paul:
31 CFR 103.11 defines a monetary instrument.
UCC 3-104 defines a negotiable instrument.
When someone declines either, then their rights of recourse are discharged, meaning the debt is paid. And that is handily explained in UCC 3-311, 3-603(b) and 3-604(a)(i). "It's paid, counselor."
UCC 10101 - 107 provide for the supremacy of the UCC. However, they are likely to overrule in Court, which is why you need to restore the proper roles of Trustee and Beneficiary so that THEY now have to obey the public Indenture (the codes, statues and regs). Bill
#1391 re. below
Re: I would agree with John........
fdmfghr
Wed Sep 26, 2012 4:18 pm
Am aware of the stepwise regression process mentioned here...my point without going into a lot of detail is that lower level officials were sent items 3Xs, with no response. Final 'appeal' step is the finance ministry, the 'head' honcho of both finance and IMF rep from area.
Not quite 3 steps yet re a 'charge' emanating from Bank of Canada but is in progress. In meantime, advised they have NOT done due process as on submission made to them from other party involved, a commercial who is threatening further results due to pending internal audit, etc.
We must not jump to conclusions about what was or was done when someone skips the details as I did deliberately because the discussion till email below was NOT about steps to follow, but simply about official doing their proper jobs....or so I interpreted.
RE: I would agree with John........ re. below
circumnavigator2
Tuesday, September 25, 2012 6:13:33 PM
Does not a creditor (as-king) step in to settle matters by asking the appropriate questions to have others come to an agreement? (Mat.17:25)
Does not acceptance of your remittance constitute a binding agreement (contract)?
Is it not our responsibility to “ask, and it shall be given, seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened”?
With regard to placing a lien on a public official, have you ticked off on all the steps required for due process of law? (Mat.18:15-20) [Google ‘due process’] Are you rushing the matter to judgment? What right do you have for a lien unless the party is in default? Is not a default judgment and orders of the court required? Is not the debtor given grace to settle the matter after orders are given and only on a contempt of the court orders is execution enforced? Does not the king have his own court of record in which matters are tried?
I’m reminded of the Queen of Heartd in Alice in Wonderland who says repeatedly “off with their heads.” Alice's final triumph occurs when she outgrows nonsense. In response to the Queen's cry at the Knave's trial: "sentence first, verdict afterward," Alice responds: "Stuff and nonsense! Who cares for you? You're nothing but a pack of cards!"
Taken from Blackstone’s commentaries on the Laws of England: “The most natural and perspicuous way of considering the subject before us, will be (I apprehend) to pursue it is the order and method wherein the proceedings themselves follow each other; rather than to distract and subdivide it by any more logical analysis. The general therefore and orderly parts of a suit are these; 1. The original writ: 2. The process: 3. The pleadings: 4. The issue or demurrer: 5. The trial: 6. The judgment, and its incidents: 7. The proceedings in nature of appeals: 8. The execution.”
In my view the lien sits between the proceedings in nature of appeals [notice to show cause why default judgment should not be entered] and the execution which I believe is the taking of the property for liquidation. I believe you need a verdict first before the sentencing of the lien or worse . . .
john
would agree with John........
You would be?? Even if they were to have performed something belonging to their official domain but not carried out or done, as independently confirmable by other means?
Yes, I too will accept lack of response if there is alternate evidence to show that the submitted items were appropriately attended to as per their official duties.
But this is not the case so far with the alleged "debts' remaining outstanding.
Unless I misread something, I interpreted locomotivate's comments to be about encouraging such official to do their jobs as asked for upon reasonable requests being sent to them.
Re: I would agree with John........ re. below
eponymous_680
Tuesday, September 25, 2012 5:02:50 PM
I would certainly be worried if the Office, of the Governor General, or the Office of the Minister of Finance responded to me.....it would be like raising Lazarus from the dead - - - - - - - -
- peacemaker -
Re: I would agree with John........ re. below
Iris Clarity
Tuesday, September 25, 2012, 3:57 PM
Believe this is quite so hypothetically....BUT I have some items now in to various Canuckistan ones, including the Finance minister, the 'head' of the central Bank of Canada and even Gov. Gen. and they are mostly not replying....at least not yet after two months!
It took forever to get a simple acknowledgement on a court case from Gov Gen and only thing his assistant wrote was 'while still before the courts, we cannot become involved"....so I have to question how much they really 'want' creditors? How many time does something have to 'paid' by Discharge also as written to the finance minister after numerous rounds of X3 stepwise sendoffs to other minions of rev dept. he heads?
Yes, they were written that part of the message being sent was that they were acknowledged to be key trustee administrators.
We remain waiting positive response on more than one such item and it is time shortly for another follow-up and perhaps lien on office of finance minister and bank of Canada now for lack of any response?
I would agree with John........ re. #1371
of the one sovereign sentient
Tuesday, September 25, 2012 7:29:32 AM
as soon as you declare yourself the man and remove the presumption, they should be there to help you. Our finance minister said.....that there are not enough creditors....well do your job finance minister....Governor General....do your damn job and help those that know who they are....they should test you to know if you can show them that you REALLY know who you are....and treat each case on an individual basis rather then lumping us all in together....Luke 11, Luke 221d
#1392 re. #1389
RE: TOPIC: CLARIFYING THE PARTIES.
swlaahkj333
Wed Sep 26, 2012 5:27 pm
Bill,
Where is the trust of the birth certificate expressed?
Is not the BC an inchoate instrument awaiting acceptance and expression to create the obligation against which set-off may be 'demanded'?
Should not the ss/irs number be expressed as the pass through a/c for the set-off?
John
#1406 re. #1372
Re: TOPIC: GSA FORMS NO. 1
joshuasdad100
Thu Sep 27, 2012 10:44 pm
AGAIN, IT PAYS TO KEEP THINGS SIMPLE AND LINEAR, RATHER THAN CONVOLUTED. With
respect, let me say that the Strawman is none of those things, It is not a grantor, an incorporator, or a parent to proxies. The strawman is a debt vehicle, created SOLELY to transmit debt to the Estate...TRULY a vessel in
admiralty which exists ONLY to be arrested (whenever it receives a bill of charges) so that the owner or perhaps a creditor will APPEAR in admiralty and post bond so that the vessel can be released to get back to it's business of being "charged" for its portion of the public debt. That's it: a debt conveyance.
Conversely, the Estate is the surety that guarantees those obligations will be paid...one way or the other. Bill
#1407 re. #1392
Re: TOPIC: CLARIFYING THE PARTIES.
joshuasdad100
Thu Sep 27, 2012 10:58 pm
Nope. It's a security future which certifies that you were born on this land, and therefore are responsible for the debts of the United States. It doesn't create the obligation; it represents the obligation. It's interpreted as a
pledge whereby the Estate is presumed to be the surety which guarantees payment of all obligations charged against the strawman SSN. It's the first paragraph on GSA Optional Forms 90 and 91 wherein a "surety" "by a bond for the performance of U.S. Government contract No. 123-45-6789..." The future performance against which the bond has been wagered is that the Estate will pay the obligations charged to the strawman. So it is not incomplete (or inchoate" as you chose to put it.
When you note a banker's acceptance on it you've created a brand new security, just like when a bank check is endorsed "Pay To The Order Of" the bank. Bill
#1408 re. #1406
Re: TOPIC: GSA FORMS NO. 1
ladyfairfax3...
Thu Sep 27, 2012 11:56 pm
All I meant was...the SSN entity has the power to create true vs. quasi corporate entities EIN. The new entity can serve as the proxy for the trust estate. This takes the us citizen out of the equation all together. Granted, there are other ways of knocking off the SSN entity. Executor EIN is a good one, but it requires actually talking to IRS on the phone to receive a foreign designation, after some finagling. Either way will work. The point is to stop using the SSN entity all together for funding and tax reporting. BTW- debt is currency, but that debt vehicle has been operating in a detrimental way through performance on 1040 forms. Maybe I wasn't clear. My apologies. This is something I have figured out. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
#1410
What would you do....Thanks!
branko_brankov
Fri Sep 28, 2012 6:27 am
Hi, am new here and would like to ask and thanks in advance for your reply, what would you do when bank send you an offer to contract i.e. to issue you a credit card, you agree, and then they do not send you a credit card, they ignore you, i.e. they steel your signature. That is what happened to me few years ago, 2008. I can not forgive and forget that.
I did then write to them 2X asking to send me a card, but they ignored me. Recently, a moth or so ago, I wrote a letter again, now, using a version of Executor letter, but Mr. Peter Crook (his real surname is Crook) CEO of Vanquish bank, ignore me again. I do not know how to enforce this Executor=powerful knowledge on this thief and make him to compensate me. Shell I write, "if you do not return me my original application.... or remedy things, I will report you to FSA, IMF, Vatican=Ceste quie trust, Attorney General, even to their masters Rothschild’s...to investigate..."
The next thing is that my sister was almost murdered in 2005 by medical mafia. It was NOT medical negligence but it was conspiracy to murder because she exposed their pervert and evil-murder activities in just before STUPIDLY going to 'hospital=murder camps for unnecessary so called surgery. During total anesthesia the medical mason mafia in the hospital injected her with chemicals in different part of body. She survived thanks to God=Creator-Universe will, but still have that chemicals lingering in her body that cause all kind of pains in her body.
She then wrote many letters and attacking them...One moment mason-'dr' admitted he did it...
Even UK Attorney General wrote letter to them, but we didn't know how to enforce the justice. Again, recently, 3 weeks ago, we used Executor Letter version and sent it to CEO of Royal Marsden 'Hospital' murderers, who authorized that murder attempt, but she didn't reply. So, she admitted.
What would you do if you were me. Many thanks in advance.
#1411 re. #1390
Re: Coin and currency
nohgdds...
Fri Sep 28, 2012 7:50 am
Does anybody out there have a sample template of a letter one would send to a bank that has kept a pay instrument but not credited the account that incorporates the UCC points that Bill makes here?
I sent valid instruments to my two mortgage lenders recently. One simply ignored the instrument and did nothing (Chase). The other (Wells Fargo) sent me a letter telling me to go do something physically impossible and that they weren't going to credit my account. Interestingly however, in neither case did the bank return the instrument
Thanks
--Roy
#1414 re. #1410
Re: What would you do....Thanks!
maharaj333
Fri Sep 28, 2012 9:23 am
All I know is, and, obviously this 'answer', has not been expressed well enough, here in this forum, but to me, the executor is the administrator, is the trustee. If anyone else has a better 'answer' to this executor topic, that keeps cropping up every now and then, let us know what your own knowledge has brought you too, and share it.
- peacemaker -
#1415
Patents as Securities
gbolt24856
Fri Sep 28, 2012 10:16 am
Is anyone familiar with how patents work in the process of reclaiming securities. I didn't realize until just this week, the language (legalese) used by the patent office as they claimed my CASE was ABANDONED for failing to PROSECUTE. I will now have to file a PETITION TO REVIVE and follow with a PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION. I have an invention that has considerable value as it can save (according to EPA data) about 7 1/2 billions gallons of potable water per day in the united States alone. I'm beginning to feel like they don’t want to issue a patent to me and possibly have other parties that they want it to go to. Help....
#1424 re. #1391
TOPIC: PUBLIC OFFICIALS DO NOT HAVE TO OBEY THE LAW
joshuasdad100
Fri Sep 28, 2012 9:51 pm
Iris, I'm glad you posted this because this is one of the many boilerplate misconceptions that dooms us to failure. Under their system, public officials do NOT have to obey their own statutes, codes, regulations, and case law, in particular the Constitution in either country. All of those elements comprise the public INDENTURE, meaning the rules of the public trust created by the U.S. Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights. The terms of a trust indenture apply ONLY to the trustee. The deposit of the Certificate of Birth at the County or Province creates the mirror-image public Estate which is the surety for all public debts charged to the strawman, and a presumption that the strawman is a trustee and the PUBLIC OFFICIAL TRUST is the beneficiary of each constructive trust they create equity. Hence, only the strawman trustee is obligated to obey
the terms of the Indenture. And they are free to rule by fiat. I don't care if Einstein drew the administrative process and Miss Piggy made presentment, it's of less concern to them than a mosquito bite.
That is, UNTIL YOU EXPRESS THE TRUST AND RESTORE THE RIGHTFUL PARTIES. At that point, suddenly they get to savor the taste of their own statutes. Bill
#1425
instrumentality check it out
yashuafreind
Fri Sep 28, 2012 9:53 pm
Just stumbled on this maybe sheds a little light on something for someone else:
#1426 re. #1410
Re: What would you do....SIMPLE...FORGIVE.
joshuasdad100
Fri Sep 28, 2012 10:01 pm
Branko, if you can't forgive and forget a simple departed credit card application, you are in for a difficult life. What will you do when the Father really challenges you?
You see, without forgiveness, you will not receive any from the Creator. On the cross, Yehoshua asked that his tormentors be forgiven. (Yes, I know some people interpret that passage differently.) Until you forgive, you will remain mired in anger, vitriol, and idolatry. Vengeance is the Father's, and we should render unto Him what is His.
I recently heard an interview of a young man who was inside the movie theater in Colorado during the massacre. He had already moved to forgiveness, and in so doing, his life is moving forward while many others assuredly are lost in anger.
Bill
#1427 re. below
HERE'S WHY IRS IS IGNORING YOUR EXECUTOR LETTERS...
joshuasdad100
Fri Sep 28, 2012 10:17 pm
First, the Strawman is a debtor entity that was created solely to be arrested, aka to be charged with your portion of the public debt. It has no capacity to reclaim securities or order the IRS to do anything.
Secondly, it is NOT that the living man can't be "seen" in the public as patriots are fond of saying. Rather, the PUBLIC ESTATE is a mirror image misnomer of the private estate as I've mentioned a number of times. Now here's the point: THE PUBLIC ESTATE CONCOCTED FROM THE ORIGINAL DEPOSIT OF THE CERTIF OF BIRTH AT THE COUNTY EXISTS SOLELY TO RE-PRESENT THE LIVING MAN INTO THE CORPORATE SYSTEM. The living man is irrelevant in a system that eas created to keep him out.
People who try to use David Clarence's concepts such as "Office of the Executor" will find that their efforts will be ignored by PUBLIC OFFICIALS. Admiralty is about property (interests in things, rather than the things themselves), the so-called "res," not about people.
IRS has a slew of forms to achieve whatever you desire be it collapse of the trust (that's actually easy to achieve) acquisition, refund, set-off, and even arrest of public bonds. Heck, one can even "kill off" the strawman so that it shows as deceased in their records, and withOUT using a death certificate. Proper use of these forms is eye-opening.
Since the private estate is your inheritance from the Father, the way to deal with it is through prayer. Bill
"duquelong" duquelong@... wrote:
Could one of these be the proxy and/or the reason the IRS is ignoring
one being an executor?
1. occupant of the office of executor
2. Executor Nominatum , also simply known as a "Executor" is an executor
appointed by a Grantor,
Duque
#1428 re. #1426
Re: What would you do....SIMPLE...FORGIVE.
eaglecorps1
Fri Sep 28, 2012 11:40 pm
Might I add, anger destroys internal organs. Do a search for "anger effects on internal organs" and you will see what I mean. It "ain't worth it" in the long run, been there, done that. The KISS principle works just fine in this respect. Don't sweat the small stuff... and it's all small stuff.
Bill (another one)
#1429 re. #1414
RE: What would you do....Thanks!
swlaahkj333
Fri Sep 28, 2012 11:51 pm
Hi Peacemaker,
My understanding gained from my reading of Lord Blackstone’s last will and testament suggests to me the Executor executes the intent of the testator such as settling the trusts which Lord Blackstone also provided for in his last will and testament. The trustee once in possession of the legal title with the instructions of the will provided by the Executor administers the trust.
John
#1435 re. #1428
Re: What would you do....SIMPLE...FORGIVE.
branko_brankov
Sat Sep 29, 2012 8:04 am
I do not think so, Bill. NO, Bill, you do NOT forgive them for injuring you. It has to be balance before the Creator. I take responsibility for my part, they have to take responsibility for their part. That is how you stop them to continue injuring you and others, and themselves too.
They did to my sister in so called hospital, they are still doing to others, because nobody is stopping them.
They know what they are doing. They premeditate their crimes and before when they go to their beds to sleep, they constantly planning how to injure people next day. They have to be stopped.
I am NOT indoctrinate by bible=bla-bla book
Millions time altered bible=bla-bla is not my favorite book, and people interpret it literary and by their pastors gangs, but have read a document that says what Magdalena said during crucifixion something like this: They KNOW what they are doing, God, forgive them NOT.
I do not know about originality of document, but I duplicate with this.
You only forgive when it is not intentional, premeditated. Anything else has to be balanced.
A for Colorado Theater, it was fraud. Massacre never happened. Mafia is lying, all of them were actors. Only victim is guy with read hear, forgot his name. Mafia is after his father because they want to stop him to audit some government-gangs agencies. He did not murder anyone. Inform yourself better.
#1437 re. #1355
GSA Forms----WOW!
thebradleys2012
Sat Sep 29, 2012 8:39 am
Bill,
Thanks so much for your insights into the 90 and 91. My husband and I had our eyes opened as to the information but mostly about how little we really know. We were trying to do them on our own, what with the mentor being away, but we will wait patiently for his return because it's never been more clear we need to learn this material to the core. If the first sentence in the documents reveals all that information, I can only imagine what we don't know about the rest. The mentor's been great. We feel like we're tapping into a vast reservoir of
knowledge.
Thank you again for what you're doing. I don't think people realize what they've been given. We feel like we've been awakened once again.
Sheila
#1440 re. #1435
A REVELATION...
joshuasdad100
Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:02 am
TO THE MEMBERS: I am thankful for the blessing of Branko's email below as it is the Father's way of reminding us of the true meaning of his sacrificial gift of the Son on our behalf.
Many remedies fail for lack of forgiveness. If all of our sins were forgiven from the dawn of Creation by the blood of the Christ, if Yehoshua could forgive his tormentors while hanging from the cross, what is to be expected when we do less?
When we begin to pick and choose good candidates, when we try to qualify them as to their intentions, when we decide who is worthy of forgiveness, when we sin against the ultimate sacrifice, then surely we will be judged similarly.
IF THIS IS THE NEGATIVE ENERGY THAT CREATED YOUR REMEDY, THEN IT IS LIKELY TO FAIL.
The freedom movement attracts born arguers. You would be shocked at some of the emails I receive from total strangers when my goal is merely to raise the level of understanding and dialogue regarding Luciferian commerce. When people attempt to entice me into argument, when their language screams anger as below, when they confuse Matthew 5:44 with Mark 4:40, when they presume I have some sort of personal obligation to them, when they attack self-evident truths, when their tone is just plain indecent, I have but one choice...to forgive. That same choice is available to each of us.
Twice Branko has emphasized his desire NOT to forgive, and attempted to rationalize such things with statements like "there must be balance before the Creator." With love in my heart, I say to him and others whose hearts are gripped by the hand of Lucifer: that the exact time for forgiveness is when they injure you. Without an injury, what is there to forgive? For if you do not forgive, your anger and ego will eat at your soul and deliver you to darkness.
Come to think of it, it's not me saying it at all. Yehoshua set the bar. Bill
#1441 re below
TOPIC: STEALING INSTRUMENTS??
joshuasdad100
Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:06 am
OFTEN these things find the round file. If not, however, YOU WERE VICTIM OF A GENERAL DEPOSIT. When a bank indorses a security by a Pay To The Order Of or other acceptance, it becomes a new security - an "expansion of deposits.) This is neatly explained on pages 5 and 6 of Modern Money Mechanics. Bill
Robyn Samara rhs8963@... wrote: re. #1411
I hope someone brings forth the answer to this......I've had similar incidents myself. One of them was a presentment to my former auto finance company and the others were to utility companies. UCC and state code included on the cover letter. Never got originals back nor did they credit the account.
#1442 re below
TOPIC: ACTING AS TRUSTEE...
joshuasdad100
Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:12 am
Good question, peacemaker. There are three circumstances when we might wish to act as trustee:
1. When we act as trustee to oversee the other trustee such as a public officials;
2. When we control the beneficiary and receive benefit from acting as trustee such as signing a bank check, and
3. When the trust collapses upon their termination of our interest in the trust property, thus we become sole trustee and beneficiary, the trust collapses and ALL SECURITIES, PROFITS AND SUCH MUST BE RETURNED TO THE GRANTOR. This is called foreclosure.
We can pop back and forth between roles, like Woody Allen questioning himself during the trial in "Bananas." Yup, the legal system is that ridiculous. Bill
eponymous_680 embury111@... wrote: re. #1429
Another word for testator, is settlor. Look it up. And the executor is working at behest of the true beneficiary (c'est moi), once the (mis) construed trust relationship, is (re) construed in the true beneficiaries' favor. .Let me ask you all this: why would you want to construe the trust in your favor, and then do the executor/administrator's job for them?
A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways. James 1:8
- peacemaker -
#1443 re. #1415
Re: Patents as Securities
joshuasdad100
Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:16 am
WHEN IN ROME...just get it done their way, then you can have fun. Bill
#1445 re. #1427
Re: HERE'S WHY IRS IS IGNORING YOUR EXECUTOR LETTERS...
hammond_ted
Sat Sep 29, 2012 10:28 am
So, basically what your saying is were using the wrong birth certificate? The acceptance and special deposit should be done on the COUNTY birth certificate, which is the PUBLIC estate, not the state birth certificate which is the PRIVATE estate???
#1448 re. #1427
Re: HERE'S WHY IRS IS IGNORING YOUR EXECUTOR LETTERS...
g1003gene
Sat Sep 29, 2012 4:25 pm
Bill, These IRS forms seem to be the way to go in regards to "reclaiming our securities". Would the 1099 OID be part of that reclaiming, if utilized correctly...as the Grantor and beneficiary?
#1450 re. below
Re: GSA forms----WOW!
joshuasdad100
Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:39 pm
Ken, they're working privately with a qualified party. The GSA Forms are like a comprehensive test by the corporation (as repugnant as that is on its face). It probably takes a good six months to work your way to the proper status and understanding to consider using them. I know people crave shortcuts, but all they got from the Tony King experience was more questions instead of answers.
Bill
Ken Norbury kennorbury@... wrote: re. #1437
Hi!
I am still trying to find my way around this site & to learn the 90 & 91.
Who is the mentor?
How can we dialogue with him?
I would appreciate any help in where/ how to get started to be able to use this process.
Many thanks!
Ken
#1451 re. #1424
Re: TOPIC: PUBLIC OFFICIALS DO NOT HAVE TO OBEY THE LAW
fdmfghr
Sat Sep 29, 2012 6:03 pm
Ok, so they don't have to follow their own rules unless there is expression of the trust and deposit of the Cert. of Live Birth. But this becomes convoluted for me when one of the matters alluded to earlier by me has been expressly encountered NOT at the State/provincial level but was a direct issuance by the Bank of Canada to another agency. Another matter falling into this camp is also convoluted in that source of demands/claims originated at State/Provincial level but they have to submit such into a neighboring State for regional rubber stamping of the 'enforcement' attempts as they cannot do it in this domain.
SO you are saying filing steps into State/Provincial areas, but still remains kind of convoluted for me because of above progressions involved. Would one have to do filings into every State/Province then somehow involved or invoked? Worth mentioning here also that there does seem to be an overseer ministerial levels involved always on these matters....and this is always federal, like Minister of Finance office in Canada and corresponding Geithner Office for discharges via OFFSET/Sec. of State for other matters.
#1459 re. #1440
Re: A REVELATION...
mm4tarts
Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:07 pm
I think you have to forgive an move on. Our human nature never forgets because I think we are informed by each act of violence as well as each act of kindness. We can build love on both accounts. I do also think that act of trespass/violence not forgiven causes anger to fester, causes cancers and dis-eases of our divinely ordered system and keeps us in a state of perpetual darkness. In not forgetting, but forgiving, we learn from these situations and circumstances. We also build our "defense" systems against such acts occurring more frequently, for we become armored in Love's protection. Judgment will be extracted, if on the other hand, forgiveness and restitution is not offered to those who have been offended. Chaos and Creation exist in balance. It is not our hand that should or most extract the final judgment, but a wrong doing must be called and witness must come to bear upon it.
#1463 re. below
Re: What would you do....Thanks!
ravingraven2000
Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:51 pm
Sorry to say John, from here, it appears as you took a simple post from Peacemaker and started pointing fingers and presumptions at it.
I don't believe you asking a question creates an obligation of performance to answer - or maybe I better read the terms of group membership again.
If you feel your comments were taken out of context, I guess I could easily see why.
He tried to clarify his position, then it seems you did it all over again.
"Is not the security you speak of the trust..." To me (and maybe it's just me??) it just seems like you are trying to create controversy where none exists. Is there anyone not in agreement and/or that has stated a contradictory
opinion??
Peacemaker seems like a good guy, go easy on him.
circumnavigator2@...> wrote: re. below
Regarding the matter of the pledge, you were asked to say exactly what you believe is pledged and came back to say the footprint of the child, if that is exactly what you believe is being pledged then I ask is not the image of the footprint the property of the child?
I’m sorry you have chosen to take the comment regarding responsibility to apply to you, since was not the point made that our father has failed [in the majority of cases] to appoint a guardian timely and thereby abrogated his responsibility [out of ignorance and the indoctrination by custom and practice of various religious groups, including the Jewish faith, wherein the ‘christening’ and announcement of the appointment of God Father takes place sometime after the birth, sometimes months after the birth].
Is not the security you speak of the trust [does that not secure the res] and can not the guardian/STATE be displaced from the role of guardian by operation of law and will we not then reap the fruits of our own endeavors, (reap what you sow, have sowed and will sow)? Is the responsibility not ours to fulfill the law?
Is the circularity of the matter not divine perfection (wisdom)? Watch where those three fingers point .
john
RE: What would you do....Thanks! re. below
eponymous_680
Sunday, 30 September 2012 11:45 AM
I think you're making an awful lot of presumptions about what you think I 'believe' and what I actually believe. That's a rather large jump you've made on my behalf in regards of what I wrote. Where in what I wrote did I mention anything about the body being pledged? What is being pledged, is future performance - and, as pointed out, this has been written extensively, and
exhaustively by Bill and a couple others in this group. As for being 'responsible'? I'm going to let that one ride, and you can refer back to my past posts, and be the judge jury and executioner as to the viability of my responsibility with this group.
I'm aware of the points you point out from 1 to 3, as well as what Blackstone has to say about the guardian/ward relationship. This group is called reclaimyoursecurities, so that's the premise I'm writing from, and it's just a perspective that one could choose, or not choose to take.
If I've somehow led this group down the Pike by pointing out the group administrator's own work, then I'm not sure where I've erred (?).
If you've successfully claimed your estate from the guardian and you've attained the age of majority, then the floor is wide open for you to teach us where we're erring in believing the 'worst', and completely missing the boat.
- peacemaker -
RE: What would you do....Thanks! re. below
circumnavigator2 Resulting trust.
freefox909
Wed Nov 21, 2012 10:31 am
Seems 2 b right on bill...
I’m sending some instruction i was given a few years ago it might be a little out of date but I’m sure it can be fixed...
On the back of the T1013 authorizing a representative. The government already considers us to be executors of our estate. All we have to do is send in a letter from the executors office include power of attorney in that letter and power of fiduciary appointment.
Also we switch the tax burden from our self to the banks by sending in a schedule 3 and a T1170 to the CRA .
As under title 26 of the IRS code you will use forms 706 and 709 gift tax exemption forms for the IRS.
When we get a mortgage or any other security we have not received any consideration back for the instrument , so the IRS and CRA consider it to be a gift. We indicate the capitol loss to them and they go after the tax for the gift they received.
That switches the income tax from us to the banks.
I have had a busy weekend.
According to the IRS "A personal representative of an estate is an executor, administrator, or anyone who is in charge of the decedent's property." So if the STRAWMAN (SM) is an estate, then you definitely should be at least a PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE of SM, since you're in charge of his property. And you should be able to call yourself an EXECUTOR, since executor is defined as an "individual that settles the estate".
Also, since "trustees, executors and personal representatives are all fiduciaries", you are a FIDUCIARY of the SM/trust/estate. And your authority for that would be, by the IRS definition, the fact that you are in charge of the decedent's property, with the decedent being the SM. So your authority for form 56 would be that you're in charge of the trust/estate property.
So the SM/estate/trust was created by the Birth Certificate, is named same as you, except in ALL CAPS, and requires a live man/woman (you) to act on its behalf. That makes you its personal representative/executor.
And the reason why you should be able to safely claim that you're the executor or personal representative of the SM, is that you've been in charge of SM's property FOR YEARS, and no one has ever challenged your authority to do that. I.e., you've been deciding what to do with SM's income, what to buy with it, and was using SM's property as well.
Of course the State might challenge your authority as the executor, but then they'd be admitting that the SM exists, which would reveal their SM deception to everyone, which they definitely don't want. The best they can do is to charge your SM with some statutory violation, which they can't win unless you admit to being the SM. So as long as you don't admit being the SM, by admitting being the all-caps NAME, you should be able to claim being the executor or personal representative of the SM. Which means you can challenge anyone's claims against SM's property, and demand them to show proof of their authority to administer the SM's estate.
You just gotta MAKE SURE that you DON'T SUBROGATE yourself to your SM, by admitting to be the all-caps NAME.
Here's the IRS info regarding this and form 1041:
A personal representative of an estate is an executor, administrator, or anyone who is in charge of the decedent's property. Generally, an executor (orexecutrix) is named in a decedent's will to administer the estate and distribute properties as the decedent has directed. An administrator (or administratrix) is usually appointed by the court if no will exists, if no executor was named in the will, or if the named executor cannot or will not serve.
In general, an executor and an administrator perform the same duties and have the same responsibilities.
For estate tax purposes, if there is no executor or administrator appointed, qualified, and acting within the United States, the term "executor" includes anyone in actual or constructive possession of any property of the decedent. It includes, among others, the decedent's agents and representatives; safe-deposit companies, warehouse companies, and other custodians of property in this country; brokers holding securities of the decedent as collateral; and the debtors of the decedent who are in this country.
A personal representative for a decedent's estate can be an executor, administrator, or anyone in charge of the decedent's property, so the term personal representative will be used throughout this publication.
Duties
The primary duties of a personal representative are to collect all the decedent's assets, pay the creditors, and distribute the remaining assets to the heirs or other beneficiaries.
The personal representative also must perform the following duties.
Apply for an employer identification number (EIN) for the estate.
File any income tax return and the estate tax return when due.
Pay the tax determined up to the date of discharge from duties.
Other duties of the personal representative in federal tax matters are discussed in other sections of this publication. If any beneficiary is a nonresident alien, see Publication 515, Withholding of Tax on Nonresident Aliens and Foreign Entities, for information on the personal representative's duties as a withholding agent.
Penalty.
There is a penalty for failure to file a tax return when due unless the failure is due to reasonable cause. Reliance on an agent (attorney, accountant, etc.) is not reasonable cause for late filing. It is the personal representative's duty to file the returns for the decedent and the estate when due.
Identification number. The first action you should take if you are the personal representative for the decedent is to apply for an EIN for the estate. You should apply for this number as soon as possible because you need to enter it on returns, statements, and other documents you file concerning the estate. You also must give the number to payers of interest and dividends and other payers who must file a return concerning the estate.
You can get an EIN by applying online at businesses or by calling 1-800-829-4933, Monday through Friday. Generally, if you apply online, you will receive your EIN immediately upon completing the application. You can also apply using Form SS-4, Application for Employer Identification Number. Generally, if you apply by mail, it takes about 4 weeks to get your EIN. See the form instructions for other ways to apply. "
I like especially this part:
"Notice of fiduciary relationship. The term fiduciary means any person acting for another person. It applies to persons who have positions of trust on behalf of others. A personal representative for a decedent's estate is a fiduciary.
Form 56.
If you are appointed to act in a fiduciary capacity for another, you must file a written notice with the IRS stating this. Form 56, Notice Concerning Fiduciary Relationship, can be used for this purpose. The instructions and other requirements are given on the back of the form.
File Form 56 as soon as all the necessary information (including the EIN) is available. It notifies the IRS that you, as the fiduciary, are assuming the powers, rights, duties, and privileges of the decedent, and allows the IRS to mail to you all tax notices concerning the person (or estate) you represent. The notice remains in effect until you notify the IRS (by filing another Form 56) that your fiduciary relationship with the estate has
#1778
skipe or oovoo room
freefox909
Wed Nov 21, 2012 10:54 am
Hey people I want to start a room in either Skype or other to be able to have real conversation cuz this e mail set up it s slow and too artificial 4 my taste and we cannot talk direct so if interested Skype me look for freefox909 or tonka and I will add you in >> the room name is not divulge at this point...
#1779 re. #1777
Re: TOPIC - RETURN OF EQUITY 2. No return?->Resulting trust.
freefox909
Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:16 am
Oh by the way you might want to download that stamp duty booklet as it seems that legal paper with unpaid duties are null and void.
#1780 re. #1770
Re: CRITICAL TOPIC: - SPECIAL DEPOSIT -
imnotcaptinkirk
Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:13 pm
Bill, endorsing the check or not using a restricted endorsement would seem to effect a deposit into the trust, hence into the private credit side...
How is making a verbal request as you illustrate a tool?
#1781 re. #1767
Re: TOPIC: USE OF TERM OWNER
fdmfghr
Wed Nov 21, 2012 4:00 pm
Bill, am not a 'patriot' and never considered myself such, for whatever that's worth. Re your 2d paragraph, I interpret this to be simplified to mean that use of term of 'owner' needs to be combined with acknowledgement of Grantor role, which would make sense to me.
#1783 re. #1771
Re: TOPIC: THE TRUE PROBLEM IS not KNOWING WHO YOU ARE.
maharaj333
Wed Nov 21, 2012 6:56 pm
" Even the Agency admits that in Sec. 7701 of the IRC when it defines a U.S. person as including an individual, corp, estate and a trust but ONLY if the trust has a US person making all substantial decisions, and therefore the trust is subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. Courts. In other words, even the Agency confesses that a trust is a PRIVATE AGREEMENT - ALWAYS - between at least two parties unless it contains language specifying otherwise or has a U.S. person acting as czar."
Oh man, you're blowing my mind. That's why the Bookeeper makes such a big deal about trusts! Smoke and mirrors. But they have no jurisdiction if the US PERSON, is not making any "substantial decisions" .
#1784 re. #1780
Re: CRITICAL TOPIC: - SPECIAL DEPOSIT -
maharaj333
Wed Nov 21, 2012 7:16 pm
SPECIAL DEPOSIT. A deposit made of a particular thing with the depositary: it is distinguished from an irregular deposit.
2. When a thing has been specially deposited with a depositary, the title to it remains with the depositor, and if it should be lost, the loss will fall upon him. When, on the contrary, the deposit is irregular, as where money is deposited in a bank, the title to which is transferred to the bank, if it be, lost, the loss will be borne by the bank. This will result from the same principle; the loss will fall, in both instances, on the owner of the thing, according to the rule res perit domino. See 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1 054.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
#1786 re. #1775
Re: Personal Advice for Newer Members
prosperofla
Thu Nov 22, 2012 6:49 am
One more thing, very important:
Wax on. Wax off.
#1797 re. #1786
Re: Personal Advice for Newer Members
maharaj333
Thu Nov 22, 2012 1:32 pm
In reality - we are all equal - the 'slave' is the strawman debtor - that we've mis-taken ourselves for. In Canada - the STRAWMAN trust account is called a SIN #. If we use that name in vain, then we are a 'sinner'......(sin = to miss the mark). Because we missed the Kingdom, and went toward the seduction of the secular commercial world instead.
- peacemaker -
#1799 re. #1797
Re: Personal Advice for Newer Members
yashuafreind
Thu Nov 22, 2012 1:52 pm
I have registered as a non commercial conveyance with the U.S Dot.
#1803 re. #1783
TOPIC: THE TRUE PROBLEM IS not KNOWING WHO YOU ARE-clarification
joshuasdad100
Thu Nov 22, 2012 5:36 pm
Just to be clear, if a U.S. person is not making ALL substantial decisions (rather than any substantial decision as you stated. Bill
#1804 re. #1803
Re: TOPIC: THE TRUE PROBLEM IS not KNOWING WHO YOU ARE-clarification
beezdeez
Thu Nov 22, 2012 6:09 pm
I always thought 3 parties ( or more) made it a trust, while 2 was a "contract"?
Brian
#1805 re. #1799
Re: Personal Advice for Newer Members
dvanderryt
Thu Nov 22, 2012 6:44 pm
Shawn,
Can you point me in the right direction to register myself as non-commercial conveyance with the U.S. DOT?
Thank you
David
#1806 re. #1805
DOT INFO
joshuasdad100
Fri Nov 23, 2012 5:28 pm
DAVID, YOU ARE NOT REGISTERING YOURSELF AS A NONCOMMERCIAL CONVEYANCE. You are registering a claim with the highest admiralty venue - that's the underlying mechanism that most people have not grasped. Like other areas, the value of this undertaking depends on understanding the rationale, implications, and enforcement strategies. Bill
#1807 re. #1804
TOPIC: TRUST V. CONTRACT
joshuasdad100
Fri Nov 23, 2012 5:37 pm
Brian, three parties is not the defining characteristic of a trust. A trust is created when property is placed in trust with a trustee. Sometimes this is voluntary. MOST OF THE TIME IN THE PUBLIC, IT IS NOT VOLUNTARY, BUT RESULTS FROM THE FAILURE OF THE RECIPIENT OF THE CARGO TO RETURN EQUITY. Hence, the circumstances of a trust are created wherein the recipient has trustee obligations as holder of the property. This sort of presumed trust in equity is ALWAYS a taxable termination since the fact that they failed to return equity is a termination of the grantor's interest in the property. THIS IS WHY 126 USC
2612 DEFINES A TAXABLE TERMINATION AS TERMINATION OF AN INTEREST IN PROPERTY.
EVERYTHING'S held in trust. That's how the public operates.
A contract results from an agreement with an exchange of consideration. If EQUAL consideration was exchanged at the time you delivered the security (if you received equal equity for your security) there would be no trust. THEN you would have a contract.
Confusion arises from the nature of the system. The SS account is created by the deposit of a birth bond issued against the Certif of Birth. The Fed trades currency for the bond. Hence, the SS account is a U.S. Government contract.
One problem, YOU GOT NOTHING OUT OF THE DEAL. No return of equity. So their PUBLIC CONTRACT, is a trust from our perspective, and for OUR benefit. Starting to make better sense? Bill
#1813 re. #1807
Re: TOPIC: TRUST V. CONTRACT
fdmfghr
Sat Nov 24, 2012 3:33 pm
Makes sense, but then this means that we should all be able to terminate implied contracts in courts or tax systems by stating that our grantor natural rights have been arbitrarily terminated? And then we reclaim the proceeds of the Trust accounts so held by expressed trust, as originating grantor?
#1821 re. #1756
Re: TOPIC: LOST IN ESTATE. DON'T KNOW WHERE TO GO.
picotech9999
Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:51 pm
Try Black's Special Deposit vs. General Deposit. If you still own the "deposit" someone must have it in trust. And the trustee must take instructions if you are the grantor P
#1822 re. #1770 & #52
Re: TOPIC: LOST IN ESTATE. DON'T KNOW WHERE TO GO.
fires1up
Mon Nov 26, 2012 4:44 pm
Bill wrote:
From: joshuasdad100
CRITICAL TOPIC: - SPECIAL DEPOSIT -
“Special deposit is a bedrock essential concept to study and understand as it terminates their ability to use our funds or credit them to a general securities account....”
(Re: Decedent's Estates, you wrote:)
2. If you bank with special deposit you cannot claim a refund later because the funds are never commingled with the banks.
Bill, please clarify: in point 2 above, are you referring to a special deposit made by a ‘decedent's estate’, as opposed to a special deposit of your security, made by a trustee, using your name as the account holder at the bank, as it (your name) appears on your birth certificate?
And a related question: If one is qualified to submit a 'banker's acceptance', then would this not indicate that the 'banker' is a trust (or trust company) of which you are the grantor? Or which you have directed your proxy to establish?
If so, and assuming that your 'bank' is authorized to take 'deposits', then you would want to deposit your securities as a ‘general deposit’, so that you can claim a refund later. Am I close enough to smell the roses?
#1824 re. #1824
Re: TOPIC: LOST IN ESTATE. DON'T KNOW WHERE TO GO.
fires1up
Tue Nov 27, 2012 2:50 pm
As I understand it, the Administrator of the decedent estate doesn't have the standing with the agency to claim the refund. As has been said here before, I believe.
#1826
A4V and Secured Party Creditor?
jtlbsos
Wed Nov 28, 2012 8:53 am
Hey guys I have a couple of questions.
1. In order to discharge debts do I have to become a secured party creditor to my STRAWMAN?
2. When it comes to how the government applies "pressure" to you what is better?
(A) Just becoming a secured party creditor without rescinding my citizenship status?
(B) Going through the whole process and just rescinding my citizenship status as well as becoming a secured party creditor?
3. And Finally my last question is if I am ONLY trying to become a secured party creditor which documentation should I file and which ones shouldn't I file?
#1828 re. #below
Re: SS Trust Summary
prosperofla
Thu Nov 29, 2012 12:24 pm
I believe that I have found the answers to my own questions. Here is a rewrite of my original:
SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST (SST): The second trust derived from the BC Bond (BB), it designates the Strawman TRUSTEE of the ESTATE TRUST and thus initial DEBTOR, whereas the Strawman/Cestui Que Trust, the first derived trust from the BB, NAMES the Estate with a Strawman name, an almost subtle distinction. So, the SST sets up the poor schlub Strawman (he got his NAME from the first derived trust)as the guy who gets approached (sometimes chained and arrested) to take responsibility for debts.
This Trustee (by presumption)entity is the one that is billed by vendors. But our Authorized Representative (Proxy) instructs IRS and vendors via our written setoffs to credit this SS Trust account by charging the BB. Thus, the Estate, via the BB, is automatically tapped of these funds and the SST Trust needs replenishment to compensate the automatic debit.
So, in the cases of setoffs your vendor billing you for payment (credit card, utility, etc.) will get paid by IRS by the submission of the setoff "you", via your proxy, gave him.
My only question on this subtopic is which proxy is used. It seems that the Proxy #1 is employed.
-Peter
"prosperofla" prosperofla@... wrote:
For everyone's scrutiny, especially our Moderator and more advanced practitioners:
SOCIAL SECURITY SM TRUST: The second trust derived from the BC Bond (specifically?), it designates the Strawman TRUSTEE of the ESTATE TRUST and thus initial DEBTOR (whereas the BC Trust, the first derived trust from the BC Bond, NAMES the Estate with a Strawman name, an almost subtle distinction.
This entity is the one that is billed by vendors, including the IRS. But our Authorized Representative (Proxy" 1) instructs DT and vendors via our written setoffs to credit this SS Trust account by using the BB. Thus, the Estate, via the BB, is automatically tapped of these funds and the SST Trust needs replenishment to compensate the automatic debit.
So your vendor asking for payment will get paid by DT by the submission of the setoff you gave him.
#1829 re. #146
Re: TOPIC: COURT, SECURITIES, CASE BOND & TRUSTS --THE INSIDE STORY
route4401
Thu Nov 29, 2012 2:45 pm
This is my first post although I've been reading and studying the material here for a few weeks. I must say that I'm very impressed with and grateful for the material presented by Bill and others to date. It has clarified much of what I've been studying for the last couple of years. Thank you.
That said, I would like to get clarification on a point Bill makes below to make sure I grasp the significance of it. He said,
"Your strawman is the beneficiary of the public trust that has been presumed to be a trustee instead."
To me, this seems to say that a CORRECTLY executed treasury process, just like expressing the JUDGE trust to rebut the presumption of trusteeship, will rebut the presumption of the strawman's trusteeship of the BC/Estate Trust and restore to it the correct role of beneficiary of the BC/Estate Trust.
If so, the method of CORRECTLY executing the treasury process seems much clearer; though I don't profess to be quite ready to send it off just yet... and would rather not until some kind soul checks my work first.
To answer Bill's questions below: yes, I do feel empowered and electrified by this information and committed to learning the things I don't yet know. And I'm certainly grateful for the edifying outlines and hints you've provided here.
In the spirit of some of the nice analogies I've read here I'd like to humbly offer one of my own - In one of the early Star Wars movies the rebels goal was to destroy the Death Star before if could become fully operational, and then presumably unstoppable. Someone figured out it's only exploitable weakness and the rebels mounted their Starfighters and set out on their mission to destroy it. After bravely fighting their way through the Death Star's formidable defenses they deposited a small, but presumably nuclear, charge into a small vent somewhere on the Death Star which then plummeted directly into the heart of it and detonated; thus initiating its destruction.
While the analogy may not be perfect, depending on whether your intent is to destroy the system or simply to alter your status within it, I think the CORRECTLY executed treasury process involves exploiting the virtually unknown weakness of the Public Trust system of bondage as it exists today. Once that is accomplished (by depositing your little charge with the Treasury), the rest is merely a challenging mop-up operation you can pursue as you see fit.
How cool is that?
- cantinista
#1831 re. #1826
Re: A4V and Secured Party Creditor?
rasadak313
Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:06 am
In attempt to answer your questions:
YES to question #1, and you do that with the UCC filing.
As for question #2, that is a bit more complicated. The problem is not that one is a "citizen", so much as one is a member of the corporation (United States, incorporated in Delaware as a nonprofit religious organization; this is also why we have a "president" as opposed to king, etc). We are all members of that nonprofit corporation by virtue of our birth certificates and other fraudulent contracts. In order to denounce one's "citizenship" there are certain procedures that must be done, which I have YET to see ANYONE actually do. First, one must have a country that is willing to accept one as their citizen, then one must go to an embassy and renounce US citizenship. I know many who have filed ALL the proper documents, yet NONE have done that process, which essentially leaves them as citizens of the nonprofit corporation.
By the way, one is legally dead unless and until one comes forward in the courts and DECLARES that one is a live and living being. (which can be done by Affidavit filed at the county courthouse) The reason for that is there is a law that was created back in the 1600's that stated EVERYONE is dead UNTIL they proclaim themselves to be alive. That law is still valid today due to the fact that we are under admiralty/maritime law AND commercial code. That is also by virtue of the birth certificates, which should be spelled "berth" rather than "birth". When a baby is born, it is measured, weighed, and footprint placed on the certificate. When they do that, they have literally created a "vessel" (just like a ship) and the real live & living being is declared dead due to that old law. This is how we are placed in the virtual ocean that uses maritime law, and being a vessel, we are then considered the property of the US corporation, and therefore under commercial code as well. In order to break free from their jurisdiction altogether, there are a number of steps which must be taken. The foregoing are only a couple of them.
Hope that helps answer your questions. ;-)
#1832 re. #1831
Re: A4V and Secured Party Creditor?
thefinancedude
Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:04 am
Not sure if this will work...first time responding, been reading RYS materials for a few weeks, been studying this game since I was probably 11 (didnt realize it at that time though!)...
This is in response to the below from rasadak313 specifically #2.
SO you nailed it...its not about wanting to leave its about finding somewhere to go. So in that spirit I have accepted the deed, the birth certificate, for its value (full faith and credit). I have apologized for any errors on my part and identified constructive fraud on their behalf and agreed to live in peace with one another. I dont get this ask the slave master for permission to leave idea...are you grown enough to handle your own affairs? Then walk!
Standing on the land claiming the birth rights you gave up is the highest claim I am aware of. The more pressing issue is the nature of public vs private and how we're actually a member of a PRIVATE corporation that creates separate rules for its vassals, namely they operate in the public, in commerce I might add. But being the commerce master that US is, it must maintain its security of information as private!
I reclaimed my living status via ecclesiastical means using Ecclesiastical deed poll...its debatable whether you need to glue that to the back of the birth certificate though it must be bound in some way.
With my living status I then claimed the estate granted for me upon nativity (re)inhabiting it as living beneficiary. I joined the only private unincorporated association (read, NOT OPERATING IN COMMERCE/LIMITED LIABILITY) I was drawn too, the divine province. I am working with this group of wo/men to begin living on the land again. I am foreign with respect to the US and a diplomat operating through the UPU as a private postmaster.
I carry post every where I go on a mission of peace. I started some websites to bring liberty to a wider audience. there wont be a mass event, just individuals making different choices and acting on them.
I would suggest studying how to form a country if none of the ones out there now suit you or will accept you. treaty law is the highest law too, so consider how much easier it is going that route to get recognized.
the real issue is the money. dealing with courts and cops isn't that difficult if you remember its all contracts operating under maritime, which is under admiralty which is under the law of war. we need to declare an end to all wars people...and begin operating under law of the peace.
Its already starting anyway...NYC is becoming a beacon...on sunday PM - tuesday AM not a violent crime transpired which either hasn't happened in a super long time or its never happened. this morning i am greeted by a nyc police officer buying some boots for a homeless man and its viral.
its time to go to peace with them. they have taught us many things and we must recognize and appreciate this gift while at same time understanding the wisdom of what we've learned. it is within each of us to create; is this all we are capable of creating together, war? i surrender to the war...i surrender into the arms of peace.
peace and love, patrick
#1833 re. #1831
Re: A4V and Secured Party Creditor?
iamsomedude
Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:12 am
If you have to "prove" you ain't dead, good luck proving a negative.
All it takes is getting one of their agents to use the NAME registered to identify one and then their own agent just rebutted the presumption.
Either that or they admit to registering a child as if it were chattel property which I do believe is "child slavery" and "human trafficking"
Let them do all the work to rebut the presumptions.
#1834 re. #1831
Re: A4V and Secured Party Creditor?
drjsjmd
Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:09 am
Thanks, Boris.
If I stand before you, I am; therefore I do not have to prove that I am not dead.
I do not want to be any kind of citizen. A citizen has always been a slave from time immemorial and the progeny of slaves are slaves also - property of the master. However, the 13th amendment prohibits involuntary servitude, hence all the slavery today is voluntary and is tied to an age old biblical maxim. Debtor is slave to lender. But in a loan transaction with a bank, who is lender and who is borrower?
#1835 re. #1834
Re: A4V and Secured Party Creditor?
iamsomedude
Fri Nov 30, 2012 9:06 am
With so-called "government" who is the lender and who is the borrower?
#1836 re. #1822
TOPIC: SPECIAL DEPOSIT
joshuasdad100
Fri Nov 30, 2012 9:46 am
Special deposit of securities, John. Which is a terrible term. General deposit involves the depository presuming to take legal title to the funds as a normal business practice. Correct terminology would be "theft of funds by racketeering" vs. "deposit." Bill
#1837 re. #1836
Re: TOPIC: SPECIAL DEPOSIT
fires1up
Fri Nov 30, 2012 10:35 am
Still confused...nothing new there.
Are you saying that one can only claim a refund when the funds HAVE been commingled with the banks? Black's law says a special deposit must be returned exactly as deposited, which would be impossible if commingled. In which case, what is there available for a "refund"? So could that have read "in using special deposit, refunds are not available."
How about the interest? Are they allowed to hypothecate a SD? Can we reclaim that? (possible answer: if the deposit is with a trust company set up under the grantor's direction, then.....all this is moot.)
Fortunately, there are as they say, no dumb questions.
#1840 re. #below
TOPIC - HERE'S THE TRUTH YOU'VE BEEN WAITING FOR...
joshuasdad100
Fri Nov 30, 2012 11:46 am
JOHN, HAD A ROBUST CONVERSATION WITH A FRIEND LAST NIGHT ON THIS VERY ISSUE OF
BEING A BANKER...
Did you know that an arrest warrant and a summons are vouchers seeking a bank's consent to transfer Estate (private) funds to the Court's depository account to pay for the Case Bond?
Let's examine a standard check deposit at BOA. The bank endorses the check PAY TO THE ORDER OF BANK OF AMERICA, which is a banker's acceptance by the Payee's bank that monetizes the instrument (converts it to money of account). BOA then steals title to the funds by issuing credits to the depositor's account (a general account). It places a hold on the credits and forwards the check to the Payer's bank for authorization to release the hold. If funds are available, the Payer's bank will endorse the check (yet another banker's acceptance) and return it to its customer, the Payer (at least they used to). If funds are insufficient, BOA will cancel it's endorsement and RETURN THE CHECK TO THE DEPOSITOR/PAYEE.
Notice that the credits move to the Payee and the security moves back to the issuer who issued the security. You can always return to this transaction to understand most any event in the world around you.
For instance, a case in an incorporated Court. The Court (JUDGE ROSE WILLIAMS) deposits the Indictment by endorsing it "FILED IN CASE NO. 1:10-CR-123456." THE STAMP IS A BANKER'S ACCEPTANCE. Doesn't it signify acceptance, opening of an account, issuance of a number, and a deposit? Doesn't the indictment have a Payer (strawman), Payee (Plaintiff), implied amount (penal sum on the charges), a date, signature, and place of payment (the Court)? Doesn't the Court maintain securities accounts in its normal course of business, making it a securities intermediary per UCC 8-102(a)? What else could it be if not a banker's acceptance?
By the way, the Clerk is a pimp (to quote Vito Corleone). The Clerk is a bank teller acting for the Court. The concept that the Clerk is the Court is one of our legendary patriot misconceptions.
After depositing "the check" (Elvick, Shrout, Kennedy and Smith were on the money), the Court then issues credits to a general account, meaning it steals title to the deposit (to the funds - see my last posting) ON THE PRESUMPTION that the funds will eventually be made available by the Payer. They ALWAYS presume the funds will be available until proven otherwise by an NSF notice from the Payer's bank. Then, just like BOA, the Court issues a voucher to the Payer's bank to certify the existence of the book-entry credits - the funds.
Regarding Court, THE VOUCHER IS THE BENCH WARRANT OR SUMMONS. These are nothing more than securities issued to secure acceptance by the Payer's bank - indorsement. That's all that's going on.
It's well disguised of course. For the masses (messes) at large, the transaction is disguised as law.
For lawyers, it's disguised as equity - a violation of a presumed contract to comply with statues.
To patriots, it's disguised as an admiralty arrest of the vessel as Jack Smith taught for years to get the creditor to appear and post bond.
But the core issue - the real issue at work - the underlying issue that controls your life is that they are seeking authorization by the Payer's bank (you) to establish the Payer as surety on the account.
Who's the Payer? THE ESTATE of course. They are seeking your consent to ESTABLISH THE ESTATE AS SURETY for the funds credited to the account represented by the Case Number...
Meaning, AS SURETY FOR THE CASE BOND they already issued.
I repeat...FOR THE CASE BOND which they already issued on the PRESUMPTION that the funds WOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE when appeared physically, hired a lawyer to appear, gave your name, sent in a motion (which creates a general appearance even if you protest jurisdiction), or just entered the Courtroom and said "I'm here on that matter."
Read the definition of Bond in 48 CFR 28.001. A bond is a two party pledge to the Government in which a principal (the strawman) and a surety (the Estate) guarantee an obligation to perform. All they want is the Estate to step forward and ACCEPT liability as SURETY to fund the securities account identified by the Case Number.
BANKER'S ACCEPTANCE.
The concept that they just reach into the Estate any time they want and take the funds is more patriot misconception. Yes, THE BC IS A PRESUMPTION OF THE ESTATE'S AGREEMENT TO ACT AS SURETY. But just like a bank check, they MUST go back to the source and have the security approved.
They MUST get your SPECIFIC consent to have the Estate act as surety on the Bond (the Case Bond).
They MUST get YOUR banker's acceptance. Any time you want to understand the public system, JUST DIAGRAM HOW THEY PROCESS A SIMPLE BANK CHECK.
SO what you have is the Court issuing CREDITS TO A GENERAL ACCOUNT (stealing title), a securities account represented by the Case Number under the PRESUMPTION that the Payer's bank will authorize the funding on behalf of its client, the Estate, the presumed surety.
How do they secure the Estate's consent?
THE APPEARANCE BOND. The appearance bond is your BANKER'S ACCEPTANCE of the arrest warrant voucher. Make no mistake about it - YOU ARE THE BANKER. They are seeking YOUR INDORSEMENT - your BANKER'S ACCEPTANCE - the authorization to presume the Estate is the surety on the Case Bond.
If you decline, if you tell them "the Estate does not consent to act as surety on the bond," then they have a huge problem. Like any depository institution, they can either:
Recall the Case Bond, cancel their endorsement on the Indictment/Complaint security, and return it to the prosecutor/plaintiff's attorney marked NSF (insufficient funds), or
They can ACCEPT LIABILITY AS SURETY FOR THE CASE BOND. Meaning, the public trust known as JUDGE ROSE WILLIAMS, the gambler that issued the Case Bond on the presumption that the Payer (the Estate) would agree to convey its credit, is the only possible source of the funds.
This is why they will resort to shameless incivility to get the appearance bond. They don't want to be stuck with the liability. Because when they steal the Estate's equity by depositing the Indictment security generally, they have terminated your interest in it and they become liable for the income and capital gains taxes on the taxable termination (26 USC 2612, 2603).
When you sign the Appearance Bond in admiralty, the creditor is agreeing to provide the real property (your body) as security. THIS IS WHY TIM TURNER'S DEBTOR/CREDITOR RELATIONSHIP IS A TRAVESTY. The desired relationship Trustee (them) / Beneficiary (us) where we can hold them accountable for breach of trust.
When you sign the Appearance Bond in equity, you are agreeing to MAKE A GENERAL APPEARANCE as the Defendant in a corporate Court of inferior statutory law.
Which means, you have also CONSENTED TO THE ORIGINAL GENERAL DEPOSIT. You have consented to the transfer of private funds to the public side of the ledger for deposit to a general account under their control (legal title). rather than a special deposit under your control. THIS IS HOW THEY TAP THE ESTATE, not by some backroom grab.
The Arrest Warrant is the voucher to secure that acceptance. Nothing more.
What would happen if the Appearance Bond was noted with a banker's acceptance and the reverse side was indorsed: "FOR SPECIAL DEPOSIT ONLY TO ACCOUNT NO. 1:10-CR-123456 FOR RELEASE OF REAL PROPERTY." And one added: "NOT FOR GENERAL DEPOSIT OR REISSUE OF SECURITIES. SEE JUDGE ROSE WILLIAMS FOR PAYMENT OF BOND NO. 1:10-CR-123456."
Definitely NOT recommending this to ANYONE.
Does anyone still think that UNDERSTANDING is not your ticket out? Bill
John Ingress wrote: re. #1837
Bill, please clarify: If one is qualified to submit a 'banker's acceptance', then would this not indicate that the 'banker' is a trust (or trust company) of which you are the grantor? Or which you have directed your proxy to establish?
If so, and assuming that your 'bank' is authorized to take 'deposits', then you would want to deposit your
securities as a ‘general deposit’, so that you can claim a refund later. Am I close enough to smell the roses?
#1842 re. #1837
Re: TOPIC: SPECIAL DEPOSIT
joshuasdad100
Fri Nov 30, 2012 11:56 am
JOHN, WHEN I FEEL CONFUSED, I HUNKER DOWN AND FIND THE ANSWERS RATHER THAN
TELLING MY SOURCES THAT THE BLESSINGS THEY'VE SHARED ARE INSUFFICIENT. See
Proverbs 13:4. While you were complaining, I was composing posting # 1840 on your behalf.
I really believe that your own blessings will be determined by your ability to accept rather than turn people away. Bill
#1846 re. #1826
TOPIC: NEVER A SECURED PARTY CREDITOR
joshuasdad100
Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:40 pm
JT, you would NEVER want to become a secured party creditor. That's Tim Turner language for debtor. The public WANTS you to claim creditor status just like it WANTS you to argue jurisdiction...
When you file a motion claiming they don't have jurisdiction, the act of filing is construed as a general appearance thereby confessing you into the jurisdiction. It is a presumed consent to the general deposit of the charging instrument in their securities accounts.
When you claim to be a secured party creditor, you are confessing into equity where you are contractually obligated to obey the statutes. You are really confessing to being a trustee under the public trust, the BC trust and the SS trust.
What we want to do is replace the debtor/creditor relationship with the trustee/beneficiary relationship. That's what this Group is all about. I suggest analyzing the postings very carefully as a good place to start. Check out message 1840 just posted or insight into the depth of the rabbit hole.
We use the UCC financing statement to establish a maritime lien within the framework of what I just said. But we avoid standing on the debtor/creditor and bailee/bailor relationships because they convey our consent to diminishing the trustee/beneficiary relationship. Bill
#1848 re. #1842
Re: TOPIC: SPECIAL DEPOSIT
fires1up
Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:03 pm
"JOHN, WHEN I FEEL CONFUSED, I HUNKER DOWN AND FIND THE ANSWERS RATHER THAN TELLING MY SOURCES THAT THE BLESSINGS THEY'VE SHARED ARE INSUFFICIENT."
That's why I tried to cover my butt by saying, 'they say there are no dumb questions.' And I don't have any complaints about the postings on this group.
But yes, I do have a complaint. That is, after thinking for the last month about this 'special deposit' issue, and going thru all the posts, (that is, the ones I copied and saved in a doc), I found the issue that was bothering me, and asked questions about it. The issue is in your statement, "> > > > 2. If you bank with special deposit you cannot claim
> >
> > > a refund later because the funds are never comingled with
> >
> > > the banks. Not one person I've spoken with is aware of
> >
> > > this."
My complaint is with myself, that my brain does not understand this statement. I am not knowledgeable enough in this subject to "complain" about anything you offer here, and if I haven't expressed my appreciation for all the voluminous info you put up here, I do so now. I've never complained about the lack of a 'turnkey/template' solution to these issues, as many have done. I'm confused because special deposits by their nature are not commingled, so how does the issue of a 'refund' even arise? Maybe the post was in reference to something David Clarence was promoting. Maybe it means you CAN get a refund if you're banking with 'general deposit'; by way of 1099 for example.
At any rate, I apologize to All for taking your time on such a trivial matter. I'm not asking to be 'spoon-fed' the answers, I was just hoping for a little hint to help me understand.
#1849 re. #1848
Re: TOPIC: SPECIAL DEPOSIT
snakeoildoc
Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:17 pm
John, I share your feeling. In a sense even though Bill seems quite knowledgeable and helpful, on this he really left you hanging. My comparative thought is that, I am out there in space looking at quadrillions of lights from everywhere, and wish I could find the one to which I can anchor. Answer? You are on your own! OUCH. A lot of us, including myself have struggled w/ how to find the proper answer and realize it is extremely evasive, and may very well not be found in my lifetime. To tell a baby, go find your answer in the library holding all the books, thousands or more, doesn't help the baby. Sorry, I also appreciate Bill's advanced knowledge, but this time it just left both you and I hanging.
#1850 re. #1849
Re: TOPIC: SPECIAL DEPOSIT
maharaj333
Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:52 pm
Did he? Really? There is information on this group, you simply will not hear anywhere else - I've been studying this 'stuff', generally, for about 7 years - and all I got was this lousy T Shirt!
It would behoove you to have more humilty, and gratitude. "Left hanging"? What?
Maybe, what Bill is pointing out - simply, is the nature of special deposit itself - and how it operates in direct comparison to it's ornery cousin, 'General Deposit'.
"Nothing new"? What? This means everything! Special deposit is a master key to the matrix: eyes and ears, people!
They segregate the funds with special deposit - they are not co-mingled, and title is not thieved away, as they are, when securities are deposited - in every single commercial transaction - including the original deposit at birth, where the pledge was generally (not specially!), deposited into the county.
"The soul of the sluggard desires, and has nothing: but the soul of the diligent shall be made rich."
- peacemaker -
#1853 re. #1846
Re: TOPIC: NEVER A SECURED PARTY CREDITOR
fdmfghr
Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:41 pm
1.Can one not file to be present by 'special' appearance if challenging jurisdiction? With all rights reserved, without prejudice, etc.? In order to claim equitable relief via a Statement of Billing based on coerced time for 'forced' servitude as an unwilling witness?
2.Canadian version of UCC personal property first interest filing in some cases at least is formatted so that the forms have an 'obligatory' section for 'secured party creditor'. IF one doesn't comply with filling something into this section, they reject the filing.
SO please comment in light of remarks below re this.
#1854 re. #1853
Re: TOPIC: NEVER A SECURED PARTY CREDITOR
maharaj333
Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:08 pm
If you "challenge jurisdiction" - you've just made a 'general appearance'.
- peacemaker -
#1855 re. #1854
Re: TOPIC: NEVER A SECURED PARTY CREDITOR
fdmfghr
Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:16 pm
I can overstand why is so in general, but one can make other options in such filing, like referral to the TRUST as being the party involved, with natural self listed underneath this in whatever capacity, like defendant-in-error. So if I were to consider such challenge, that would be my way of submitting.
Would you still say that making a clear distinction between the TRUST account and natural self is necessarily and always giving way to 'general appearance'?
#1857 re. #1855
Re: TOPIC: NEVER A SECURED PARTY CREDITOR
maharaj333
Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:28 pm
I'm saying, or suggesting - from my meager knowledge base - that when you - 'challenge jurisdiction' - you've just made a 'general appearance' – and therefore have consented for the JUDGE TRUST to proceed, on the security scam, and generally deposit the security into the court case account. You've just confessed that you ARE the trust account named in their paperwork.
#1858 re. #1857
Re: TOPIC: NEVER A SECURED PARTY CREDITOR
fdmfghr
Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:32 pm
Well, I guess I'm less sure than you are re this...since one can make 'appearing' under duress, and due to threats of alternatives of arrest, which can also be stated openly via such 'forcible special appearance'. So no real confession really either....just there under threats.
#1861 re. #1855
Re: TOPIC: NEVER A SECURED PARTY CREDITOR
joshuasdad100
Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:41 pm
YES, IRIS. IF YOU FILE AN ANSWER, HIRE AN ATTORNEY, ARGUE JURISDICTION, ENTER
THE COURT - YOU HAVE CONFESSED THE DESIRE TO APPEAR. This is proven in their writings on gen appear in CJS and Amer Jur, case law, and so many patriot cases. They ignored Eddie Kahn when he argued jurisdiction. The list of others is long. They WANT you to argue jurisdiction or anything. If I was a judge, I'd want you to argue. Because the second you do I'm going to say, sit down and shut up or I'll hold you in contempt. THIS IS THEIR GAME. Maharaj3333 had it exactly right.
The ONLY way to stay out is to return process privately with whatever process you're undertaking. Then they know you have CONVICTION. Bill
#1863 re. #1837
Re: TOPIC: SPECIAL DEPOSIT
route4401
Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:17 pm
Okay, I'll have a shot at this, but I won't claim any great expertise is this area.
By making a special deposit you're placing your property with the bank for safekeeping - a bailment. No transfer of title; merely possession. A general deposit is a transfer of title and therefore you should get equal value in return (equal exchange) for your security which, as I understand it, you don't. Therefore, you are entitled to claim a refund (via 1099, I presume) for the security you issued and didn't receive the equal exchange.
However, don't try this until you've reclaimed your securities as presently this is leading to undesirable consequences from the agency.
- cantinista
#1864 re. #1863
Re: TOPIC: SPECIAL DEPOSIT-CAUTION PLEASE.
joshuasdad100
Fri Nov 30, 2012 10:00 pm
IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO DO SOLID RESEARCH RATHER THAN SPECULATE. You are NOT
directing special deposit for safekeeping. You do NOT want to create a bailor/bailee relationship in place of a trustee/beneficiary relationship. That would defeat the purpose. A number of other conclusions are speculative, so caution is urged. BILL
#1866 re. #1826
Re: A4V and Secured Party Creditor?
rasadak313
Fri Nov 30, 2012 11:27 pm
Here's a little more information that will help to understand why we are all dead until we declare (through the courts) that we are alive: (this link explains it quite well, and I added it to the following article that I posted in my notes section on facebook...RASADAK on facebook)
Birth Certificates and the Stock Market
Well, it has come to my attention, that the United States Corporation actually OWNS everyone due to the birth certificates that were issued when they are born. In fact, there is a law that is still on the books that states that unless one comes forward and declares themselves to be alive, in the courts, that they are considered dead. This is why your name is written in all capital letters on the birth certificate (and Social Security card, and driver license, etc.) The issuance of the birth certificate gives the government control over your assets, including your person.
Via Jeff Anderson:
"People become surety for the debt by a number of different ways. One way is by a Birth Certificate when the baby's footprint is placed thereon before it touches the land. The certificate is recorded at a County Recorder, then sent to a Secretary of State which sends it to the Bureau of Census of the Commerce Department. This process converts a man's life, labor, and property to an asset of the US government when this person receives a benefit from the government such as a drivers license, food stamps, free mail delivery, etc. This person becomes a fictional persona in commerce. The Birth Certificate is an unrevealed "Trust Instrument" originally designed for the children of the newly freed black slaves after the 14th Amendment. The US has the ability to tax and regulate commerce.
The government issued Birth Certificate is now a Registered Security which initially has an estimated value of One Million dollars. They are circulated around the world as collateral for loans and entered on the asset side of
ledgers just like any other security. That is why they are initially filed with the Commerce Department. The central banks now have a negotiable instrument against which credit is advanced by the international funding community, namely The World Bank, International Monetary Fund, Bank for International Settlements, Bank of England, Federal Bank of America etc. US citizens are bonded debt slaves and just as soon as they are done using american youth for the united nations wars we will be deleted. Nothing personal just business.."
Someone else posted this (can't remember who at the moment): "While you think of your birth as the day you were born, the Lawyers have other opinions about that event. They say your vessel arrived via the berth canal and arrived on the land. The first things that were done were to weigh you and measure your length, then they placed your footprints on the record of live berth. Your landed estate, your body, is your estate, or your land. Your true state you live in is your body. You have never left. Your spirit will remain in your body for your entire life. The state has a vested interest in your estate, and until you become knowledgeable enough to manage your affairs, the state holds title to your landed estate (your body). A trust was created between the state and your parents for your benefit. They granted to you your rights to life, without harm, to a child. Now that you have grown into an adult, as a grantee of the trust, it is up to you to accept that granted birth as the only one that can accept true responsibility for your vessel, the grantee."
Here's a link that can say it a little better than I can:
\value-birth-certificate-bond-39520.html#ixzz22k52klux
Taken from the above link:
"In the Cestui Que trust (your national insurance/social security number is usually the same reference) set up in your name CAN be accessed and bills can be paid via proven mechanisms such as AFV (Acceptance for Value).
Registering a birth also means you unwittingly become an employee of the state, to a society which they have self-servingly defined. It's a contract in essence. Yet you weren't made aware of it's terms and conditions and that it is actually a contract (at least your parents weren't - which in contract law makes it null and void). A 'society' to which you are bound by their statutes, acts, orders and regulations via the a legal fiction (strawman). Which differs from common and natural law.
Governments through the prism of their central banks use this registry information to create government bonds, or negotiable instruments, against which credit is advanced by the international funding community (IMF) and repaid in the form of income tax by the artificially created entity, known under statute law as a tax payer.
Acceptance for Value is a Commercial Remedy, which is a commercial right that is acquired through a commercial instrument. For example, any tickets, tax and utility bills,etc.
The basic concept for Acceptance for Value is exactly what it says. It is acceptance, so that you stay in honour.
The theory with AFV is that you're accessing your (govt) account, utilizing the AFV technology to redirect how they issue you these liabilities direct to your person/strawman, and you then pointing them in the right direction and get them to sort this out in the bankruptcy. Actually accept it as a payment. The process is relatively easy, but actually getting corporations to accept is another matter all together. You might experience dishonour and therefore have to go into remedy as a last resort.
So when a utility bill arrives, this is not a bill according to the Bills of Exchange Act, it is in fact a liability proposal stating you owe x amount of money. Most people receive a statement of an account, because if they can't actually put a value on it, then they can't tell you that you owe it, therefore they can't state that it is a (true) bill. This is because the government, operating in bankruptcy, uses "Double Entry Accounting (two sets of books, one that pretends to be money and the other that is debt)."
In essence they've given you a proposed liability, it's something for you to pay. But that's not what it is though. It's actually something that should be returned to you, it's your tie, it should be returned back to your exemption
account (NE number/Social Security number) - created in bankruptcy, a passthrough account if you will.
You can't pay a debt with a debt! You can't use sweat equity to pay something in the public, because the public is bankrupt. The Acceptance for Value process is just discharging the liability back into the public domain to be paid later on. Some might assume this is avoiding your obligation to pay for something that you've received. This is inaccurate! Firstly, it's not your fault your in bankruptcy. Secondly, if you're using cash it's expanding the public debt, and obviously the interest attached to it will increase. So when you use Acceptance for Value, your actually expanding funds under public policy without the debt attached to it. Your actually reducing the national debt because you're literally creating the credit without having to use the (promissory) notes created by private corporations called a bank, and charging you for the privilege of using it.
I would also add that making known "Acceptance for Value" isn't solely to ensure those who commit to enough research can capitalize from, but also to reinforce the existence of a (Treasury) account created when your birth was registered and the legal fiction which is attached to it, and how to loosen or even throw off those government chains and begin utilizing the very mechanisms installed to enforce your serfdom.
Whilst becoming increasingly proficient in matters of law, I've realized one extremely important component you must have when entering the rigged legal system: and that is a bond, one which surpasses the combined bonds of all those legalistic parasites that assemble within the theatre of lies and corruption we call courts (that's judges, lawyers, bailiffs, barristers... everyone). Your birth certificate bond is the key to achieving this."
THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE BOND
Article by Guy Euden
Hi all, well let's start my mentioning this is the perfect article to present to you in between the AFV part one and part two.
It is very important that you realise that without the above document, you will not be able to fulfil most of the remedies mentioned in "Standing in Commerce" aka "Commercial Redemption"
Your BC bond if you like starts you on your way to your personal sovereignty it is the first step, the meat and potatoes of all that you do afterwards.
You want a simple explanation on how important it is?
Ok, if you enter a courtroom un-bonded you stand little or no chance, the minute you step into the courts territory you are in contempt, I am not saying you cannot win, but I am saying you enter as a debtor!
If you enter a court un-bonded, you are already in contempt of court! Why?
Because you have entered a place of business, a place of commerce and you are not insured to operate!! So you are operating in a position that it is very difficult to rise from.
Let's not forget that if you are not bonded you cannot start down the road of identifying yourself as the creditor e.g. "Guy Euden" to the Debtor "GUY EUDEN" (the legal fiction, your vessel that sails in commerce) yes you may file a UCC1 or equivalent but is that enough?
To perfect the bond process you need to follow the steps on our Standing in Commerce forum, but in the interest of giving you a clue here and now, you need:
Full "Certified copy of an entry" or "Birth Certificate"
An EIN number from the IRS in the states
You will need to file a UCC1 at some point
And you need to purchase a "Winston Shrout" DVD (he supplies the template for the "Bond Order etc.. in one of the DVD's in whatever set you buy)
Once you have these things you can then create your bond, you will need a close group to help you, as you will need 2 Surety's (your wing men) they must also have EIN numbers, known as their "private offset account" these will need to be placed on the bond, with signatures and a thumbprint in red YES A THUMBPRINT!
Two more witnesses to the signatures and you can file it, you give the treasury Thirty(30)days to rebut the bond (they won't unless you have made a mess of it) after the 30 days are up you are bonded!
The thing is, and it is important for you to understand this, the bond is "unlimited value" I mean they cannot put a value on the substance of life so the bond is unlimited, now in a courtroom a Judge has a bond (it's his bar number for insurance or indemnity if you like) the court will have a bond so will the barrister etc.. (Insurance against their wrong doing!) so you see you enter the courtroom with a bond you are already equal!! But wait there is more!! You see, by having a private bond of unlimited value you trump their bonds, as theirs will be corporate bonds and of little value compared to yours!
Now when you have a bond in place you can issue other bonds off of it (you need to do a seminar for this or you might get yourself in trouble) so you may indemnify the court you are about to go into, this is a double edged sword, it gives them insurance against you doing something wrong, BUT it gives you a means to ensure proper due process, how? I'll tell you.
If you write a bond to indemnify yourself you also indemnify yourself from them (judges, court etc..) if they do not adhere to due process you can liquidate that bond! What do you think happens if you liquidate a bond worth say,, £300,000,000, I'll tell you, the brown stuff hits their fan!! The courts worth what £2 million? The judges bond poultry few hundred thousand? And the rest... well chump change!! So let's be kind and say £3million top
whack! Where's the other £297,000,000 coming from? Enjoy those thoughts I'll leave that bit with you, watch "Winston Shrouts Kelowna" for more detail.
So it really is the meat and potatoes of the "Standing in Commerce" technology
The BC bond also helps with the AFV technology covered in part one!
As I stated in the part one article you can use two steps to ensure performance on their part to honour your presentment, however here in the UK this is a new process, so they may still act silly and dishonour you!
So you use your bond to liquidate the asset they have presented to you and are now in dishonour with by keep returning it (the bill) when you do this (liquidate) your tiger the IRS (more on this at the seminar) will take that
money straight out of their account, they will go crazy!! Nothing is going to make them look twice at what they have done like cash disappearing from their accounts!
Remember we are in an equivalent bankruptcy to (chapter 11) but the Lying Deceitful British Government and Judiciary don't like to admit it, so don't bother trying to get them to admit it, they won't! So as I have stated in the past, you cannot pay a debt, we have no means to do so, they fraudulently creating "resulting trusts" as liabilities for you to pay, so AFV their presentment and present it back to them to settle the account!! But to get full satisfaction "GET YOUR BOND"
ANYONE WISHING TO ATTEND THE SEMINAR ON THE 15TH AND 16TH OF NOVEMBER 2008 IN
NOTTINGHAM, NEEDS TO GET THEIR BOOKINGS IN YOU CAN CONTACT ME AT: guyeuden@...
I WILL SEND YOU A SEMINAR BOOKING FORM AND FILL IT IN AND GET IT BACK TO ME ASAP
PLS.
If you get all of your bits in the "needed list" you can get your bond sorted out straight after you complete the seminar, then your well on your way.
This is just a skim over the surface, its more indepth from here on in, Dont be thinking that the bond is just orderable part of the process ones all parts are in place is to create your bond and then lodge it with a treasury, from then on your sovereignty and power grows!
\value-birth-certificate-bond-39520.html#ixzz22rBwpQ6b
This gives a simplistic understanding as to the origins of the 'legal fiction.'
Are You dead?
Oh Yes! You are most definitely - Dead!
What, don't believe me? I can prove it... try this on for size....
If you are alive then......... stick your finger in your ear-NOW!
I knew it! Your all dead, the lot of you. I didn't see one person, anywhere in the world, stick their finger in their ear, Is that proof or is that proof!
:sweat:
Sorry, even dead people gotta have some fun once in a while! :grin:
Anyway... in 1666, Government passed an Act called The Cestui que vie Act which declared everyone legally missing or dead. And if after 7 years from their registered birth date they still haven't told the government they are not missing or dead, the government will just consider them dead and no longer missing.
Oh and by the way, although it was written over 343 years ago, the Cestui que vie Act is still in full force today! Don't believe me? Take a look at the OPSI statute database below. If it doesn't say repealed on the Act then it stands with as much legal weight as any recent Act.
Cestui Que Vie Act 1666
What's this got to do with me?
OK, did you ever consider walking into a government office and declaring yourself un-dead? ...I didn't think so. What the government did with this Act was very clever, They said that if you don't come and tell us your not dead then you must be dead so we're going to have to legally look after all your property until it is either claimed or sold. In other words, it's the legislation that allowed government to create legal title over the publics' property by a swish of their feathered pens. Imagine that! You can give yourself the wealth of a whole nation by writing!!
1666 was the Great Fire Of London wasn't it?
Yeah that's right, literally, as London was burning to the ground, parliament decided it was a good time to pass some legislation that stated everyone in the country was considered either missing or dead. NICE!! Just coincidence? Possibly... however, it's also possible that all those poor suckers who did actually die in the fire would be unable to claim they weren't dead and thus the government gets many, many great pieces of charred land by defaulted legal title.
So they did the following things with this Act.
1. They brought in a very controversial piece of legislation at a time when it would go unnoticed.
2. They gave themselves legal title to everything in the UK, including people. Yeah that's right, they have your birth certificate with your name on it. That's legal title!
3. They Didn't tell people that they had to reclaim their property.
4. Your proof of birth (birth certificate) became you. Legally speaking
I know I know, this all sounds a bit silly, and you'd be right in most respects. The fact is however, in sentiment at least, the legislation is possibly well intentioned. The government are saying that they will look after your property until a rightful claimant comes forward, weather it is you back from the dead or someone with inheritance rights. It isn't wrong that the government look after your property if you aren't actually breathing any more is it? Not really, someone has to do it.
The trouble is, some government officials aren't well intentioned and its turned out that this legislation has been taken advantage of. The government never told us we had to declare ourselves un-dead in order to reclaim our property/legal title back (typical). So from the moment our births were registered, all of the property we own (Inc. our bodies and anything in your registered birth name) is not legally owned by us but by the government who now has legal title. I'm NOT joking!
I'm pretty sure I know what your all thinking because I went through the same questions you probably are. for instance, How can the government possibly suggest that they own my body? that's LUDICROUS!! Well I agree, IT IS! but that doesn't change the fact that they do! It's in black and white right in front of your eyes. (Cestui Que Vie Act 1666) Think about it, what gives the government the right to tell you by way of legislation what you can and can't put inside your body? Does a badger get told what it can and can't eat? NO, because it's
not owned by anyone! Go badger!!
The only thing we have a legal right to is possessory title. That's to say, the government allows you to use/possess/look after things like your body, as long as you do it the way they say you can. Don't believe me, OK, some homework for you. Try to find out who has legal title to your house. I dare you! I think your deed/title is probably registered at your local Land Registry Office. Catch my drift?
HERE IS THE 'PROOF OF CONTINUATION OF LIFE FORM' - form '206' - look at who it is submitted to! The A/c No refers to the birth certificate bond (national insurance number).
(1).doc
you can open it as a word.doc, by hitting the 'read only' button.
A more complex explanation replete with legalities (more within link).
The Elusive Life Annuity
"If such person or persons for whose life or lives such Estates have beene or shall be granted as aforesaid shall remaine beyond the Seas or elsewhere absent themselves in this Realme by the space of seaven yeares together and noe sufficient and evident proofe be made of the lives of such person or persons respectively in any Action commenced for recovery of such Tenements by the Lessors or Reversioners in every such case the person or persons upon whose life or lives such Estate depended shall be accounted as naturally dead, And in every Action brought for the recovery of the said Tenements by the Lessors or Reversioners their Heires or Assignes, the Judges before whom such Action shall be brought shall direct the Jury to give their Verdict as if the person soe remaining beyond the Seas or otherwise absenting himselfe were dead….If the supposed dead Man prove to be alive, then the Title is revested. Action for mean Profits with Interest."
The Cestui Que Vie Act, 1666
When blessed living souls are incarnated as Men and Women on Planet Earth, they are almost always registered with the government of their country of our birth. Undisclosed to their parents is the knowledge that each newborn is then allocated a legal person, as well as a Life Annuity, in the CAPITALISED version of the given and family names, reputedly valued at what the government's creditors perceive to be the potential value of the individual's labour (also known as Sweat Equity) over the course of an average working lifetime.
From Bouviers Law Dictionary:
ANNUITY, contracts. An annuity is a yearly sum of money granted by one party to another in fee for life or years, charging the person of the grantor only. Co. Litt. 144; 1 Lilly's Reg. 89; 2 Bl. Com. 40; 5 M. R. 312; Lumley on Annuities. 1; 2 Inst. 293; Davies' Rep. 14, 15.
It is believed by some that each child is valued at the figure resulting from the division of a country's resources by its population at the time of birth. While it is still unclear as to whether this system was designed for the benefit of the people, the beneficial interest of an implied trust has been claimed for the purposes of reducing the so-called `national debt'.
Unbelievable though it may sound, it seems increasingly likely that each registered individual has a Life Annuity in the their legal person's name, the proceeds of which were claimed by the Treasury for the benefit of the public purse, when the annuity was deemed `abandoned property', following the failure of our legal guardians to register it in the commercial registry within seven years of of its creation; facts which were willfully concealed by those who had an legal obligation to disclose them, also known as fraud by non-disclosure.
The statutory provisions clearly demonstrate that the proceeds of the abandoned annuities are then pooled in the Consolidated Funds and National Loans Accounts by the National Debt Commissioners. Although there is very little material evidence to substantiate the claim, some researchers also believe birth registration represents the pledging of a baby's future labour to the State, as security and surety for the fiat currency and the bankrupt National Government's debts, in return for the benefit privileges it provides to the people, all too often in the form of inadequate public services run for profit, rather than the benefit of the people.
There are certainly a myriad of ways in which we are tricked into granting our tacit legal consent to commercial agreements by corporate entities of all descriptions. When we accept an alleged traffic violation to avoid the hassle of going to court or to avoid being charged a heavier arbitrary penalty, we are granting our consent to be governed according to the Secretary of State's fee schedule for the public highway, just like we do when we apply for, accept and sign a driving licence in our legal person's name.
Similarly, when we plead guilty to a speeding offence to the Clerk to the Justices, we are granting our consent to be bound by the verdict of the magistrate's court where the charges are filed. Just agreeing to be `the defendant' or standing in the dock, comprises our consent to be judged according the ruling of a de facto commercial tribunal, which always assumes the validity of the charges brought before them, and too often pays scant regard to any facts presented by the accused, rushing to a summary conviction before the court has even convened.
Pursuant to the established conventions on private and international law, the agreement of the parties is the law, unless there is a dispute over matters pertaining that agreement, in which case, the laws of the location the agreement was made and/or executed will apply, unless there is disagreement over which laws apply, in which case the matter will most likely be resolved by the appropriate application of the established conventions.
No agreement of any kind, anywhere on this planet, is legally enforceable unless there has been a meeting of the minds, with full disclosure given to all concerned and affected parties at the time of execution, due consideration, performance and the provable, voluntary consent of the parties to the terms and conditions contained therein.
Therefore, the concealment of significant facts pertaining to the Life Annuity is what invalidates any and all invisible and/or adhesion contracts between our legal person and the State. The fact that our parents were never furnished with the knowledge that the birth document is a certificate for an annuity, may well represent a clear case of fraud by non-disclosure, which would automatically vitiate any and all existing and related agreements with the government and its agencies, ab initio.
My notes:
And the birth certificates are traded on the stock market. Literally!!! If you want to see the fact that your birth certificate is traded on the stock market, go to this site:
Put your name (the name on your birth certificate, in all caps) in the "Search Value" box, then click on "Across Offerings" in the "Search For" box, then click on "Search"…Also, even more interestingly, leave the "Search For" box on "Treasury"...they both will take you to another page... on that page there are "required fields" marked by red asterick... when you leave it on "Treasury" the "bond tier" is already checked...when you put in "Across Offerings" click on "other" next to "bond tier"...click on "all" next to "Call Protection" and "Zero Coupon" and then click on "Show Offerings"... that will bring up a graph... click on one of the dots on the graph to see the trading information.
Please bear in mind that we are now under international law, and that is the reason that the USA (corporation) has entangled us in this same web. It's not just a British thing. It's a world thing now.
#1871 re. #1866
A4V and Secured Party Creditor?
twidlar
Sat Dec 1, 2012 8:05 am
Which law is this? It would be very important to know.
#1872 re. #1866
Re: A4V and Secured Party Creditor?
prosperofla
Sat Dec 1, 2012 10:07 am
With due respect, this message, while it contain some accurate information, also contains inaccurate information as well as links to resources (some with a monetary charge) that touts Patriot Learning, as it is referred to in this group.
It is strongly recommended that you hit the pause button and read the files attached by the Moderator of the Group, particularly the "BC Scam" paper.
I paid good money for some of the learning you recommend, only to discover proof here in this discussion group that it is incorrect.
Sincerely,
Peter
#1874 re. #1866
Re: A4V and Secured Party Creditor?
maharaj333
Sat Dec 1, 2012 10:52 am
How can one have a dead corporation in admiralty - that deal with 'things' - prove life? It's an oxymoron.
- peacemaker -
#1875 re. #1871
Re: A4V and Secured Party Creditor?
maharaj333
Sat Dec 1, 2012 11:05 am
It's the c'est tui que vie act of 1666
- peacemaker -
#1876 re. #1875
Re: A4V and Secured Party Creditor?
twidlar
Sat Dec 1, 2012 11:41 am
The Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666 is British law. It was enacted to take advantage of the fact that so many had died from the Plague. It is said that the London fire of 1666 was set deliberately to add to the loot. So everyone was presumed dead or lost at sea. You had to prove you were alive.
How was it incorporated into US law?
#1877 re. #1876
Re: A4V and Secured Party Creditor?
maharaj333
Sat Dec 1, 2012 12:01 pm
Did you think that England and the Monarch was somehow out of the picture - as far as the USA was concerned? The Monarchy was there - right from the outset. The conqueror gets to rewrite history - so they conveniently left out the part that said - "oh, we forgot to tell you - you're still under our rule - we're just making it look like you're 'Independent. Oops!".
Bar attorney's, should be the most obvious clue...
- peacemaker -
#1878 re. #1877
Re: A4V and Secured Party Creditor?
twidlar
Sat Dec 1, 2012 12:51 pm
The London bankers have meddled with us since our beginnings. Every serious person knows that. But they have been very careful to sneak things into our laws since the Constitution overturned previous law.
So where in our law did they put it? Any legal cites?
#1880 re. #1861
Re: TOPIC: NEVER A SECURED PARTY CREDITOR
fdmfghr
Sat Dec 1, 2012 6:13 pm
Sigh! Problemo, Bill, is that one can return all till one is blue in the face, and all that occurs is they keep tryin' again....at least, that's been my observation here in these parts I frequent now, and it is NOT U.S. territory directly but part of what is known as 'Canada', be this inc. or otherwise non-domestic.
I personally would use other responses than the juridictional one, but hypothetically, for fuller discussion, there are instances where the PTBs do not like to 'accept' that someone has caught onto their game.
Returning process privately in one recent example I helped with, for example, led to the return of the documents which were specifically addressed as private conveyance, not meant to be filed but might be filed only if NO response was offered. All was simply returned from the CC/aka registrar for the 'court', and a followup was made by same source to 'push' the matter onward in their framework....with a letter directive re upcoming further court action, etc.
SO we will need to check the docket later, a few days before the scheduled insistence on attending, since otherwise the probability is very high of door pounding which cannot be completely evaded or avoided followed by 'arrest', etc. We are not interested in 'arguing' in their realm but may still be necessary to make some 'appearance' despite our reluctance due to duress and threat.....otherwise, I hope you are NOT suggesting in cases of such intransigence of the system involved, that the defendant-in-error have to suffer through more detention in grey concrete cells, etc.? Or are you?
No, no attorney will be hired and we got rid of the public pretender assigned to the case. There is NO desire to appear but we need to be mindful of the consequences of an 'arrest' warrant being very proactively pursued then.
And yes, I read with much interest your other postings re the messages on claiming equity on the account, who was doing what, in which role, etc. I believe I understood these contents quite well and that approach will be the first line of response from our side if indeed we find further process is scheduled. WE will simply have to see how thick headed the opposition is and how intent on continuation and what to do further.
#1881 re. #1864
Re: TOPIC: SPECIAL DEPOSIT-CAUTION PLEASE.
route4401
Sat Dec 1, 2012 9:09 pm
Well, my bad for opening mouth (er, keyboard) before engaging the brain. Obviously, upon reflection, the special deposit places the security in trust with the receiver of the deposit(trustee). This leads to other questions that I will reflect on for a while rather than speculate in a public forum. Thanks for the correction.
- cantinista
#1905
Question directly for Moderator Bill re. A4V
budepup
Thu Dec 6, 2012 8:26 am
Hello Bill,
I was wondering if you could shed some light on an A4V process I did recently that I may have done wrong.
I discharged three statements/bills, in each putting the A4V verbiage on the front as described by Doug Riddle and others. I also put the Money Order verbiage on the payment coupons of each statement, also according to D. Riddle (and others') method.
On the reverse of the Money Order I signed it at a 90-degree angle, but I also put 'without prejudice' above my signature and ', Agent' after my signature.
Did I do that wrong? Should I have put ONLY my signature and no other words/phrases in order to make the negotiable instrument viable?
Would you suggest doing the A4Vs again, this time with ONLY a signature on the reverse of the Money Order?
Thanks in advance for your help. I appreciate it.
Patrick
#1908 re. #1905
TOPIC: A4V MYTHS (Question directly for Moderator Bill re. A4V)
joshuasdad100
Thu Dec 6, 2012 2:24 pm
Hi Patrick, I suggest you go back to the early posts for background information. It will be a wild fluke if your acceptances work. Like most newcomers, you're worried about the color of the paint without a proper foundation in how to build the car from a garage full of parts.
The big problem is that they are not processing acceptances without approved agency standing. So I would NOT take any risky action like not paying a critical bill such as a mortgage, as you are likely to wind up, like so MANY patriots, in controversy PREMATURELY learning by the school of hard knocks instead of competent gentle mentoring.
Also, if you understood what an acceptance is and what the term "for value" means, you would know that you don't need a money order. By doing that, you gave them two securities drawn on the same instrument. This is a holdover from ZYA. Bankers have been doing acceptances for generations. What they do - all it takes - is the word "ACCEPTED" to convert it into monetizable credits.
As to the endorsement, when you pay a bill, do you endorse the check? Or is that the Payee's job?
By the way, your acceptance is a security, not a negotiable instrument. Securities have indorsements rather than endorsements.
And then there's the issue of reserving the acceptance and assigning it to the payee.
I point these things out to show there's more to it than meets the eye. When we do an acceptance, the acceptance is a security that encapsulates the security they provided. It tells them to off-set against a prepaid account. Our security agreement pledges the Grantor will cover all the debtor's debts. Our acceptance transmits the asset back to the Estate so they can convert the credits they post to the account into funds (just like a bank seeks the funds from the Payer's bank to cover the credits it posted to the Payee's account. Jut like an appearance bond gives access to the Estate.
My intention is not to criticize or embarrass, but to suggest the need to change course so you dedicate yourself to learning instead of doing, from people who know how the system works, until you become a force of nature. You will know when you've arrived when you can do things correctly with the same clarity as when you write a check. Bill
#1909 re. #1880
Re: TOPIC: NEVER A SECURED PARTY CREDITOR
joshuasdad100
Thu Dec 6, 2012 2:37 pm
THANK YOU, IRIS. ONCE AGAIN YOU'VE BROUGHT FORTH THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM THAT
PLAGUES A PARTICULAR SITUATION.
I wish I had a dime or everyone who volunteered to appear in person due to fear, circumstances, lack of funds, whatever. They are all in prison. IT DOESN'T WORK IN CRIMINAL CASES UNLESS YOU HAVE EXTRAORDINARY SKILLS. The term "in person," is no lie. You appear in the personage of a U.S. trust, contract, securities account.
SWAT is testing if you have CONVICTION, rather than mere BELIEF. When you get dragged in by the Gestapo, THEY CANNOT PRESUME YOU ARE A U.S. PERSON. They can't presume you're a trustee. They can't presume you've granted access to the Estate. THEY CAN'T PRESUME GENERAL DEPOSIT OR GENERAL APPEARANCE. That's why they keep hammering away with the questions and threats. That is a golden opportunity to end the conflict then and there.
I am hoping at some point that you will stop responding to the postings with but, but, but, and instead start thinking, Yeah, I can do that. Maybe this would be a good time to change. Bill
THEY KEEP TRYING BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T CLOSED THE CASE.
#1911 re. #1909
Re: TOPIC: NEVER A SECURED PARTY CREDITOR
iamsomedude
Thu Dec 6, 2012 3:13 pm
So, it appears every "account" is an "open escrow" that has received "credit" from the "treasury" ... but has never closed since "equitable interest option over the escrow" has never been exercised by "estate of the King" thus is still open for use of the credit via the "payday anticipation loan" granted by "kings' treasury" upon the "deposit" (28 USC 2041).
As such, does it makes sense one should probably authorize the collection and return the funds to the Treasury, unless there is a "verified claim" by an "injured party"?.
"we the people" = all kings upon this earth
"Name on Live Birth" = "estate of the King"
"NAME ON BC" = "HIS VASSAL"
"US Treasury" = "kings' treasury"
"Society" = "Kingdom the Kings build"
"HIS VASSAL" is there on business to verify the claim against the "king" and since the "king" always "pays his bills", the "kings treasury" ponies up the "funds" via "credit" to be held in "escrow" and authorizes the collection of those funds for distribution to any injured party, then if no one can put up a "verified claim", the "funds in escrow" revert back to the "king's treasury" while the "remainder in escrow" "delivers" to the "estate of the king" in care, custody, and control of "HIS VASSAL" for use for the benefit of the "will of the king" ... and if the "King's heart" is with "his people" and "his people's heart" with the "king", then that "love" will inspire the people to build a "glorious kingdom" or "society" to honor "god" for the "divine king" "god" provided for them.
#1913 re. #1909
Re: TOPIC: NEVER A SECURED PARTY CREDITOR
fdmfghr
Thu Dec 6, 2012 4:38 pm
Haha, BIll!!
I will accept your back handed pat on the back since I do recognize the logic of your comments....yes, to CLOSE the matter indeed is the whole fulcrum point!!
But I also try to help others who are not part of this chat group and who really are quite in dim light re the concepts you indicate...so they are very afraid of the Gestapo tactics because they feel lost in the wilderness when push comes to shove.
Would be nice if there was more of a mass movement in this direction, but NOT all are able nor ready to go in direction of this kind of discussion. Many in my immediate circles have some ideas of something being amiss and even agree with basic ideas re ens legis entity always being in official capacity, etc. But when it comes to what to do re this, they are lost.
In this region of my current sojourn, PTB are quite aggressive and it does take several rounds often to get rid of their 'claims'. We need to remember that turning upside down the traditional thinking that's led to current social malaise and mess is not always easy to turn upside down for all, and in short order as may be required when they are 'hit' with some 'charges'.
#1914 re. #1908
Re: TOPIC: A4V MYTHS (Question directly for Moderator Bill re. A4V)
e.ciprian
Thu Dec 6, 2012 5:37 pm
Wow. See this is true education. My mind did flips with this response.
Bill,
Would you mind going a bit further into detail about the difference between a security and negotiable instrument?
Thanks
#1919 re. #1911
TOPIC: ESCROW - OPEN THE BOX. EAT THE FOOD, LOSE THE WEIGHT.
joshuasdad100
Thu Dec 6, 2012 10:38 pm
SOME DUDE-I'M GLAD YOU POSTED THIS. As with usufruct, many of us tend to get lost in unnecessary circuitous concepts to explain what are basically simple concepts. We learned this from the lawyerly class. Every time we transform Thou shall not kill" into a million pages of complicated subterfuge, we lose 99 percent of the audience including the serial killers, and make the message unintelligible to the remaining 1 percent.
Most every transaction in the public involves tendering a security, be it an indictment, bank check, credit card application, or mortgage note. The recipient is supposed to return equal value, but they never do, So, either they have stolen the funds at worst, or suffered a taxable gain at best. Prior to 1933, it was an even exchange of commodities. Since HJR 192, it's an even exchange of futures (promises to pay). HJR replaced a commodities system with a futures system of credit. If the recipient fails to return equal value as usual, then he must place the item into trust or face the consequences of theft.
We are the beneficiary of that trust. If we were not, then they would have effectively stolen your security. A public official simply canNOT steal or claim YOUR securities. They can't afford the tax, or the criminal liability (10 years in prison - see 18 USC 2073). Therefore, by definition, each of these trusts involving every facet of our lives consists of YOUR funds being held in escrow for YOUR benefit.
Those trust depository accounts are the legendary "escrow" accounts no one knows how to explain. Nothing magical. Basic trust law. If I give you property and you fail to return equity, the property is considered held in trust (escrow) for my benefit. THIS IS WHAT 26 USC 2612 AND 2603 ARE ALL ABOUT. If you claim special deposit and demand a return of your securities and they fail to comply, you've got a taxable termination (of your interest in the securities) for which the party holding the instrument is liable for the taxes.
The problem is that they always presume that the security was deposited generally to an account at their disposal, thereby reversing the roles. Everything in the public is backwards. They are operating under the presumption that the Plaintiff is the beneficiary and YOU are the trustee. But once we correct the faulty presumptions, they revert to the trustee obligated to follow the public indenture, and we revert to our rightful role as beneficiary of the funds.
As much as I loathe popular culture, we might yet learn something from Madison Avenue. "Open the box. Eat the food. Lose the weight." We would do well to steal that linearity for ourselves when it comes to these concepts. "Deposit the funds. Credit the account. Return the deposit." Bill.
#1923 re. #11
Re: How to understand Why
route4401
Fri Dec 7, 2012 10:25 am
Upon review of post #11 I see that I made a mistake in my response to Darren Scroggins below. I think it a good idea to correct that lest I contribute to further misunderstanding.
Bill says in post #11 that:
"You can't claim your securities yourself. They presumed you abandoned them at age 25. So you've got to use a proxy."
I understand this to say that you are considered an incompetent or a minor until age 18. Then you are allowed 7 years to claim your securities before they presume that you've abandoned your interest in them. At that point, it seems to me, that the system doesn't presume that you're dead, or incompetent, or anything else other than maybe missing in action. They continue to manage your account until such time as someone "appears" to claim the security(ies).
The way Bill has stated it begs the question:
Can someone between the age of 18 and 25 claim their securities without using a proxy?
If so, how would that process differ? Would it be a matter of using administrative process to present your claim? to the Registrar? to the Treasury?
Inquiring minds....
-cantinista
#1925 re. #146
Re: TOPIC: COURT, SECURITIES, CASE BOND & TRUSTS --THE INSIDE STORY
route4401
Fri Dec 7, 2012 12:11 pm
"joshuasdad100" wrote:
"This is what many of the Estate "gurus" don't really understand either. The Estate AS THE PUBLIC SEES IT is NOT David Clarence's private interpretation. It's NOT the holder of a security interest……
The Estate is the Birth Certificate trust.
The Estate is the surety for the strawman's debts.
The Estate is the debtor on your security agreement in most (not all) cases.
When you take control of the Estate, you also take control of all trusts derived from it such as the Strawman cestui que trust. A cestui que trust is simply the beneficiary of an estate that's held in trust. Your strawman is the beneficiary of the public trust that has been presumed to be a trustee instead."
First of all, this post of Bill's is superb and it's vital to grasp the meanings and implications it contains. In particular, I think the passage above is a key to understanding much of the WHY that will lead us to HOW to reclaim our securities.
Perhaps an understanding of WHY the strawman has been presumed to be a trustee of the BC Trust will show us HOW to effectively rebut the presumption by using our proxies to place our-selves in the de facto role of beneficiary - through the strawman. I can almost conceive of a structure to do this, but I wouldn't presume to do it without understanding WHY it's valid. Without that understanding the risk is too great that, at best, I would be wasting my time and other resources. I've done enough of that with Tim Turner's process.
"Trust, but verify", indeed!
Another key question (at the other end) is what qualifies proxy #2, as holder-in-due-course of the security interest, to collect on it? Is that a recognized right of a holder-in-due-course?
Anyway, I'm seeking the answers to these questions and I have a good idea of where to find them. I just thought I'd put it out there for the other seekers here. Finally, as a parting gift, I'd like to present this interesting Maritime factoid:
Benedict's Admiralty, 7th ed., Chapter IV § 51 footnote 7. "... it is now generally held that government tax claims under 26 USC § 6321 'upon all property and rights of property whether real or personal' rank below all other maritime liens..."
Hmmm, no fooling?
- cantinista
#1930 re. a ‘somedude’ post
Re: LPR Reclaim Trust Re: Is my mother a key in this game?
micros432
Fri Dec 7, 2012 6:32 pm
Dude
The details of my life are quite inconsequential. Very well, where do I begin? My father was a relentlessly self-improving boulangerie owner from Belgium with low grade narcolepsy and a penchant for buggery. My mother was a fifteen year old French prostitute named Chloe with webbed feet. My father would womanize, he would drink, he would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Some times he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy, the sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. My childhood was typical, summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When I was insolent I was placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds, pretty standard really. At the age of 12 I received my first scribe. At the age of fourteen, a Zoroastrian named Vilma ritualistically shaved my testicles. There really is nothing like a shorn scrotum, it's breathtaking, I suggest you try it. I was married for 22 years with a house and Kid. got divorced because my wife had a boy friend with benefits which didn't sit to well with me. Divested myself of my material possession and started reading and studying. I got a PO Box, and ran my credit cards up to the Max. Had another 60K with Chase and I was going to buy 60K worth of gold but they cancelled my cards before I could do It. I was chicken. Haven't spent the time to repair my credit but that’s what I'm working on now. Then Ill do it again. I'm really focused on tapping the big trust and that has been my goal. I have 2 cases in court right now that I'm working on, one for running a stop sign, and one for failure to signal. Was arrested both times and taken to jail for not having a valid Ohio drivers license. However I did have a valid St. Croix License. They couldn't pull it up in their computer so they charged me with not having an Ohio license. Great lessons learned for running a stop sign and not signaling. One was that the officer is acting as Bailee and he takes the goods to the Bailor. The Bailor is the guy in Jail who makes you sign the Bond. Says it on his Patch. "BAILOR" I signed the bond Authorized Representative and without Recourse. I Shouted RAPE 3 times as no less than 7 officers watched and did nothing(Misprision of felony). My situation is do I ruin these guys lives because I want to prove a point. They are just given guns and a badge and told to go out point your gun, accuse people of being intoxicated and uncooperative and bring ‘em into court. Maybe I'll just send in an affidavit of a contract that I had with one of the Bailors, he came in the cell to move me and I told him I was quite comfortable now and to come back later. He said "come on Get up" I said "Ok for 100,000. He said "what candy bars?" I Said "No ounces of gold" he replied "Yea, Whatever." I got up. So, we have an offer and acceptance with consideration. We had a meeting of the minds. This agent for the principal just contracted for the corporation. So I send them a bill, they don’t pay it, I do a UCC-1 on their corp. What do you Think, Is life Good? You bet ya.
Micros
#1931 re. #1930
Re: LPR Reclaim Trust Re: Is my mother a key in this game?
maharaj333
Fri Dec 7, 2012 6:40 pm
Out of this whole post - here's the only thing that stands out (besides the "shorn testicles", of course) : "The Bailor is the guy in Jail who makes you sign the Bond.". All the rest of what "they" do is just smoke and mirrors.
You just consented to having the estate act as surety/underwriter, for the general deposit of the security/complaint/indictment, into the court case account # - wherein, you are trustee (in the backward, bizarro world), and they are the beneficiary.
- peacemaker -
#1937 re. #1914
Re: TOPIC: A4V MYTHS (Question directly for Moderator Bill re. A4V)
joshuasdad100
Sat Dec 8, 2012 10:10 pm
A negotiable instrument is defined in UCC 3-104. Securities are referenced in Article 8 of the UCC. You can find a definition at 15 USC 77ccc as I recall. Mostly everything is a security. UCC 4-102 states that Article 8 is superior to Article 3. The purpose of a security is disposition - even exchange. That could take the place of the recipient indorsing the item, crediting your account, and returning it. The indorsement is also a security. If they fail to return equity as I've just described, then either they've stolen the security (which is rare in Government), or they've created a trust by having received property being held for someone else’s benefit (you). The trust is not governed by the UCC. By definition, the very existence of that trust due to their failure to return equity is a confession of a taxable termination (26 USC 2612) and THEIR liability for the taxes (26 USC 2603) as the confessed trustee. 26 USC 2612 is like a roadmap to the system: taxable termination is a termination of an interest in property held in trust. Guess what, when they fail to credit your account, they've terminated your
interest on property held in trust (your security) and THEY owe the taxes which are equal to the value of the termination. Bill
#1938 re. a post not included here
Re: EIN
joshuasdad100
Sat Dec 8, 2012 10:16 pm
Mike, one small observation re. what you said. Actually, it's very easy to get an EIN without an SS, but it must be done by phone. Bill
#1939
Walter Burien and CAFR
geoffreyfinn
Sun Dec 9, 2012 12:14 am
Bill Do you know who Walter Burien is? He found out about the government investment system known as CAFR, Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. I get his occasional emails.
Now I received an email from Burien wherein he tells of being in a video by one Bill Windsor. Windsor is a 14th Amendment pleader and of course has never won a case and does not listen to reason or the truth. Burien has had one of his children taken and of course can get no where in the court system.
I tried to explain to Burien about the securitization scam and told him if he wanted his son back he would have to reclaim his securities and his estate and gave him the link to your fine group. I thought surely he would check it out but I got an email back from him that I could barely understand. I try to help people and it is like they are braindead. Any comments. I apologize if this is a bit off topic.
geoffrey-franklin
I am a Citizen of one of the states of the Union
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice.
#1945
Securities Exchange Omission?
route4401
Sun Dec 9, 2012 6:04 pm
I've been reviewing the definition of "Security" at 15 USC § 78c (a)(10) and it is interesting to note the things that are not securities.
"but shall not include currency or any note, draft, bill of exchange, or banker's acceptance which has a maturity at the time of issuance of not exceeding nine months, exclusive of days of grace, or any renewal thereof the maturity of which is likewise limited."
A clear understanding here could help avoid confusion as to what transactions constitute an exchange of securities. It doesn't help that they say things like "a maturity at the time of issuance of not exceeding nine months, exclusive of days of grace..." While one can, with a little effort, discern that this means maturities of nine months or less, plus Sundays and bank holidays - say approx. 320 days or less (I'd round it to less than a year). So a check, which according to UCC 4-404 is good for six months*, should presumably be excluded from the definition of a security. And FRNs, which are currency, would also be excluded.
This, it seems to me, is why when you gave the bank your promissory note (a security), and they gave you a check (not a security) to purchase your home, it didn't constitute an even exchange of securities. This is exclusive of the issue of their undisclosed liability to you for the full value of the note, including 30 years accrued interest . I guess that hints at the true reverse mortgage nature of the transaction.
Now I'm just speculating on this point, but that declining loan balance in the public, it seems to me, is really the mirror image of an increasing liability of the bank on the private side. You should, when reclaiming the note and deed at a later date, be entitled to a rebate of all the principal and interest you've paid to that date. Could it be that reclaiming them voids the constructive fraud of the public transaction ab initio and entitles you to the refund if claimed timely?
As Bill has said, this is all just fighting. Just reclaim the BC Trust and then set-off the bank loan. Maybe afterward you might endeavor to reclaim the securities and payments if you feel you're that competent. The bank will still have the tax liability to worry about even if the REMIC is then safe.
* The issue of the maturity of a check (draft) seems to be a gray area. Could this be intentional? Since the latest bankruptcy reorganization in 1999 banks have ceased returning our checks. It is thought by some that this is evidence that the banks are bundling them as securities and selling them into the market. UCC 4-404 says the banks may honor the checks after six months in good faith.
Does this constitute a longer, or even indefinite maturity for a check?
Does UCC 4-404 really even constitute a maturity date for a check?
If not, then absent a stated void date on the check (of approx. 320 days or less from issue), is a check then a security?
Is that a smoke screen I smell?
- cantinista
#1953 re. #1945
Re: EVERYTHING'S A SECURITY
joshuasdad100
Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:10 pm
OKAY, THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HOW THE ANSWER LIES WITHIN US if we will only resort to cognitive thinking...
WHO issues a bank check?
WE do (the drawer).
WHO determines the term? A recipient? A depository (which is yet another recipient)? Of course not. THE ISSUER establishes the terms.
Does it say: "Good for six months?" Of course not. Although it could if we so chose.
Does the UCC language suggest word games? If they had the power, surely they would have said, "A bank draft older than six months shall be considered void."
They have no such authority.
We issue the check. WE set the term. It's almost always of an indefinite term, or like any other lien, good for seven years...Security.
Regarding the exchange of the mortgage note for a bank check, it is not an even exchange as cantinista pointed out. But not for that reason. The reason is that they enter the note at full value with interest, but pay you the face value.
Think about it. On a $50K mortgage, did you promise to pay $50K? Or did you promise to pay perhaps $150K when interest is added in? $150K. That's the promise. That's the value to the bank. That's what they enter on their books.
Your brain is stuck on $50K.
This is how easily they've been playing with us. We've been bred to be a society of morons. But the wall is breaking down. Bill
#1955 re. #1938
Re: EIN
joshuasdad100
Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:20 pm
98 EIN is a foreign entity issued through the Philadelphia office. Rules are at IRM 21.7.13:
45 is also reserved for Phillie issuance for domestic entity, though can be converted to foreign.
One might want a foreign trust. One might want a domestic trust. Depends on the purpose of the trust. Bill
#1956 re. #1939
Re: Walter Burien and CAFR
joshuasdad100
Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:23 pm
When the student is ready, the teachers will appear. I appreciate your frustration, but there's no use wasting energy worrying about what you can't control. The Lord sets the timetable. Bill
#1960 re. previous posts not included
Re: EIN
micros432
Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:41 pm
Dave
Here is some good stuff. Do you have an executor letter?
Micros
11-22-10Keating&Clarence.doc [recording is 5 hours 55 min long] tc/39904
4:xx Stephen E. Owens V Ctre, occupant defined.
#1961
Re: EIN
imnotcaptinkirk
Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:53 pm
Bill, this message has nothing to do with this post. You wrote me recently and told me to stop ‘fighting’ the IRS as they will simply take all my stuff,etc. They’ve levied and contacted third parties and effectively shut down my banks and my cash flow.
I’ve been studying the information here and what Boris (iamsomedude) has made available and using that I recently sent IRS a letter informing them of IRS Manual 21. They just Levied my bank accounts a second time even taking $1.27 in one of them so they are clearly miffed and trying to make their point!
I have reviewed remedy and have had some success with Lawful Money reduction filings but have a huge balance of ‘claims’ and NTFL’s from past attempts to withdraw from their jurisdiction.
I am now pretty aware of the securities and equities issues involved that are discussed in the group but IRS seems intent on bending me into a payment agreement (becoming the accommodation party)
by using any coercion they can. I don’t see a way out without caving in. My business is at a stand still and I feel since they have shut down my bank accounts and have seen to it that I do not have any flow of funds they might turn their salvage operation on my car, and furnishings, etc.
I believe that there must be a way to get them to acknowledge that there is a living man whom they have identified with a name and number and who is the ‘security entitlement holder’, but how is beyond my reach just now. One must eat and they know it...
The impression you give is of someone who has navigated these waters and breathe free. I suppose I need to protect my family and life first and set up a payment agreement and then continue my research. The major problem is logistics. One can understand the mechanics of the reclaiming securities but there is a physical paper process that must be mastered and it is not as easy (for me at least) to implemented as you make it seem.
Or is it?
Any thoughts or encouragement would be appreciated. I am at my wits end tonight.
Peace, scott
#1963 re. #1960
Re: EIN
imnotcaptinkirk
Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:15 pm
Bill is right when he says, IRS WILL NOT RECOGNIZE YOUR EXECUTOR.
Tried it a couple of different ways, still getting Levied.
Bill also says things like "This is how easily they've been playing with us", suggesting that remedy is there simply waiting to be applied.
Well maybe, but I can get this revenue agent off my back and as I wrote earlier I have souls that suffer if I continue in this way.
...As I said before I am at my wits end tonight so forgive me.
Though I can already hear the replies to this that will say nothing about the way to liberation and everything about being "spiritually ready".
Who knows, maybe my last batch of papers will fall on the right desk and I will be able to care for my Dad again without worry of the revenue agent's reach. Maybe IRS and all the corporations will actually service the securities account properly and I'll have the use of the credit that was raided. I doubt it though.
#1964 re. #1963
Re: EIN
davestephen60
Wed Dec 12, 2012 1:22 am
micros,
Yes, I have "done" the executor letter. Used version with 4 witnesses without notary stamp and was refused at local county recorder so had it filed in Alabama county court by friend. I have not presented to the executor letter to any other entity. Like I have not presented it to the court where my probation originated which is not local to my current location of sojourning. Thanks for the lengthy comments you have made. I'll get my mind wrapped around its contents.
Is the form 508 doc effective if dealing with a revenue collection officer who is on your ass at every turn?
Dave
#1987 re. previous posts not included
Re: EIN
micros432
Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:46 pm
An AIF is not liable for the principal, the principal (your strawman) is a dead entity. My thoughts are if your the TTEE and The Beneficiary, Ask the Judge if he is acting as the executor of your estate, and as the executor is he ordering the TTEE to pay for the estate. Ask him to put it writing. I appointed the judge and the prosecutor to be trustee in my case and they both declined on the record. So If they declined, who is the executor and who is the beneficiary? I didn't have an affidavit filed with the court and that is about the only thing a judge can recognize. anything you say is ignored. They pulled my driving file and admitted it into evidence. It said that since 2002 I was licensed in the USVI and they still charged me with not having an Ohio drivers license. I'm new to the court system and am getting my feet wet for running a stop sign knowing that I would be pulled over. This is the affidavit I just sent in. I just sent in my POA to be recorded with the State so it is of public record. This Judge is a good man, It will be interesting to see how he handles this. If he dismisses the case I still have the city for rape and kidnapping and the 100,000 oz of gold. I can apply for compensation from the rape fund that the state has set up. Is there anything that I'm missing here? Suggestions welcome.
[affidavit not available]
#1990 re. below
Re: EIN
micros432
Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:20 pm
Its admission that they are administering a trust
On Dec 13, 2012, at 8:09 PM, eponymous_680 wrote: re. #1987
" I appointed the judge and the prosecutor to be trustee in my case and they both declined on the record. So If they declined,......" and if they breached the trust??? Then what?
- peacemaker -
#1996 re. previous EIN posts
Re: EIN
prosperofla
Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:02 pm
From my notes of our Moderator's comments:
The ONLY REASON A TRUST EXISTS IS BECAUSE THERE IS A FAILURE TO RETURN EQUITY.
(Someone has been entrusted with the equity until the beneficiary shows up to take it.) If equity was returned in the form of the original security (such as an indictment) endorsed indicating the Strawman's account was credited with the funds, or an equivalent form of special deposit such as an order to dismiss (a receipt), there would be no trust, or perhaps the trust existed for a nanosecond.
The trust exists only because they FAILED TO RETURN EQUITY ON A SECURITY. Think about that. THEY are holding the security. It's in a security account THEY opened (bank acct, Court file, etc.) The proof of the resulting trust is the case/file/account number THEY assigned. THEY HAVE ALREADY CONFESSED TO BEING THE TRUSTEE. We don't have to appoint them. THEY ALREADY STIPULATED TO ACCEPTANCE when they accepted the security, opened the account, and assigned the number. (We might give notice PROPERLY with a Form 56 to bind them to Sec. 6903.) The arrest warrant, the complaint, the bill, the charge, the letter, whatever, prove the existence of the trust and their trusteeship.
#2000 re. below
Re: EIN
thefinancedu...
Fri Dec 14, 2012 4:50 am
Another thought.
Your adversary is the prosecutor. you must settle with the one who brings the charge, the controversy. If you can attempt settlement with them and they do not honor it, then they come to court in dishonor and if you CC the court clerk of all the paperwork u have a witness as well. now its a easy for the judge to lay blame on the prosecutor for not handling his business...now pay the court fees mr prosecutor :)
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 6:36 AM, patrick ivy wrote: re. #1990 2nd
whose their boss eponymous? appeal for relief on the private side?
or you might want to go the bonds route...bust out the bonds you aren't supposed to know about and say here's the forms, you know how to fill em out :) (that's just a vector to work from anyway :)
#2003 re. post not included
Re: EIN
micros432
Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:12 am
Don't need a passport to go to St Croix. St Croix is a territory and is not in the 50 states computer system. (NCIC)
They operate on the assumption that if they charge you with 4 charges, running a stop sign, failure to display(I never failed to display), driving without a license, I forget the other charge, lets say charged with killing the pope. Then they say we will drop 3 of the charges if you pled guilty to not having a license. This is the system. they expect everyone to plea bargain. I requested a psych evaluation in pretrial and it was quit enlightening. One of the 600 questions was" Do you know what a plea bargain is?" So already having the Psych evaluation takes an arrow out of their quiver. The results: they are not expecting to evaluate a guy dressed in a suit and tie. It was comical, they show you a court room drawing and ask, do you know where the judge sits? Do you know where the prosecutor sits, I wanted so bad to say, No but the executor sits there and the beneficiary sits there, Where does the trustee sit? Inconclusive results, but I was sane to stand trial.
When I was summoned before the judge he said is LAWRENCE ROSE here? I said i'm here on that matter, he said is LAWRENCE ROSE Here? I said I'm here on that matter. He screamed IS LAWRENCE ROSE HERE? REMOVE THAT GUY I'M POSTING A 5K BOND FOR THE ARREST OF LAWRENCE ROSE. The bailiff escorted me out of the court. I apologized to the bailiff and told him I wanted to see the judge, he went away and came back in about 10 min and took me before the judge who said, I'm gonna rip the warrant up and well forget this ever happened.
Micros
Consular Archives PROPERTY OF THE LAWRENCE ROSE ESTATE GOVERNOR LAWRENCE ROSE
#2004
HOW TO "DEPOSIT" A NEW MORTGAGE NOTE/MORTGAGE DEED
wakerobinii
Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:20 am
I am now the proud title-holder of a Mortgage Note and a Mortgage Deed because I helped my granddaughter buy a house. The standard Mortgage Note is a "Promise to Pay" Negotiable Instrument, while the Mortgage Deed is a registered security. As the "Banker" I must determine how to "deposit" these securities by utilizing
my perfected claim of right over the Birth Certificate Trust, with Birth Bond deposit, to monetize same.
If anybody has done this, and is willing to help me figure out the finer details, will you please private message me?
A discussion of same is welcome.
#2005
Newbie
ricklucy2002
Fri Dec 14, 2012 12:14 pm
Hello, I just joined this forum from a link on another forum I am on. I also came here because I am also in need of information on how to access or rather reclaim my securities account. In the last post someone is also requesting information but request it done privately. I'm assuming that this forum is to share information so as we all learn how this method is done. I would hope any information that is given to others is also shared in these posts because that is why I am here. I want to be free of all my mortgages and specifically my irs back taxes which has a running tab of about $175,000 due to the penalties and interest. I am not sure if the process of accessing my securities can be done to pay this debt off as well. Any help from anyone would be much appreciated.
Thank you, Luz
#2006 re. #2005
RE: Newbie
gbolt24856
Fri Dec 14, 2012 12:46 pm
Richard,
the best advice is to look through the files on the site and then start reading all the posts from the beginning, starting with #1
#2008 re. below
Re: EIN
fdmfghr
Fri Dec 14, 2012 2:39 pm
Just a preparatory thought on this: could one not then reply with something like, "Well then are you ready to swear in with your Oath of office, judge? I will accept such, with reservation of my inherent rights...." etc.
Re: EIN re. #1990
Mike Rose
Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:27:25 PM
epon
When a magistrate or judge says "I don't know what your talking about" That has been said to me when I told him I was here by "special appearance", the magistrate then said lets swear the parties in. By swearing in or affirming you give them jurisdiction.
Learning as I go,
Micros
#2009 re. #2006
Re: Newbie
ricklucy2002
Fri Dec 14, 2012 3:05 pm
Actually, I'm Luz, my husband is Richard and I'm the one looking for this information. I do appreciate your response and the steps I need to take. I just hope starting from post #1 isn't as time consuming as I dread it will be but I'm willing to sort it all. I have learned from other forums but still not clear on what the correct process is to pay off certain debts. Mine are the mortgages and the irs. Everything else we can handle. We are just afraid of the levy's and seizures should that happen or even garnishment, that would be detrimental.
Luz
#2015 re. post not included
Bonds
iamsomedude
Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:33 pm
Does the absence of a "GAO Bond" (bid, perf, and payment bonds: insurance against "vexatious litigation") indicate an action at hand is for "private purpose" using "public resources"?
Would a "GAO Bond" then in all practicality be a "contract for bounty" with "insurance of debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties" for "services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion"?
14th Amendment section 4 ... "....including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion"
#2024
Can't seem to find any information that people actually know what they are doing
rubiksphan
Sat Dec 15, 2012 8:01 pm
This forum seems to be filled with people with a lot of enthusiasm but with little actual knowledge about these legal processes. I have researched and researched and all I see is a bunch of philosophical rhetoric tied up with
anecdotes. Listening to people's personal spiritual rants on the evils of the government will not help me solve my problems. I guess these people are morons.
Does anyone know of an actual organized, effective, step by step process you can get NO MATTER THE COST for establishing a secured party status?
#2025
Put my right foot in... and step in it?
route4401
Sat Dec 15, 2012 8:09 pm
I'd like to do my best Alfred Adask impression and begin this post with a disclaimer. Namely that most of this post is my conjecture based on some of the things I've read here that were said to be facts about the correct Treasury process by people who should know. Besides, I thought some members would appreciate a post related to Reclaiming Your Securities.
Don't try any of this yourself; I may be a professional driver but this is definitely not a closed course.
The correct Treasury process has been said to entail employing a proxy (Proxy #1) to perfect a maritime lien against the Birth Certificate trust. This to be accomplished by obtaining a Security Agreement in favor of Proxy #1 against the Birth Certificate trust and, I presume, filing a maritime notice of lien with the US Coast Guard, as well as a UCC1 Financing Statement with the Secretary of State of birth to perfect it.
Once that is accomplished, the lien is then assigned to Proxy #2 who becomes holder in due course of the equitable interest in the lien. This assignment to be noticed via UCC3 Amendment of the UCC1 above. I believe it's safe to presume that Proxy #2 is not a U.S. person, but is charged with being a custodian of alien property; such as the equitable interest in a perfected foreign lien on a U.S. vessel? Not to mention the receiver in a bankruptcy.
That's the basic outline of the process. The devil is in the details of the Security Agreement and the structure of Proxy #1.
The strawman trust 123-45-6789, as the beneficiary of the BC trust, has the right to grant a lien on its property (the beneficial interest in the BC trust 123-45-65432 and all other property interests) to Proxy #1 in exchange for Proxy #1 agreeing to pay the strawman's bills.
We know that the strawman trust 123-45-6789 can be appointed as trustee of another trust; and perhaps should be a trustee of Proxy #1 since it is a needed vessel with the unique ability to convey debt to the Estate.
"The strawman is a debt vehicle created SOLELY to transmit debt to the Estate..."
or conversely, to receive bits of credit from it against a very large charge?
Questions regarding Proxy #1:
Can the strawman/trustee of Proxy #1 be considered to be constrained by the indenture such that it isn't considered to be making ANY decisions, but merely executing the will of the grantor or the requirements of the security agreement? i.e., conveying debt? Thereby preserving Proxy #1's foreign status? And the vessel's function of plying the seas of commerce in service to its new master?
Can the grantor be a co-trustee charged with exercising all discretion and providing the necessary commercial energy to pay the bills in accordance with the trust's consideration in the security agreement?
Would the public then be beneficiary; receiving the equitable benefit of having its accounts settled?
Would this arrangement, along with the acceptance of the Birth Certificate, be sufficient to do the hokey pokey and turn the mess about?
- cantinista
#2026 re. #2025
Re: Put my right foot in... and step in it?
route4401
Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:47 am
Note: the disclaimer in the original message still applies.
Perhaps this could be considered the left foot process, but I have an alternative view to acquiring the lien based on something Bill wrote in his excellent post #146:
"Your strawman is the beneficiary of the public trust that has been presumed to be a trustee instead."
So, given the presumption or misconstruction of the public trust, we might accept their presumption and deal with the strawman as the trustee of the BC Trust rather than as the beneficiary. (What's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh?) Thus, using what you might call a little commercial jiu jitsu, we can then lien the Estate Trust itself (the Legal Title), instead of just the beneficial interest.
This would be most beneficial when filing the UCC1 because we can then list the Estate Trust 123-45-65432 as the debtor instead of the Strawman Trust 123-45-6789. The property liened would then be the Estate itself
and not just the beneficial interest. It should be obvious why it would be better to file the notice of lien this way. Having the primary security interest in the Estate is about as good as it gets.
I suspect it's also better in that the full liability then falls upon the BC Trustee/government employee, thus providing our recourse or nexus to Proxy #2.
- cantinista
#2027 re. #2026
Re: Put my right foot in... and step in it?
fdmfghr
Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:07 pm
Seems similar or even equal to filing a first claim of interest/lien on one's COLB and BC, but referred to here as Estate trust? OR were you referring to the SS trust? In which case one can also include in the same filing an interest/first claim on one's SSN account?
#2028
STUDY RESOURCE: UCC Article 9
prosperofla
Sun Dec 16, 2012 3:33 pm
Friends,
For those of you who are carefully studying the pillars of law regarding Reclamation of your Securities, namely, UCC Articles 8 and 9, and the Uniform Trust Code, here is an 80-minute lecture on video by Professor Ali Khan which distills much of UCC 9 - Secured Transactions.
-Peter
#2059 re. #2028
Re: STUDY RESOURCE: UCC Article 9
congrace7
Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:44 pm
I've spent all day watching Professor Kahn and tonight sipping tea after supper it was like a light bulb FINALLY went off. I am so appreciative of you taking the time to post this. Blessings! I was so confused about the seeming "backwardness" of what "they" are doing. Duh. That is the point I suspect.
Thank you to all of you offering glimpses of the light at the end of the tunnel - and it is NOT a train.
#2029 re. #2027
Re: Put my right foot in... and step in it?
route4401
Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:40 pm
That is exactly what you're doing. You're placing a lien on the public Estate that is re-presented by the COLB. The goal is to acquire the highest claim on it. The trick, as Bill puts it, is to do it in such a way that it is digestible by the public. In reviewing my notes I've found this quote from Bill's post #1711:
"...the SSN trust serves as TRUSTEE OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE TRUST."
This confirms my left-footed view that the strawman (which IS the SSN trust) is the trustee (not the beneficiary) of the Estate (BC Trust) when drafting the security agreement. The security agreement between your Proxy #1 and the strawman is the basis for your claim.
Once you perfect that claim, and deposit your charge with the Treasury, you will already have a claim on the SSN trust because it's a derivative of the BC Trust; as is everything else you've put your signature on in your life.
Then, instead of the public charging the strawman to access you and your labor, you will credit the strawman to acquire distributions from the public trust. The stawman will still be the vessel and the Estate will still be the surety, but you (as re-presented by your proxy) will now be the lord and master of the Estate.
If you haven't already read Bill's treatise "The BC Scam" through completely a few times, you should do so. He should get the Pulitzer Prize for Enlightenment because it shines a needed bright light on the method by which we've been reduced to serfdom.
Once you have a thorough understanding of the securities involved that gave rise to the trusts, as well as how the trusts relate to each other, the remedy will begin to reveal itself. The better your understanding, the clearer the revelation. It will require a good understanding of securities and trusts for that to happen though.
peace,
- cantinista
#2030 re. #2029
Re: Put my right foot in... and step in it?
fdmfghr
Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:55 pm
This raises the question of how does one 'credit' one's STRAW to 'acquire' distributions from the trust? for practical use? Key words are the ones in quotes.
#2031 re. #2027
Re: Put my right foot in... and step in it?
maharaj333
Sun Dec 16, 2012 5:03 pm
If one were to file a lien on the birth trust - would it go to say, this would also encompass all derivative trusts/securities written against it?
- peacemaker -
#2032 re. #2031
Re: Put my right foot in... and step in it?
bruce66695
Sun Dec 16, 2012 5:17 pm
Would you not have to claim an Interest in the first event in this realm, that you where party too, and your mother being the other party.
#2033 re. #2030
Re: Put my right foot in... and step in it?
route4401
Sun Dec 16, 2012 5:26 pm
See post #199
#2034 re. #2031
Re: Put my right foot in... and step in it?
route4401
Sun Dec 16, 2012 5:54 pm
Yep. From post #146 (read #146 a couple of times):
"When you take control of the Estate, you also take control of all trusts derived from it such as the Strawman cestui que trust. A cestui que trust is simply the beneficiary of an estate that's held in trust. Your strawman is the
beneficiary of the public trust that has been presumed to be the trustee instead."
- cantinista
#2042 re. #2031
Re: Put my right foot in... and step in it?
fdmfghr
Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:51 pm
Don't know as am not the 'expert' in this...but it is a warehouse receipt from government, not so?
SO it indicates something held for 'us' in trust is my reasoning...therefore, in principle, derivatives and securities based on an original should be included. BUT, but, but....they are not admitted to be such or always readily so recognized....which is why I filed my personal first claim of interest on both such certificates I have as well as other things as court actions am unwittingly involved with, etc. So yes, I have some 'derivatives' of these origial receipts included, for good measure is the way I see it....courts are beginning here to get dicey re such filings, which means they don't 'like' such, I recently learned! SO such must be seen as somehow threatening or undesirable results to them?
#2043 re. #2042
Re: Put my right foot in... and step in it?
maharaj333
Mon Dec 17, 2012 2:04 pm
What is held in trust is the pledge of future performance - the re presentation of your future performance, or sweat equity. How much work can this horse perform in it's lifetime, before it retires to pasture? Let's put a value to it.
If you have no standing in their venue, my question is, 'whom' or 'what' is filing a claim of interest?
- peacemaker -
#2044 re. #2043
Re: Put my right foot in... and step in it?
fdmfghr
Mon Dec 17, 2012 2:13 pm
Several categories are indicated in this domain's personal property registry....so the STRAW is really the equity holder with the 'registrant' being the natural living one....there is also a secured party category, etc. I don't recall quite all the specifics of how the form was filed out, but it has started creating waves in some contracted quarters where the contracts were not voluntary ones!
Value will be whatever the separately listed items were assigned to be....also being filed in international registry on which I am awaiting certified version.
Methinks the STRAW being forcibly equated with living party does have their artificial acknowledgment of 'standing' in my case. But I am NOT = STRAW NAME and so indicated on the form.
#2046 re. #2044
Re: Put my right foot in... and step in it?
maharaj333
Mon Dec 17, 2012 2:54 pm
'registrant' being the natural living one' - that's an impossibility in admiralty. That's why the PPSA always reverts to UPPER CASE.
- peacemaker -
#2047 re. #2046
Re: Put my right foot in... and step in it?
fdmfghr
Mon Dec 17, 2012 2:57 pm
Will get back to you in private since I am replying based on memory of the filing and don't have it in front of me.
#2048 re. #2047
Re: Put my right foot in... and step in it?
maharaj333
Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:05 pm
That's ok Iris, we've all done those filings - me included. They were all wrong - and now I know why - not from conjecture, or speculation - or because some one told me so, but from understanding why the living cannot be seen in the public corporate venue - the word 'corporate' being a big giveaway for that one. Truth and fiction do not mix - and one is the progentator of the other - which is another big clue as to what is superior law, as opposed to what is inferior - and neither the twain shall meet.
- peacemaker -
#2055
Nothing more. Nothing less.
route4401
Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:12 pm
Hello all,
I've been working on trying to wrap my brain around how the strawman could be transformed from the cestui que/beneficiary of the Estate to being the trustee. I finally found a passage in "The BC Scam" that I thought would clarify it for me, but has actually done much the opposite. To wit:
"The Social Security trust is the vehicle used by public officials to plunder the Estate. Upon deposit of the Social Security bond, the Department of Treasury through the Internal Revenue Service is the trustee of record.
But the government bank would rather be the beneficiary. In order to presume that the United States is the beneficiary, Treasury presumes that the strawman account is also a trustee of the SS trust with the obligation to perform all the trustee's duties under the public trust. After you accept offers to operate as the trustee on three occasions, the presumption is fulfilled. From then on, the strawman will be treated as a vehicle for transmitting public debt assessments to the Estate by "charging" the strawman for the liability."
This would make sense to me if it said "the strawman account is also a trustee of the BC trust…" The strawman account IS the SS trust as I understand it. The deposit of the SS bond into the account is what creates the SS/strawman trust which can then be the trustee of another trust, but not of itself.
Have I missed or misunderstood something in regard to trust fundamentals?
Or the term "account"?
Is an "account" a person that can be appointed a trustee?
Can nonsensical, recursive presumptions, as opposed to merely improper ones, be fulfilled after we accept offers to operate as the trustee on three occasions?
Has the strawman gone from OZ to Wonderland?
I don't mean to be flippant here at all. I just don't grasp the concept as it's been stated. I hope it's just a typo or a misstatement.
Any and all help here would be greatly appreciated.
Peace,
- cantinista
#2063 re. #2055
Re: Nothing more. Nothing less.
maharaj333
Tue Dec 18, 2012 4:43 am
The SSN trust is the principle for the surety - the BC trust. The SSN is the US contracting officer who's performance is guaranteed by the BC trust.
- peacemaker -
#2064 re. #2063
Re: Nothing more. Nothing less.
route4401
Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:53 am
peacemaker,
I appreciate the response. Is saying the SSN trust is the principal for the surety another way of saying its the trustee of the trust? That's why the public bills the strawman; because the trustee pays the bills of the trust. I, like Bill, want to view these relationships in the context of trust. That's what admiralty is about and reclaiming our securities is an admiralty process.
The conundrum I experienced was that in trying to get a grip on the Estate trust I ran into the quoted passage that supposedly references the trusteeship of the SSN trust. But it didn't make sense to say that the SSN account is the trustee of the SSN trust. I think it was a misstatement or a typo.
I believe it's vital to grasp the Grantor/Trustee/Beneficiary structure of both the Estate trust and the SSN/strawman trust, as well as the way these trusts relate to each other. The "BC Scam" is a great treatise in outlining them from the standpoint of the securities issued to form them, but it could shed better light on their structure.
What makes understanding the structures a challenge is that the structures implied by the security transactions are not what the system construes them to be. Just like the court examples. Reclaiming them, I believe is about expressing our claim as the true beneficiary, but via proxy since they've been abandoned. It seems like something of a work around that's necessary due to the abandonment.
To achieve that I think we need a security agreement with the SSN/strawman trust acting as the trustee of the Estate trust rather than the beneficiary. I'm just trying to understand why the beneficiary has been construed to be the trustee. I think what Bill was saying in the quoted passage is that three acts we've committed constitute acceptance of the presumed trusteeship of the strawman. But it isn't clear to me which trust he meant. At least I can't make sense of the strawman account being trustee of the SSN trust. I hope I'm making sense here.
Thanks again,
- cantinista
#2069 re. #2048
Re: Put my right foot in... and step in it?
fdmfghr
Tue Dec 18, 2012 4:46 pm
Am typing up something for another court round today so I have it in any case:
Registrant was "Administrative Office for the Estate of....."
Secured Party was the legal 'person'/legal fiction account Name of "Jane Mary Doe" which requires a 'person' in this domain, for one of the headers above.
Believe living Grantor status can still be claimed on this basis on behalf of the "Jane Mary Doe' Estate, since this is aka JANE MARY DOE?
#2070 re. #1987
Re: EIN
prosperofla
Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:25 pm
My understanding is that if the judge refuses to perform on his Trusteeship, he is in breach and the trust collapses, by law, which renders you, the beneficiary, the controller-in-chief of the whole kit-and-caboodle of that matter. You may be able to capture the judge's bond and sell it, but I'm not certain of that.
Search "collapse the trust" in the messages search field.
-Peter
#2071
UCC- 9:Study- Another source
prosperofla
Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:28 pm
BASICS OF CREATION AND PERFECTION OF SECURITY INTERESTS UNDER ARTICLE 9 OF THE
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
A 20-page PDF paper.
#2078 re. #2070
Re: EIN
fdmfghr
Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:04 pm
No, probably the 'appointment' does not really need to be made in theory, BUT it is useful to make the basics and the roles played in legalese very explicit....otherwise, obviously concerted efforts are and will be made to distract from the real roles involved and keep up pretenses of trusteeship on the debtor side, with the 'accused'.
Peter, if you have any further referent material to refer to describing this trust collapse, I for one am very interested in reveiw of such!!
Might need this in something ongoing right, for which we are scheduled by 'order' to go into yet another in-chambers 'hearing' with mr. judgy! He mostly lectured us and tried to persuade us on Mon. re 'rules', considering 'fitness' and what it was, providing case of Mead v Mead to review [irrelevant], and complaining re 'obstruction' from our side and how others had used the same 'tactics' to no avail, combined with reference to Mead case which is being cited as holy grail within the court system now.
#2080
INdorsement vs. ENdorsement
prosperofla
Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:18 pm
A question for Bill, our Moderator:
I've been unsuccessful in my research at finding a distinction between these two words, "indorsement" and "endorsement”. Would you please explain the difference as you use the terms? I tried to extract your meaning form your context, but without success.
Thanks much for everything!
-Peter
#2081 re. below
Re: Hi every one can any one here know help me out
micros432
Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:41 pm
Epon,
When you go into to battle do you go in with just a stick when they have guns and tanks? Do you follow down the rabbit hole just because someone said follow me ? If I go to battle I want to have big guns and an arsenal of weapons, such as a recorded fee schedule, a recorded executor letter, I'm going into battle as the King. The better base you have the more likely you are to succeed.
I responded to over 20 requests for information in private on one issue. You didn't request it. If the stuff I respond to doesn't help you, it may help others who are at a different stage than you. Please be patient and just delete my responses.
Respectfully Yours,
Micros
On Dec 19, 2012, at 3:23 PM, eponymous_680 wrote: re. previous micros posts not included
I'm still trying to figure out why you're pimping O'collin's work on a group dedicated to reclaiming one's securities....why not take the conversation over there?
- peacemaker -
#2083
Authentication of Long Form BC
prosperofla
Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:35 pm
This question is for our Moderator or other experienced mentor:
An instruction was written: 'Obtain long form, most current, of BC. The certification signature has to be authenticated (NOT apostil/exemplified). And technically, the authentication has to be certified. See Fed. Rule of Civ. Proceed. 44, 28 USC 1739 and .'
Authentication is for a non Hague country and the Apostile is for a Hague country. Why non-Hague? I would think the opposite. What piece of this little puzzle have I missed?
Thank you.
-Peter
#2085 re. #2055
Re: Nothing more. Nothing less.
prosperofla
Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:48 pm
Perhaps it might help, too, to go to 'first principles', before the derived trusts come to be:
They recorded you as having been berthed by a ship, your mother (sorry for calling you a ship, Mom). They created a bill of lading and a bond to represent the equity in your estate, for purposes of banking it.
Upon reaching majority age, if you haven't claimed it, they, the Public/State, presume the Grantor/Beneficiary (you, the living human) are dead/lost at sea and they create a Strawman to serve as transmitting utility for this so that they may benefit from the Estate (the bond is how the Estate is banked in the marketplace) by controlling it - where the equity goes, which is to the Fed and the 'government'. Notice that I didn't write that they TAKE it. If they do, they OWE the enormous tax liability on it; they keep it ready for you to take if you turn out to be alive somewhere and wish to reclaim it.
In the meantime, they want the Strawman to pay for it and you, the living, warm-blooded human have unwittingly agreed to serve as the physical/material collateral for the surety, such as when they arrest you based on a court indictment.
Sadly, this is the real reason why we have laws governing homicide, seat belt use, etc., to try to preserve the collateral.
I am open to correction by our more learned members if I have misstated something.
-Peter
#2087 re. below
Re: Hi every one can any one here know help me out
micros432
Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:58 pm
Sure
Lets talk about getting our securities. I know you can, but will you take a look at this document and give me some guidance. I'm gonna work on it with or with out your help. Just want to be a team player.
Micros
Attachment [not available]
On Dec 19, 2012, at 5:00 PM, eponymous_680 wrote: re. #2081
That's good info and dandy, Mike - but take note of what the topic of this group is - it's about securities - not Ucadia, or executor letters - you could always start your own group, and peddle your information there.
- peacemaker -
#2088 re. #2081
Re: Hi every one can any one here know help me out
prosperofla
Wed Dec 19, 2012 5:44 pm
Mike,
Are you familiar with the phrase, "tilting at windmills?"
With due respect, this forum concerns Reclaiming your Securities, not preparation for windmill confrontation.
- Peter
#2101 re. #1964
TOPIC: EXECUTOR LETTERS
joshuasdad100
Thu Dec 20, 2012 11:52 am
IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DAVID CLARENCE STYLE LETTERS, they will not work to resolve public circumstances. The estate Clarence invokes is entirely private - your inheritance from the Father. Incorporated commerce is the Devils' domain which creates a mirror-image reflection of everything private: living man John
Smith / U.S. Government Contract JOHN SMITH; Divine Church (assembly) / DIVINE CHURCH. A dismes defined in grains of silver / a dime minted in alloy. The estate (beneficiary of your Divine inheritance) / Estate No. 123-12-123456 represented by the birth number.
The whole purpose of public commerce is to act in place of living men since a corporation has no existence or credit. They are aware that statutes confer inferior jurisdiction whereas a court of record reflects superior jurisdiction.
A Clarence-style estate letter is no more useful in the public than anything else living. It is Lucifer's domain fictions - meaning legalized lies masquerading under color of law as law. Once you truly understand the issues, it is self-evident that they do not and cannot mix. Bill
#2104 re. #2008 2nd
TOPICS: 5 ADDRESSES; SPECIAL APPEARANCE
TOPIC: THE ESTATE, GEN APPEAR & GEN DEPOS. (same post) #2105
TOPIC: DEFUNDING THE CASE AND THE BOND (same post) #2106
joshuasdad100
Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:24 pm
GENTLEMEN:
1. 5 ADDRESSES. Do you send your rent to five addresses? Sending to five offices is a confession of sorts that the system remains a mystery, and whoever is recommending it doesn't really know what they're doing. They got lucky. Think about it.
2. SPECIAL APPEARANCE. As with everything else, special appearance at a court of record at the common law rule of decision is mirrored in the public. If you say the words "special appearance" in open court, they will hear "special appearance to argue jurisdiction in the public." Translation: general appearance. If you argue anything in the public, you have conceded jurisdiction. Now, "special appearance at the court of record and I'm accepting your oath as binding upon you and invoking your ministerial duty to protect the posterity" is a different story.
An appearance does NOT mean physical presence. Hiring an attorney, making a motion, asking for dispensation, obeying an order - all "may comprise a general appearance" at inferior law where a special statute conveys inferior jurisdiction according to their own case law. SO WE PREFER TO APPEAR SPECIALLY
AT THE court of record BY OUR PAPERWORK, properly declared, and give them notice that a general appearance (WHICH IS NOTHING MORE THAN THE ESTATE'S CONSENT TO GENERAL DEPOSIT WHEREBY IT IS PRESUMED TO ACT AS INDIVIDUAL SURETY ON THE CASE BOND) is simply inapposite. The fear of being D.I.S. (Dragged In by Swat) is what makes patriots appear in the flesh and sell their souls to the Devil. When you convey any appearance inside the Courtroom, you are conveying your consent to general deposit, and hence to having PROVIDED THE FUNDING FOR THE SECURITIES ACCOUNT identified by the Case number.
When you get dragged in in chains, they MUST get your name as consent and your "yes" to "understanding the charges" or they can't proceed with the charges.
"Sir, do you understand the charges?"
"The Grantor has not authorized the Estate to consent to act as individual surety. So let the record show that your public trust, JUDGE SUSAN WHITE, is the individual surety of record on the Bond. Would you like to retire to chambers for discussion? I see no need to embarrass that Court."
You see, when they deposited the charging instrument, THEY PRESUMED THE FUNDS WERE THERE. Just like a bank presumes the funds are there when you deposit a check. The Court is a depository institution and securities intermediary. But when the Estate fails to consent to general deposit, guess what, the Indictment is NSF, the account is defunded, and if they wish to continue trading the Bond then the JUDGE TRUST or PROSECUTOR TRUST is the individual surety by default.
NOW you might want to go back and STUDY your SF 28, 90, 91 and a 24 and perhaps the bigger picture will emerge. Bill
#2107 re. #2106
Re: THE JUDGE IS ALREADY THE TRUSTEE.
joshuasdad100
Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:35 pm
YOU WOULDN'T BE STANDING THERE IF THERE WASN'T A TRUST. Why appoint the Judge as trustee? This give them opportunity to decline. If for some reason you're standing there, why not confirm that IT'S ALREADY THE TRUSTEE...
"I'm sorry, I don't know what you're talking about." OR
"I decline."
"Sorry, you don't get to walk away. Didn't you accept the deposit, open an account, issue a number and deposit the charging instrument? Didn't you leverage this Warrant security and the Case bond? Now if you'd like to resign and collapse the trust, that's fine, but then I will need you to return ALL the securities and proceeds by the end of business today or stand on the liability. The Grantor has claimed the equity, bub."
See, when we push the envelope, they devise another weasel's tactic to divert. THE ONLY ANSWER IS TO MASTER YOUR UNDERSTANDING then there's NO place for them to hide. Bill
#2108 re. #2000
TOPIC: SETTLING WITH PROSECUTOR? - PATRIOT MISCONCEPTION
joshuasdad100
Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:49 pm
HI PATRICK. "Settling with the one who brought the charges" is yet another patriot misconception. The Prosecutor is YOUR agent, having presumed to deposit YOUR security (Indictment, Information, Complaint, Citation) ON YOUR BEHALF. YOU are the actual depositor. He's just a rep. No need to settle with him.
ONCE THE SECURITY IS DEPOSITED AT THE COURT, it's THE COURT that's presuming legal title to the funds via general deposit.
GENERAL DEPOSIT - GENERAL DEPOSIT - GENERAL DEPOSIT.
IT'S THE COURT that has stolen the credits on the presumption that the funds would be there - aka that the Estate would consent to act as individual surety.
It's all about securities, deposits and trusts. You wouldn't settle with the prosecutor any more than you would settle with the bank teller. IT'S THE BANK that owes us a return of equity under PL 73-10. Security for security. Future for future.
It there's any settling to be done with the Prosecutor, it's the Prosecutor's liability to the Grantor as possible individual surety on the Bond if the Judge balks. After all, if the account is NSF and the Court cancels its' indorsement, doesn't the liability revert to the depositor? Bill
#2109 re. #2003
TOPIC: PLEA BARGAIN
joshuasdad100
Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:55 pm
MICROS, a plea bargain is just like an appearance bond. A STIPULATION THAT THE ESTATE IS CONSENTING TO A GENERAL APPEARANCE, AND THEREBY STIPULATING to the Court's deposit of the Indictment as a generally, stealing of title to the funds, and thereby the Estate’s consent to ACT AS INDIVIDUAL SURETY ON THE CASE BOND. Bill
GEN. APPEARANCE – GEN. DEPOSIT - INDIVIDUAL SURETY
#2111 re. #2004
Re: HOW TO "DEPOSIT" A NEW MORTGAGE NOTE/MORTGAGE DEED
joshuasdad100
Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:58 pm
CARDINAL ERROR - Involving an innocent third party who they can squeeze. I would seriously consider NOT TRYING ANYTHING until you become a master of your own domain. The priority here is your granddaughter in my opinion. Bill
#2112 re. #2009
Re: Newbie - TOPIC: HEALTHY FEAR
joshuasdad100
Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:06 pm
Luz, I am glad you wrote as I think we can avoid an injury here. YOU ARE RIGHT TO BE FEARFUL. If you act like so many other patriots before you are truly qualified, you are likely to pay a very heavy price. Best to find a really qualified mentor and get to the business of learning to master your domain. Another word for the patriot "movement" is "DEATH WISH 6." Unfortunately, Charles Bronson's no longer around to bail anyone out. Bill
#2113 re. #2015
Re: Bonds
joshuasdad100
Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:15 pm
Hi Boris, As you know, the confiscation and enrollment (insurrection) acts of 1861, 62 and 62, acquired all property for the administration and left the conquered people with only Equity - constructive trusts in equity where they flip the trustee and beneficiary. That's layer number one.
Then they disguise it in admiralty - arresting the bond and such as jack Smith used to talk about. Layer two.
But it's really all a disguise or layer three, securities deposited in trust in lieu of returning equity. Generally I stop thee because that's the layer that contains the fudge that melts in your mouth. Bill
P.S. If you're the Boris I heard recently on a tape regarding searching the original record, ace job.
#2114 re. #2024
TOPIC: LAZINESS IS THE DEVIL'S WORK
joshuasdad100
Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:22 pm
Your statement: "Can't seem to find any information that people actually know what they are doing" SUGGESTS YOU HAVEN'T LOOKED.
AS YEHOSHUA PREACHED FORGIVENESS, your ignorance will be forgiven just this once. Please do NOT speak disparagingly of others in this forum. There are no morons here, even considering your words.
"Do not go about spreading slander among your people." Leviticus 19:16.
Even more, we will pray that this becomes a learning experience. What your post reveals is that you speak without authority, effort or thought. If you pause now to take the time to review the earlier postings, you might discover a wealth of information as have others. I do hope you understand what I've suggested. Bill
#2122
A Man who Tried to Reclaim His Public Estate in the Wrong Way...
prosperofla
Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:04 pm
A Federal Court of Claims ruling on his attempt by a man (who was an inmate) to reclaim his estate. It is curious to see exactly what he demanded as payment!
Particularly interesting are the judge's remarks on Maritime and Admiralty jurisdiction and the concept of a "contract" with the government that affords compensation for the government's use of the equity of an individual's lifetime of labor...
-Peter
#2134 re. below
CAUTION - CAUTION - CAUTION
joshuasdad100
Fri Dec 21, 2012 6:17 pm
REGARDING THE RECENT POSTS BY A JOANNE JOHNSON, well intentioned they may be, and with all due respect, almost everything in the postings is incorrect.....
Cultivating the secured party-debtor relationship IS FATAL. Haven’t there been enough casualties to date? Not only will the public reverse the roles, but debtor-creditor is comparatively useless compared to trustee-beneficiary. YOU HAVE PROBLEMS BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN PRESUMED TO BE THE TRUSTEE on a trust that was created by the deposit of YOUR securities due to THEIR failure to return equity. Correct this, and their control of your securities falls apart instantly.
Also, it is time to end the patriot mythology that a UCC-1 can in any way recognize a living man. The mere act of entering a name, converts it to a fiction. UCC1s are for fictions only.
Stating that a NY UCC will identify you as a sovereign is foolishness.
I appreciate the enthusiasm, but this group is not the place for this sort of antiquated advocacy. These are relics we don't wish to dredge up from the recycle bin. You've come a long way baby. Best not to go back to the dark ages. Bill
Replying back with INFO -Re: Questions on SPC & A4V help please
Joanne Johnson
Johnny
Sunday, January 29, 2012 8:57 AM
1) After you complete all your documents, also file the UCC-1 with the Secretary of State of the State of New York.
When the Secretary of State sends back an acknowledgement, it will state that
you are a sovereign.
When you fill in the UCC-1 claiming your new sovereign name, be sure to fill it in as:
Sir/Lord < (the title) Your First Name, Suffix: Family name
EXAMPLE: HI&RH Prince Robert-Mathew III: Jones
HI&RH = His Imperial & Royal Highness
But you can use the title of Sir, Lord, Baron, Honorable etc... These are the titles we are suppose to have. The title 'Mr.- Miss - Mrs.' is for US CITIZENS NOT sovereigns Understand??
UCC-1 EXAMPLE: HI&RH Prince Robert-Mathew III: Jones, a sovereign without the UNITED STATES
OR
UCC-1 EXAMPLE: HI&RH Prince Robert-Mathew III: Jones, a sovereign without the US
Then this will appear on the acknowledgement from New York and it will state
that you are a sovereign!
2) Filing these documents will not release your bond. However, there are other ways to accomplish working with the A-4-V program. You just need to file the documents first.
The A-4-V will not be achievable if you owe IRS or Franchise Tax Board taxes, Student Loans, etc, to the government corpora ficta.
So file the documents first then get back to me on the A-4-V info.
Peel one potato at a time :)
Additional Documents that you should file with your sovereign documents are attached. This information filed into and with the sovereign documents is most impressive.
Also - File the W8-BEN and the Form 56 with the IRS ASAP.
To get your EIN for the Trust in the all capital name, just call the IRS and request it.
The IRS will try to discourage you. But be persistent, and tell them you are the Trustee, then you when you file the Form 56, you can reestablish that Geithner is the Trustee.
When you establish you are the 'Trustee' you will receive a letter from the IRS personally stating the new EIN for the trust and additional information.
3) Also be sure to have a PO Box for your sovereign mail. Remember the sovereign lives on the land, and never has a permanent residence. Only the strawman has a permanent residence address for a house or building location.
EXAMPLE OF SOVEREIGN ADDRESS:
HI&RH Empress Aubree`-Regina Dei Gratia, Secured Party Creditor
a sovereign without the UNITED STATES,
c/o U.S.P.O. Postmaster, c/o temporary mailing location
Post Office Box Six-Four-One-Six-Four-One
at county of Santa Clara, on California, zip code exempt.
DMM Reg., Sec 122.32, Public Law 91-375, Sec. 403
#2141 re. #2134
CAUTION-CAUTION-CAUTION ADDENDUM...
joshuasdad100
Sat Dec 22, 2012 1:11 pm
Only have a moment but wanted to add that THERE'S NO NEED TO FILE 18 DOCUMENTS.
Declaring your sovereignty isn't that complicated.
You can do it by oath in ONE document.
You can do it by reclaiming securities in THREE perhaps four pages.
IF YOU NEED 18 DOCUMENTS, maybe it's because you don't know what you're doing. Relying on other people's research can be risky. I found out the hard way in one case myself when I was lazy, listened to a patriot legend (even though I knew better), and blew a beautiful case that I was working on and which had the judiciary running for cover and would have changed the country.
As you know, we don't slander people here. But the documents she described in her email exemplify the "I don't understand" problem. Most of them are fatally flawed, the majority are unnecessary or redundant, and some are downright dangerous. Tim Turner followers are slowly finding this out. Nothing against Turner personally, but the materials are insane.
Oh, and it always a good idea to keep a wary eye on sales pitches disguised as advice. Even drug companies have to list the risks in their commercials. Bill
#2142 re. #2141
Re: CAUTION-CAUTION-CAUTION ADDENDUM...
wavggg
Sat Dec 22, 2012 1:24 pm
Hey bill -
i think it would be useful to see your example of a great failure and analyze what happened... success is sometimes not all that useful because it doesn't teach. all my successes in life are on the heels of a zillon failures - or as Edison once said to an arrogant reporter criticizing him for taking so long to perfect a commercially usable incandescent bulb - "i know a thousand ways to NOT make a lightbulb - what do you know?"
thanks,
greg Chicago
#2143 re. #2122
Re: A Man who Tried to Reclaim His Public Estate in the Wrong Way...
joshuasdad100
Sat Dec 22, 2012 1:49 pm
U.S. Court of Federal Claims is a court of record acting at the common law as the rule of decision. The Plaintiff appeared in admiralty which undid its advantages. The claim could have been pressed in the superior jurisdiction rather than the inferior statutory jurisdiction. Bill
#2144 re. #2083
Re: Authentication of Long Form BC
joshuasdad100
Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:06 pm
Has nothing to do with the Hague convention of 1963. Rather, the old fashioned authentication as legalization of documents usually has a full faith and credit statement. Clerks will tell you that it cannot be used in the United States. Meaning, it is foreign to the United States. Welcome to the United States of America. Bill
#2146 re. #2143
Re: A Man who Tried to Reclaim His Public Estate in the Wrong Way...
twidlar
Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:16 pm
I've heard that before. Is there any documentation that U.S. Court of Federal Claims is a court of record acting at the common law as the rule of decision that we can use. I know some people who want to do that but don't know how.
#2147 re. #2144
Re: Authentication of Long Form BC
prosperofla
Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:33 pm
Perhaps I'm not comprehending the English; if the clerks refuse it as foreign, how can it be effective/practical?
-Peter
#2151 re. #2142
Re: CAUTION-CAUTION-CAUTION ADDENDUM...
joshuasdad100
Sat Dec 22, 2012 10:13 pm
What do I know? Edison knew TEN thousand ways to not make a bulb. That's about it.
I don't view events as successes or failures, but opportunities to learn. Bill
#2152 re. #2146
Re: A Man who Tried to Reclaim His Public Estate in the Wrong Way...
joshuasdad100
Sat Dec 22, 2012 10:17 pm
Title 5 USC. Look for section under Organization of Courts. This sort of question is ideal for researching on the internet for those who wish to broaden their knowledge. Bill
#2157 re. #2144
Re: Authentication of Long Form BC
prosperofla
Sun Dec 23, 2012 7:57 am
If I comprehend the U.S. state department's page correctly, the U.S. State Department WILL NOT authenticate a Birth Certificate because it is a State-issued document, as they deem such authentication to be unnecessary. See
Thoughts?
-Peter
#2166 re. #2147
Re: Authentication of Long Form BC
picotech9999
Sun Dec 23, 2012 4:07 pm
Peter
It's not about practical or not, its about foreign or not. Pay attention to Bill's spelling of words.
P
#2170 re. #2157
Re: Authentication of Long Form BC
route4401
Mon Dec 24, 2012 5:40 am
I think that would depend on whether the state agency in question is acting in a de jure or de facto capacity. "The BC Scam" says:
"The HBR provides public testimony of the baby's "birth" on the continent and status as an 'owner' of the United States."
I'm not certain what implication that would have for the certifying agency, but the 14th amendment says:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
I think this recognizes the infant's State citizenship while noting a qualification of US citizenship which is not yet attained. Hence, while the infant may be an owner of the US, it is still a foreign (without the United States) owner at this point. Would it not be desirable to authenticate/certify such status.
Just my interpretation,
- cantinista
#2171 re. #2166
Re: Authentication of Long Form BC
prosperofla
Mon Dec 24, 2012 8:22 am
Roger that.
-Peter
#2172 re. #2170
Re: Authentication of Long Form BC
prosperofla
Mon Dec 24, 2012 8:24 am
A further review of my notes indicates that our Moderator has stated that authentication is not necessary for the Treasury process, which is what I am working on now.
-Peter
#2173 re. #2172
Re: Authentication of Long Form BC
congrace7
Mon Dec 24, 2012 8:30 am
Yes. Authentication is "proving" in securities. Look back to the first post you made in this thread, or here it is cut and pasted:
This question is for our Moderator or other experienced mentor:
An instruction was written: 'Obtain long form, most current, of BC. The certification signature has to be authenticated (NOT apostil/exemplified). And technically, the authentication has to be certified. See Fed. Rule of Civ. Proced. 44, 28 USC 1739 and .'
Authentication is for a non Hague country and the Apostille is for a Hague country. Why non-Hague? I would think the opposite. What piece of this little puzzle have I missed?
Thank you.
-Peter
#2174 re. #2173
Re: Authentication of Long Form BC
prosperofla
Mon Dec 24, 2012 8:32 am
Yes, my recent post was coreect, or yes the authentication is necessary?
#2175 re. #2174
Re: Authentication of Long Form BC
congrace7
Mon Dec 24, 2012 8:36 am
Yes, authentication is necessary is my take. Then certify the authentication.
#2177 re. #2175
Re: Authentication of Long Form BC
prosperofla
Mon Dec 24, 2012 8:51 am
That conflicts with our Moderator's admonishment. The authentication and certification is required for using the BC as evidence in court.
-Peter
#2178 re. #2175
Re: Authentication of Long Form BC
prosperofla
Mon Dec 24, 2012 8:55 am
A quote form one of our Moderator's posts:
"People see the BC as being straightforward. Actually, there are many possible
scenarios. I could talk to you for hours about it. Depending on what you're
trying to do, it may or may not need to be authenticated. We don't for T
process, but I think the original question was about using it as evidence in
Court - that's a different ball game. The significance of the BC is not the
document, but its value as evidence of your priority claim. Bill"
#2184 re. below
Re: Authentication of Long Form BC
prosperofla
Mon Dec 24, 2012 9:34 am
To the best of my knowledge...nada. As long as your BC is certified, preferably long form. Furthermore, if I infer from Bill's comments correctly, the most important thing is that the number on the BC be as current as possible to match with DTC's number.
-Peter
grace3175 wrote: re. #2178
okay so for T process, apostille? what?
#2185 re. #2184
Re: Authentication of Long Form BC
congrace7
Mon Dec 24, 2012 10:41 am
okay - to clarify:
recent certified long form bc
acceptance on the BC - notarize?
Have notarized documents certified? apostilled?
I seem to keep confusing court/judicial processes with security processes. Argh.
#2186 re. below
Re: Authentication of Long Form BC
congrace7
Mon Dec 24, 2012 10:43 am
If we are using the estate number - bc book entry, what is the significance of the DTC's number, or I'm assuming the stamped red number on the actual certificate? Do we note it anywhere or is it just to help them find the securities more easily?
Thank you for helping me clarify.
“…to match with DTC's number.”
Grace & Peace,
Grace3175 (C)
#2187 re. #2186
Re: Authentication of Long Form BC
prosperofla
Mon Dec 24, 2012 4:13 pm
All I know of this matter is that I infer from Bill's language as quoted earlier that the most current number/documnet enables the government robot that is processing the paperwork to more readily identify the DTC account by referencing the ID number on the BC.
-Peter
#2195 re. below
Re: Authentication of Long Form BC
bruce66695
Tue Dec 25, 2012 5:22 am
Why would you want your Stawman to be an Trustee, when those in public office are the trustee's?
prosperofla
Tuesday, 25 December 2012, 0:16
Re: Authentication of Long Form BC re. below
I should amend my statement below. My understanding is the Security Agreement is supposed to be a private agreement between the Authorized Representative of the Grantor and the Strawman Trustee. If the private status of that is correct, then we would not want it notarized because that presents it to the public. So, again, I don't know if it is to be notarized and/or witnessed. Sounds like a question for one who has been successful in the Treasury process.
-Peter
"prosperofla" wrote: re. #2185
I don't know if notary is necessary. Never heard of that for acceptance. I've been told that of the Security Agreement.
-Peter
#2196 re. below
Re: Authentication of Long Form BC
bruce66695
Tue Dec 25, 2012 5:42 am
It has been my understanding that an Notary Public has one foot in each camp Private an Public, here in the UK they are appointed by the church to their Office.
"prosperofla" prosperofla@... wrote: re. below
A notary is by definition, "public", a single person acting as a representative of the public of a wet ink signature affixed in his/her presence. This is why it is formally referred to a a Notary Public. If the SA is to remain private, it should not be notarized.
FYI: The Security Agreement drafted and offered by Winston Shrout has accommodation for a notary.
-Peter
"route4401" wrote: re. #2195 2nd
Peter,
I've never heard it said that using a notary brings anything into the public. It might be a step in a process of bringing things into the public but it doesn't, in an of itself, do so. For instance, if you have something notarized and then have it recorded with a county recorder or courthouse, that
will bring it into the public. The notary can be nothing more than a witness as to the identity of the signer of a document. Some patriots are careful to always include a disclaimer to that effect in their documents which I think is fine.
This might be problematic though. Whom is it that the notary is testifying is the signer. Is it the strawman or some other person? If the signature line notes the signor's status, I think that will clear it up.
But if one can find three witnesses over the age of eighteen to the signing of a document, one can accomplish the same thing if one is concerned about the notary. That will keep everything lawful and private. In any case, neither the notary nor the witnesses should be privy to anything about the document beyond who signed it and maybe the general nature of it, e.g, a Security Agreement.
- cantinista
#2198 re. #2195
Re: Authentication of Long Form BC
prosperofla
Tue Dec 25, 2012 8:48 am
Good question, Bruce.
To the best of my understanding based on about 120 hours of study (and this shows just how complicated this has been designed for us to try to unravel), here's a flow chart from my notebook explaining the MAIN birth trust and the flow of trusts and elements surrounding it. The PUBLIC Estate is the Trust that the PUBLIC is supposed to be Trustee of.
ELEMENTS of ADMIRALTY TECHNOLOGY
RM/ LM/ Infant. Is fiction in Admiralty, formally non-existent.
- BR. Basic Hospital BIRTH RECORD (BR) made.
- BC/COLB. Certificated document of PLEDGE of LM's labor, recorded as Bill of Lading upon delivery of infant with BR. This document is the Father Security of all our related securities.
- Public ESTATE (BC Trust). Established by deposit of BC. All of LM's LABOR of the Pledge. Ultimate SURETY for all debt; source of value. Creates SM Trust. Father of all debtors.
- BB. Birth bond; paper issued to the BC Trust by DT based on EQUITY of the Pledge. Held at DTC. DT trades for currency with FED. This is represented by the short-form BC.
- SS Account. Opened by DT through IRS by prompt of BB. Creates the SS Trust.
The following three are all derivatives:
- SM Trust. First entity of Public ESTATE Trust; the NAME of the Estate; a mirror of LM.
- SS Trust. Makes SM TRUSTEE of Estate, thus initial debtor and direct transmitter. This is the one who is billed by vendors for payment, and who is paid on a paycheck. He picks up the tab.
- Various BONDS. Some of these we act as Trustee for: Bank check, traffic citation, etc.
- FED ACCOUNT. Leverages value of BB and SS bonds many times over for the IMF, Banksters.
As always, I invite scrutiny based on references. I love being corrected, because I want to learn to be a Master of this area of law. and it will take some time.
-Peter
#2199
Security Agreement with the STRAWMAN Filed?
prosperofla
Tue Dec 25, 2012 10:14 am
An exhaustive search of UCC-9, with the aid of electronic word search, indicates that there is no requirement to record a Security Agreement except one (shown below); otherwise, it is a private, though necessary agreement.
The reason, deduced logically from Article 9, is that the SA exists in case there should arise a dispute between the Creditor (for our purposes, that is the Grantor's authorized Representative) and the Debtor (for our purposes, the Strawman) or with a third party claiming priority against the debtor (9-326(b).
Exception regarding necessity of filing is 9-607(b)(1), which may apply in the applicable dispute at a later time. There is one mention of SA in UCC-8, but it refers to one with a securities intermediary.
I know of no other law, statute or regulation requiring the SA to be recorded. A further logical deduction drawn from UCC-9 is that the initial Financing Statement is the recorded version of the SA: fill in the blanks showing the elements of the SA in such a way that the bureaucrat robots can digest it.
Is anyone aware of a requirement stated elsewhere? I would think that UCC-9 prevails on this subject.
-Peter
#2200 re. #2195
Re: Authentication of Long Form BC
route4401
Tue Dec 25, 2012 10:24 am
Paul,
I think that the answer to this has to do with reversing the role of the Strawman through the Treasury process. Currently, our securities are held in trust waiting for us to claim them. We are construed as trustee (via the
Strawman) and the public is the beneficiary of the public trust. When we reclaim them we effectively place the public (via the Strawman, who is a U.S. employee under IRC 3401) into the position of trustee with the duty to perform. We become the beneficiary.
My difficulty is in fully grasping this (virtual) shape-shifting quality of the Strawman and how we can use it to our benefit through the Treasury process. We need to concentrate on drafting a proper Security Agreement, and then use that as the basis to express our Proxy #1. That's easy to say, but more of a challenge to do. However, I believe that's the crux of what Bill is trying to get us to understand. We can't really do the process without that understanding. With it we'll see how to do that, and likely quite a bit more.
Neither Bill nor anyone else is going to do it for us, so we'll have to become competent on our own (or with the help of a good mentor). We should be grateful that Bill's gone to the trouble of describing for us the task at hand. I certainly am.
- cantinista
#2201 re. #2199
Re: Security Agreement with the STRAWMAN Filed?
route4401
Tue Dec 25, 2012 10:43 am
Peter,
This comports with my understanding of the SA. My major reservation about the Turner process when I did it was that the SA was recorded in the public. Heck, everything but the kitchen sink was recorded. That just made no sense since it was supposed to be private.
The UCC1 isn't a recording of, but rather a notice of the relationship between the parties. As you have aptly described, the trick is to properly notice the elements of the SA on the UCC for public consumption. It is noticed only by reference. (This seems roughly analogous to pointers in computer programming.) The details are hidden from the public, but the effect of the agreement is noticed. That is, the (trust) relationship of the parties and, I expect, reference to the SA number as an organization number are noticed. That relationship/organization (and its number) is foreign to (without the) United States.
- cantinista
#2202 re. #2196 3rd
TOPIC - DISPELLING MYTHS ABOUT NOTARY PUBLIC, AUTHENTICATION.
joshuasdad100
Tue Dec 25, 2012 10:47 am
I can see there's a bit of confusion about notaries public, authentication and BC. Contrary to what's been written in some of the posts, the name tells you the capacity of the office. When a notary uses the prescribed authentication or jurat language, it does "bring the signer into the public" in a matter of speaking, by overseeing his confession as the "person" listed in that language. The term person is defined in the IRC, Sec. 7701 as a corp, partnership, indiv, estate or trust in which a US person has authority to make ALL substantial decisions.
This is only a problem if your goal is to try to bull your way through society and its armies of trained protectors as a self-confessed private. WE DON'T NEED TO DO THAT to reclaim our securities, establish and live through trusts, establish the controlling estate, or similar undertakings where we use fictions to control fictions. They use fictions posing as "individuals" to control us. So we create individuals in the nature of trusts to control them. Who better to learn from than the masters of misnomer? Patriots have been so trained to fight and argue, many can't even conceive of using the system to their own advantage.
However, if we need to go private at any time, the problem is that the sheeple have been trained to not file docs without a notary's signature, and the sig is needed to authenticate. So we alter the language accordingly to remove terms like "person," and add disclaimers indicating that use of the notary does not stipulate to an election to submit to the jurisdiction. Then it is what we say it is.
As with many patriot concepts, we seem to act as if there's some secret formula or code to be discovered to understand the issue, when its usually right in front of our face if you trust your own knowledge, or if you research it on the internet usually requiring less time than it takes to complain how it wasn't researched, deciphered, explained, and spoon-fed to you as one of the recent posts complained.
As to authentication, I was referring to the clerks who issue the document. I am not concerned that a clerk won't file it because usually its served privately, and if we choose to file it, it's the ONLY proof that is recognized
as proved for admission into a case under Fed Rule of Civ Proc 44 and 28 USC 1739 (the US judicial code). In fact, AUTHENTICATION IS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE IT IS A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCUMENT, HENCE IT CREATES THE court of record VENUE. The clerks' limited knowledge may be "Oh that's only good outside the United States," to which I answer, "Show it to the
judge and tell him we're invoking superior jurisdiction."
An authenticated BC and the associated CUSIP can be sand in the gears. Those who choose to REALLY decipher 1739 and 44 can probably parlay that into any remedy they want with a little bit of imagination.
I STRONGLY SUGGEST PEOPLE USE THE POWER OF INTERNET SEARCH TO RESEARCH ISSUES
LIKE THIS INSTEAD OF SPECULATING. Even Wikipedia articles can be useful in setting you on the right path. Bill
#2203
TREASURY PROCESS, Part I- Insorsement of the BC
prosperofla
Tue Dec 25, 2012 10:56 am
Okay. Here's part one of a careful breakdown of the Treasury process, in an attempt to show proofs", similar to those required in science., since we need to know how to defend our actions. I begin with the basic initial public act of Reclaiming One's Securities: Indorsing the BC.
Firstly, DIRECT WORDS FROM UCC:
UCC 8-107 Whether indorsement, instruction, or entitlement order is effective.—
(1) "Appropriate person" means:
(a) With respect to an indorsement, the person specified by a security certificate or by an effective special indorsement to be entitled to the security;
(d) If the person designated in paragraph (a), paragraph (b), or paragraph
(c) is deceased, the designated person's successor taking under other law or the designated person's personal representative acting for the estate of the decedent; or
(e) If the person designated in paragraph (a), paragraph (b), or paragraph
(c) lacks capacity, the designated person's guardian, conservator, or other similar representative who has power under other law to transfer the security or financial asset.
(2) An indorsement, instruction, or entitlement order is effective if:
(a) It is made by the appropriate person;
(3) An indorsement, instruction, or entitlement order made by a representative is effective even if:
(a) The representative has failed to comply with a controlling instrument or with the law of the state having jurisdiction of the representative relationship, including any law requiring the representative to obtain court approval of the transaction; or
(b) The representative's action in making the indorsement, instruction, or entitlement order or using the proceeds of the transaction is otherwise a breach of duty.
(4) If a security is registered in the name of or specially indorsed to a person described as a representative, or if a securities account is maintained in the name of a person described as a representative, an indorsement, instruction, or entitlement order made by the person is effective even though the person is no longer serving in the described capacity.
(5) Effectiveness of an indorsement, instruction, or entitlement order is determined as of the date the indorsement, instruction, or entitlement order is made, and an indorsement, instruction, or entitlement order does not become ineffective by reason of any later change of circumstances.
History.—s. 1, ch. 98-11.
Secondly, the burning QUESTIONS:
1) Is it correct to deduce that the Strawman/ Public Trustee's binding of a Security Agreement with the Authorized Representative of the Grantor as creditor IS the authority under law to be the representative? That is, the fact that the Public Trustee, aka Strawman is SATISFIED that the Authorized Rep is LEGITIMATE as such , is SATISFACTION of the law, which is, namely, UCC-9? Another way to ask this is: Is it lawful regardless of the reasons that convince the SM Trustee
- is that really any of the government's business if the SM is the trustee and can determine that for himself? UTC seems to give a trustee such authority. Remember, that a trust is private, for the most part.
2) Is it lawful to date a document older than the date of the document itself ; meaning, if done nunc pro tunc (retroactively)? Example: I order a recently certified Birth Certificate. It is date November 23, 2012. I sign it back to my 18th birthday, September 2, 1988 (as recommended by our moderator) in order to make the status effective fully since my reaching age of majority. Clearly, it was not indorsed on that date, since the State's BC date is listed as 11/24/12. Does nunc pro tunc apply?
3) What is the "name" of the Authorized Representative" now and forevermore? If his/her name 'looks' like the SM trustee's the authorities processing the UCC-1 financing statement and indorsed BC may not accept it (CAPS or no CAPS, wouldn't they reject the same names?
Thoughts? Conclusions? More questions?
-Peter
#2208 re. #2198
Re: Authentication of Long Form BC
route4401
Tue Dec 25, 2012 5:09 pm
Peter,
I am going to append my thoughts/suggestions interspersed below:
The HBR is the initial security future which is deposited generally by the County Registrar as the presumed evidence of the PLEDGE of the infant's future labor (your public estate) to underwrite the public debt. This is the Legalization of the presumed PLEDGE which re-presents the infant in the public. Every other security issued in your name is ultimately leveraged against the HBR/PLEDGE of your future labor.
The COLB is the first derivative HBR security which makes the HBR itself a certificated security future upon the COLB's issuance. Hence the COLB, backed by the PLEDGE, has value in commerce.
I don't know about the Bill of Lading description; the HBR itself resembles a Bill of Lading, or possibly a MSO (Hey, Mom with a little help from Dad produced and delivered the infant, right? ;-). I think the COLB more closely resembles a Certificate of Title to the PLEDGE of the infant's labor. Bill has called it evidence of a lien, in favor of the holder, on the Strawman named on the COLB. That sounds a lot like a Certificate of Title. Who holds the title to your car? Who holds the title to your labor?
This COLB is transmitted to the Dept. of Treasury and, once again, deposited generally into an account with the COLB number to create the funds to back the issuance of the Birth Bond. The BB is exchanged with the Fed in exchange for newly printed FRNs (which are then spent into circulation) in the execution of a U.S. Government contract represented by a new (SSN) number.
The Fed registers the BB to the DTC in exchange for credit equal to its value. The BB is noticed in the public by the Short Form Certificate of Birth. I expect this is all made possible because the repayment of the FRNs, plus interest, is guaranteed by the PLEDGE of the infant's future labor; now evidenced by the BB at the DTC and the short form BC. Yo Gee, welcome to bonded servitude.
The system hypothecates present value of your future labor and you get the honor of providing it.
- cantinista
#2209 re. #2203
Re: TREASURY PROCESS, Part I- Insorsement of the BC
route4401
Tue Dec 25, 2012 8:34 pm
Peter,
Here is my attempt to answer your questions according to what (little) knowledge I have regarding them. Or maybe just raise more questions.
1.) To answer this I will quote from a document that I have entitled, Legal Reality Trust Law Primer:
"Under Common Law standards, the agreement would be evaluated per the 'subjective' standard. Per that standard, a relevant question would be along the lines: Did you understand that you were even creating a trust when you signed that document? However, under the standard for 'this state,' which standard is the 'objective' standard, about the only relevant question is this: Is this your signature? In other words, in agreements evaluated per the 'choice of law' of 'this state,' one is presumed to know the nature and consequences of what he signs. While this presumption is not necessarily irrebutable, we have the choice of focusing solely on that standard or of also digging deeper into the substance of the matter so as to deal with the legal reality of the matter."
So this raises a related question: What standard will apply in our case? The "subjective" standard applied to private law of our agreement? or the "objective" standard of the "choice of law" of "this state?" I think it should be the private law of our agreement which should make it clear by its terms that the Strawman knew, or could reasonably be expected to have known what he was agreeing to. The agreement is the law. This is necessary to maintain our foreign jurisdiction rather than slipping through the looking glass into the jurisdiction of "this state" and its tender mercies. This may seem silly since, after all, who's to say what the Strawman knew? But I think we should draft the agreement as though it might be scrutinized by those who would seek to nullify it at some point.
In this case I think it should be as simple as stipulating that the granting of the security interest includes accepting trusteeship in a trust holding the security interest entitled "Proxy #1" with the obligation to perform duties exactly as specified by the grantor of the trust. I think the specified duty would be something along the line of transmitting those debts accepted by grantor's designee to the estate... or something.
2.) I'm not sure about this one and the same question has occurred to me. Is it okay if we specify "nunc pro tunc" to the 18th birthday date in the acceptance? Is back-dating acceptable since our claim is in the nature of salvage of an abandoned claim? (Hence the need for a Proxy)
I really don't know, but it looks like it points up needed research.
3.) I've been operating on the presumption that the Proxy is an express trust under the common law, with whatever name we choose to give it, and an organization number matching the number on the Security Agreement. The authorized representative would be whoever the grantor or a managing trustee appoints with the power to sign agreements and acceptances and make assignments on behalf of the trust. If I understood it thoroughly I think my job would be done, or at least more nearly done. Like you, I'd be interested to hear if my presumption is faulty and why. I can't imagine the SoS rejecting a UCC1 with "ABC Acceptance" or some such listed as the secured party.
Anyway, thanks for engaging a discussion of issues that seem relevant to reclaiming securities via the Treasury process.
- cantinista
ps. Here's a couple of questions of my own:
Can someone under 25 claim their securities by simply accepting the BC, issuing the bond, and submitting them to the Treasury? No abandonment, no need for Proxy #1?
#2215
BC Redemption
congrace7
Wed Dec 26, 2012 12:42 pm
Going back and reading the intro at the home page:
"A growing number of people HAVE SUCCESSFULLY REDEEMED their birth certificate accounts and all the securities issued against it."
Plus the requirement to file for a tax id for the estate,
We must create a private express trust.
In filing for the Tax ID number the grantor is important.
So should we create this estate, and get this tax id number as Authorized Representative for the Grantor, 141-70-12345 ( the bc estate number?)
The question is: Does using the BC estate number bring recognition of the Grantor creating a new estate, or merely tie the new trust under the debt load of the old situation?
Or just use No number? (easy to do.)
Another thing critical to the IRS, fiduciary must post a bond.
Anyone have any thoughts? especially Joshuasdad if you have the time.
#2218 re. #2209
Re: TREASURY PROCESS, Part I- Insorsement of the BC
prosperofla
Wed Dec 26, 2012 12:55 pm
Thank you, Cantinista.
You're exactly the kind of student I seek to sharpen the blades with. Those are good points and I will see what I can dig up on them to expand/confirm...
-Peter
#2221 re. #2215
Re: BC Redemption
prosperofla
Wed Dec 26, 2012 3:16 pm
Congrace,
Thanks for those points. As for the bond, I know Mr. Shrout teaches that but I don't recall seeing that taught in this group for the Treasury Process. If it is here, do you know which post(s)? Thanks.
-Peter
#2222
FREE Trust Handbooks Online
prosperofla
Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:00 pm
FREE E-Books:
1) Weiss Concise Trustee Handbook, 2nd edition, 2008
Starting reading today. not necessarily endorsing; just sharing as FYI.
2) There is another free E-book for lawyers in the state of Missouri, but one may still glean valuable information as it relates to UTC.
-Peter
#2223
TOPIC: C O What's missing?
joshuasdad100
Wed Dec 26, 2012 5:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------------
#2236
Our "NAMES" belong to the Crown?
John
Dec 27, 2012
From yahoo group "administrating your public servants":
(This might be of interest to those following Boris' thoughts on "NAME")
2. With any and all use of a NAME that is in BOND FORM and REGISTERED with the CROWN you are, in fact committing FRAUD since BIRTH via the BIRTH CERTIFICATE and are in fact, a slave to the aforementioned entities and;
3. Any use of GOVERNMENT IDENTIFICATION is, in fact, fraud since a BIRTH CERTIFICATE cannot be used for identification purposes as stated clearly on the original or copied document. ALL GOVERNMENT IDENTIFICATION is created from the BOND INSTRUMENT COPY. You do not have, nor will you ever see the ORIGINAL because it was sold and the copy ACTS merely as the proof of sale and is, in fact, a receipt only for the sale of the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY of the NAME that belongs to the CROWN CORPORATION and;By your actions of attempting to re-create this fraud via deceptios attempts of joinder of the living flesh and soul, to an inanimate NAME that is not owned by myself and would be a criminal act to do so, be it duly noted that all attempts thus far have also been duly noted and will be forwarded as evidence of your criminal activities and intentions to your own authorities to which you owe your sworn allegiance where I have none but to myself and the source creator. Govern yourself accordingly
Any and all attempts to force, coerce, deceive etc. et al, into my using or claiming anything with this REGISTERED NAME is, in fact, aiding and abetting an act of fraud.
#2237
MORTGAGES---MENTORS---MIRACLES. Thanks for the remedies Bill.
thebradleys2012
Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:16 am
Hi Bill,
My husband and I were appalled at the posting by Scott Macneilage:
"it is my experience that you will get no useful guidance from Bill, Boris or anyone here."
That may be Scott's experience but not ours. IN SIX MONTHS WE'VE GONE FROM MUDDLE TO MENTORING OTHERS. It is so gratifying to be REALLY able to help others - at least if they really want to learn. Like you we've found that not everyone comes to the table ready or committed to learning. We can't thank you enough for our recent victories and remedies. In fact we consider the knowledge alone to be enough remedy and victory for a lifetime.
Since we joined your group at the beginning last June, we have not read your postings. We've lived them, pouring over them word by word and doing mountains of research until we actually began to understand things like the GSA forms, the Affidavit of Individual Surety, banker's acceptances, trusts, bonds and even the IRS forms to back it all up. We have a small study group and we began meeting every other day, assigning research and exploring the concepts. Here's a brief list of what we've learned and been able to put to work:
- the power of claiming our securities
- paying with securities
- holding public officials fully LIABLE when they steal our funds through general deposit
- trust law
- special deposit
- general deposit
- taxable terminations
- enforcement of our standing and lien
- dispositions, sales and deemed dispositions
- the universal securities scheme that underlies everything
- true understanding of the BC pledge
- leveraging securities
- individual surety
- principals
- grantors
- courts of record
- courts not of record
- judicial v non-judicial records
- authentication
- general and special appearance
- jurisdiction at law
- jurisdiction in equity v jurisdiction in admiralty
- double entry bookkeeping
- 1099s
- gift taxes
- escheats
- bonds, bonding, GSA bonds
- understanding their Courts
- working around them with paperwork at law
- handling ourselves in them at OUR choice.
I could go on and on but those are the highlights. These are not just bedrock concepts, THEY'RE THE GLUE THAT HOLDS THE MATRIX TOGETHER. You have given us the key to Zion, Bill, and we are very grateful.
Because of your group, our lives have been transformed. We no longer feel like we're chasing our tails (chasing their tales!) YOUR PREDICTION CAME TRUE!...SUDDENLY things started becoming SELF-EVIDENT. We refrained from posting our thoughts and speculations and only posted occasional questions when we were really stumped. G-d rewarded us by stripping away the curtain on the big mysteries:
- Mortgages became an open book.
- Suddenly we knew exactly how to shift the liability to the bank.
- Banking through trusts.
- Bonding public officials.
- Handling their Courts. This knowledge was HUGE. You should have seen our guys handle the judges once they had the confidence from our role playing. This wasn't that hard with the information you gave us. We KNEW they would ask our name, our residence, if we understood the charges, how do we plead, and tell us
they weren't there to answer our questions. So it was EASY to prepare for each scenario.
I don't mean to imply we know everything. But we know enough to strike fear into the hearts of attorneys. We're no longer immersed in fear, doubt and confusion. That's just some of what we've gotten from the group.
We believe our experiences reflect our beliefs and methods. Scott has embraced laziness and whining. People like that join a group like this and expect miracles after reading the most recent postings. They're deluded. Why is it always people like that who feel the need to share their illness with the world? Only an egomaniac would make comments like that in public.
Come to think of it, THERE ARE NO GROUPS LIKE THIS! You have changed the world, Bill! ANYONE who does the work will be rewarded. It may take some time, but in six months we went from slaves to serving G-d by helping others. We consider this to be one way of preaching the gospel and saving people from Lucifer's
grasp.
Thank you Bill from all of us.
Sheila
#2239
Re: Our "NAMES" belong to the Crown?
Some Dude
Dec 27, 2012
The birth event registers an INFANT ... not the child ... The "Crown" or "District of Columbia" (really no difference) is responsible for all "orphans" and "infants" ... read the DC Act.
the "footprint" on the "birth record" is of an INFANT, but mom signs for the child upon discharge. So what happened to the INFANT?
Doubt it? ... then can anyone provide the EXACT statute, code, rule, regulation, or act authorizing the registration of people as property or authorizing the information found within the birth record to personally identify or recognize the one using NAME?
This is why the "man" is not recognized ... the matter is NOT about the "man" ... it is about a "presumed dead infant" but if one wishes to be that "infant" more power to ya ... they will allow the free will expression of your will and deed as infancy is a "personal privilege" .. read corpus juris secundum regarding infants and adverse possession.
Free will is a bitch.
NAME = presumption of infant decedent and Name = resident or infant's estate ... IMO, these are what the CAFR accounts represent; the "the collective value of all infants' estates" via investments and such ..... SSN is also an account in probate ... "estate" is just interests in property and usufruct is using property or estates that belong to someone else for profit or gain .. again read corpus juris secundum regarding estates. SSN allows "the corporations and such" to utilize the "decedent's infant estate" via claims against the NAME in probate.
However, this all of this is set up to "emancipate" the people from the slavery associated with "money" or "capitalism" which is just capital in the sins of man. The military is the trustee and all that matters is the integrity of the system ... all encapsulated within the last line of the Declaration of Independence, governed and administrated via the Lieber Code, and its purpose outline in the Book of Job; specifically Job 31:21-22 .... but it takes a huge leap and amount of faith to undergo the transformation as the only real rule is: Do not do anything regarding claims attributed with NAME and do not claim ownership (glory) of anything done in NAME.
All of this is operation of the "Law of Peace" and outlined via Article 2 of the Lieber Code thru Article 43 of the Hague (restoration of public order and safety) of which the 1st essential task is to ensure the inhabitants can live their day to day lives, 2nd essential task is to establish an agreement which maximizes the benefits of both inhabitants and occupying army, and, in keeping with the provision of Article 2 of the Lieber Code that the occupying army remain as a condition of the peace, the 3rd essential task is that government administrates the agreement of which is laid out in Article 31 and 38 of the Lieber Code and Article 55 of the Hague, of which the occupying army is administrator and usufructuary of all public buildings, real estate, agricultural estates, etc… and must administrate them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.
1863 banking act (still the foundation of the banking system) = government bought all "fruit" or "product" one will ever do in one's life; be it "good" or "evil" ... Read "The Way to outdo England without fighting her", letter 12, pages 4-5 ..... claims of ownership by the people are a "breach of trust" and thus makes them "enemies of the state"
Their free will act and deed
a claim of ownership is a claim to be owned .... slavery is ownership .... slavery has been outlawed .... therefore, only an outlaw claims ownership
ownership = usufruct .... which the State has already "claimed" ... claim of ownership is a controversy and adverse claim to the States' interests as "beneficial owner" ... All title is held in abeyance or "suspension" which means there is only "beneficial ownership" (usufruct) and "beneficial interest" (naked owner)
ColB = contract under seal whose terms are "Do not do anything regarding claims attributed with NAME and do not claim ownership (glory) of anything done in NAME"
every single "claim" associated with a NAME is a claim in probate ... every single account number associated with NAME is a line of credit in probate, and the holder of the account (beneficial owner) has already gotten the benefit (usufruct) ... have a buddy in England who brought this to the attention of the gas and power company and they acknowledged it and removed the meters and he still has service ... the council tax has been settled ... the back rent of the apartment has also been settled. He talked to the bank regarding why the account is in probate and the guy on the line immediately changed the subject and buddy asked him to fix it or does her majesty's servants need to be informed of the apparent impropriety.
Have any of you ever brought this to anyone's attention before you accused them of "fraud" and "stealing of securities"? Did you even ask?
Fraud is odious and not to be presumed - Maxim of Law
All forms of "law" have been merged in England for at least 300 years. In United States more recently. The reason behind this is the "learned ones" (lawyers and attorneys) were abusing the "cestui que" laws, much like they are doing now ... operating under presumptions of death and then plundering the estates of the "ignorant" .. it is called "human trafficking" ... even Florida Attorney General has made issue with this regarding the elderly and the probate courts, but the same modus operandi is found in every matter.
The United States Corporation Company is the transfer and fiscal agent for any corporation foreign or domestic. Just do a search with Florida Dept of State division of corporations as this is where the articles of incorporation of United States Corporation Company are filed. Read those articles and note the last paragraph on the first page. The "tax" is always on the "transfer" between estates and the one who is doing the transfer is the "tax payer" when you are done, go look up the definitions of "beneficial owner" and "beneficial interest".
So where it was "pledged" is left up to the individual; to the Treasury for the good of ALL, or to the Federal Reserve to engage in commerce for private gain and personal benefit? .... either way one is going to engage in commerce ... it is a necessity ... so, is it for the good of all or for the benefit of a few?
Except from the Queen's Christmas speech":
"This is the time of year when we remember that God sent his only son 'to serve, not to be served'. He restored love and service to the centre of our lives in the person of Jesus Christ. "
Do you see what she is telling the whole world? These people are NOT evil, they are in fact protectors of the "Christ consciousness" ... maybe "the great deceiver" wants you to think otherwise so you will turn your backs on "god" and thus yourselves? Ever think of that?
"Evil" is the greatest and best tool "good" can ever utilize, for if you want something built right, get "evil" people to build it as they will build it like they, and they alone, are going to inherit it when in fact it becomes their prison.
For all who say philosophy has nothing to do with all of this ... you are sorely mistaken for in this secular world, State = God .... NAME = Christ .... Name = estate or inheritance .... user = "sinner"
BIBLE = Basic Instructions for Building Lasting Empires ... one within no army can defeat and one without no ignorant mass can withstand
Does "God" offer salvation directly or does he utilize a "pass thru"? Would "Christ" be the "pass thru"? Did he "die" for your "sins"? Does one have to "accept the Christ" in order to receive "salvation"?
In the secular word (of the world) .. the same event occurs
On earth, the Pope (the Vicar of Christ) claims himself to be GOD! The pope claims to own the entire planet through the laws of conquest and discovery. (Papal Bulls of 1455 and 1493). Well that's a good thing. Bless his heart! That's a heck of a lot of liability for one man to take on! He who makes the claim becomes surety. So let him have it all, baby!
And he even created his own CHRIST! He birthed every man, woman and child their very own personal CHRIST: the Certificate of Birth. The Certificate of Birth is the CHRIST. It is your indemnity bond to pay for all your sins! It accepts all the sacrifices for your sins where all you have to do is simply forgive! (and we all "fore" "gave" at the "orifice")
Two Wolves: Cherokee Wisdom
One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes
on inside people.
He said, "My son, the battle is between two wolves inside us all.
One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed,
arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false
pride, superiority, and ego.
The other is Good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility,
kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and
faith."
The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his
grandfather: "Which wolf wins?"
The old Cherokee replied, "The one you feed."
You see, the "wolf" or "beast" feeds within and then begins feeding without as a self-evident manifestation of the "god" man worships .. this occurs in each one of us.
Now, which wolf is currently being fed in this world? What is the self-evident "god" man currently "worships"?
... in others words, what kind of "society" is currently erected in honor of that "god"?
Now, which one will you feed?
Whatever might have been Pewee's losses had it been left free to exercise its own business judgment, the crucial fact is that the Government chose to intervene by taking possession and operating control. By doing so, it became the proprietor and, in the absence of contrary arrangements, was entitled to the benefits and subject to the liabilities which that status involves. PeeWee Coal v. United States 1951
COMPLETE UP TO HERE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
#2257
the District of Columbia, also known as the Act of 1871
icc01
Fri Dec 28, 2012 8:54 am
Something to think about - it’s called freedom.
Act of 1871
1871, February 21: Congress Passes an Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia, also known as the Act of 1871.
With no constitutional authority to do so, Congress creates a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, a ten mile square parcel of land (see, Acts of the Forty-first Congress, Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62). The act - passed when the country was weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War - was a strategic move by foreign interests (international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the coffers and neck of America. Congress cut a deal with the international bankers
(specifically Rothschilds of London) to incur a DEBT to said bankers. Because the bankers were not about to lend money to a floundering nation without serious stipulations, they devised a way to get their foot in the door of the United States.
The Act of 1871 formed a corporation called THE UNITED STATES. The corporation, OWNED by foreign interests, moved in and shoved the original Constitution into a dustbin. With the Act of 1871, the organic Constitution was defaced - in effect vandalized and sabotage - when the title was capitalized and the word “for” was changed to “of” in the title.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is the constitution of the incorporated UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it governs the Republic. It does is not! Capitalization is NOT insignificant when one is referring
to a legal document. This seemingly “minor” alteration has had a major impact on every subsequent generation of Americans. What Congress did by passing the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the government of the District of Columbia, an INCORPORATED government. This newly altered Constitution was not intended to benefit the Republic. It benefits only the corporation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and operates entirely outside the original (organic) Constitution.
Instead of having absolute and unalienable rights guaranteed under the organic Constitution, we the people now have “relative” rights or privileges. One example is the Sovereign’s right to travel, which has now been transformed (under corporate government policy) into a “privilege” that requires citizens to be licensed. (Passports) By passing the Act of 1871, Congress committed TREASON against the People who were Sovereign under the grants and decrees of the Declaration of Independence and the organic Constitution. [Information courtesy of Lisa Guliani, . The Act of 1871 became the FOUNDATION of all the treason since committed by government officials.]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dove: The following is an expansion and further explanation of the above (an adaptation of Lisa’s work, done with her permission), which you may want to read for your own edification. Whereas my Chapter 9 is a time-map of the major Headlines and Landmines of the 200-years-plus history of America, each subsequent chapter goes into particular details. This section is from Chapter 18, “The Tale of Two Governments, which overall addresses the difference between a democracy and a republic as well as the fact of a federal government and a
shadow government practicing under the guise of The Corporation. I’m sure Lisa won’t mind your using what you need in order to make whatever point you wish to make in the moment. . . . C.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
The United States Isn’t a Country; It’s a Corporation! In preparation for stealing America, the puppets of Britain’s banking cabal had already created a second government, a Shadow Government designed to manage what the common herd believed was a democracy, but what really was an incorporated UNITED STATES. Together this chimera, this two-headed monster, disallowed the common herd all rights of sui juris. [you, in your sovereignty]
Congress, with no authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, a ten-mile square parcel of land. WHY and HOW did they do so? First, Lisa Guliani of Babel Magazine, reminds us that the Civil War was, in fact, “little more than a calculated front with fancy footwork by backroom players.” Then she adds: “It was also a strategic maneuver by British and European interests (international bankers) intent on gaining a stranglehold on the coffers of America. And, because Congress knew our country was in dire financial straits, certain members of Congress cut a deal with the international bankers (in those days, the Rothschilds of London were dipping their fingers into everyone’s pie). . . . . There you have the WHY, why members of Congress permitted the international bankers to gain further control of America. . . . . .
“Then, by passing the Act of 1871, Congress formed a corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. This corporation, owned by foreign interests, shoved the organic version of the Constitution aside by changing the word ‘for’ to ‘of’ in the title. Let me explain: the original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers read: ‘The Constitution for the united states of America.’ [note that neither the words 'united' nor 'states' began with capital letters] But the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’ is a corporate constitution, which is absolutely NOT the same document you think it is. First of all, it ended all our rights of sovereignty [sui juris]. So you now have the HOW, how the international bankers got their hands on THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.”
To fully understand how our rights of sovereignty were ended, you must know the full meaning of sovereign: “Chief or highest, supreme power, superior in position to all others; independent of and unlimited by others; possessing or entitled to; original and independent authority or jurisdiction.” (Webster). In short, our government, which was created by and for us as sovereigns – free citizens deemed to have the highest authority in the land – was stolen from us, along with our rights. Keep in mind that, according to the original Constitution, only We the People are sovereign. Government is not sovereign. The Declaration of Independence say, “ ...government is subject to the consent of the governed.” That’s us - the sovereigns. When did you last feel like a sovereign? As Lisa Guliani explained:
“It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or a constitutional historian to figure out that the U.S. Government has NOT been subject to the consent of the governed since long before you or I were born. Rather, the governed are subject to the whim and greed of the corporation, which has stretched its tentacles beyond the ten-mile-square parcel of land known as the District of Columbia. In fact, it has invaded every state of the Republic. Mind you, the corporation has NO jurisdiction beyond the District of Columbia. You just think it does. “You see, you are ‘presumed’ to know the law, which is very weird since We the People are taught NOTHING about the law in school. We memorize obscure facts and phrases here and there, like the Preamble, which says, ‘We the People ...establish this Constitution for the United States of America.’ But our teachers only gloss over the Bill of Rights. Our schools (controlled by the corporate government) don’t delve into the Constitution at depth. After all, the corporation was established to indoctrinate and ‘dumb-down’ the masses, not to teach anything of value or importance. Certainly, no one mentioned that America was sold-out to foreign interests, that we were beneficiaries of the debt incurred by Congress, or that we were in debt to the international bankers. Yet, for generations, Americans have had the bulk of their earnings confiscated to pay a massive debt that they did not incur. There’s an endless stream of things the People aren’t told. And, now that you are being told, how do you feel about being made the recipient of a debt without your knowledge or consent? “After passage of the Act of 1871 Congress set a series of subtle and overt deceptions into motion, deceptions in the form of decisions that were meant to sell us down the river. Over time, the Republic took it on the chin until it was knocked down and counted out by a technical KO [knock out]. With the surrender of the people’s gold in 1933, the ‘common herd’ was handed over to illegitimate law. (I’ll bet you weren’t taught THAT in school.)
“Our corporate form of governance is based on Roman Civil Law and Admiralty, or Maritime, Law, which is also known as the ‘Divine Right of Kings’ and the ‘Law of the Seas’ - another fact of American history not taught in our schools. Actually, Roman Civil Law was fully established in the colonies before our nation began, and then became managed by private international law. In other words, the government - the government created for the District of Columbia via the Act of 1871 – operates solely under Private International Law, not Common Law, which was the foundation of our Constitutional Republic. “This fact has impacted all Americans in concrete ways. For instance, although Private International Law is technically only applicable within the District of Columbia, and NOT in the other states of the Union, the arms of the Corporation of the UNITED STATES are called ‘departments’ - i.e., the Justice Department, the Treasury Department. And those departments affect everyone, no matter where (in what state) they live. Guess what? Each department belongs to the corporation - to the UNITED STATES.
“Refer to any UNITED STATES CODE (USC). Note the capitalization; this is evidence of a corporation, not a Republic. For example, In Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C), it is unequivocally stated that the UNITED STATES is a corporation. Translation: the corporation is NOT a separate and distinct entity; it is not disconnected from the government; it IS the government - your government. This is extremely important! I refer to it as the ‘corporate EMPIRE of the UNITED STATES,’ which operates under Roman Civil Law outside the original
Constitution. How do you like being ruled by a corporation? You say you’ll ask your Congressperson about this? HA!! “Congress is fully aware of this deception. So it’s time that you, too, become aware of the deception. What this great deception means is that the members of Congress do NOT work for us, for you and me. They work for the Corporation, for the UNITED STATES. No wonder we can’t get them to do anything on our behalf, or meet or demands, or answer our questions.
“Technically, legally, or any other way you want to look at the matter, the corporate government of the UNITED STATES has no jurisdiction or authority in ANY State of the Union (the Republic) beyond the District of Columbia. Let that tidbit sink in, then ask yourself, could this deception have occurred without full
knowledge and complicity of the Congress? Do you think it happened by
accident? If you do, you’re deceiving yourself.
“There are no accidents, no coincidences. Face the facts and confront the truth. Remember, you are presumed to know the law. THEY know you don’t know the law or, for that matter, your history. Why? Because no concerted effort was ever made to teach or otherwise inform you. As a Sovereign, you are entitled to full disclosure of all facts. As a slave, you are entitled to nothing other than what the corporation decides to ‘give’ you.
“Remember also that ‘Ignorance of the law is no excuse.’ It’s your responsibility and obligation to learn the law and know how it applies to you. No wonder the corporation counted on the fact that most people are too indifferent, unconcerned, distracted, or lazy to learn what they need to know to survive within the system. We have been conditioned to let the government do our thinking for us. Now’s the time to turn that around if we intend to help save our Republic and ourselves - before it’s too late.
“As an instrument of the international bankers, the UNITED STATES owns you from birth to death. It also holds ownership of all your assets, of your property, even of your children. Think long and hard about all the bills taxes, fines, and licenses you have paid for or purchased. Yes, they had you by the pockets. If you don’t believe it, read the 14th Amendment. See how ‘free’ you really are. Ignorance of the facts led to your silence. Silence is construed as consent; consent to be beneficiaries of a debt you did not incur. As a Sovereign People we have been deceived for hundreds of years; we think we are free, but in truth we are servants of the corporation.
“Congress committed treason against the People in 1871. Honest men could have corrected the fraud and treason. But apparently there weren’t enough honest men to counteract the lust for money and power. We lost more freedom than we will ever know, thanks to corporate infiltration of our so-called ‘government.’ “Do you think that any soldier who died in any of our many wars would have fought if he or she had known the truth? Do you think one person would have laid down his/her life for a corporation? How long will we remain silent? How long will we perpetuate the MYTH that we are free? When will we stand together as One Sovereign People? When will we take back what has been as stolen from the us?
“If the People of America had known to what extent their trust was betrayed, how long would it have taken for a real revolution to occur? What we now need is a Revolution in THOUGHT. We need to change our thinking, then we can change our world. Our children deserve their rightful legacy - the liberty our ancestors fought to preserve, the legacy of a Sovereign and Fully Free People.”
[Posted 8/27/02, ]
Wisdom And Freedom produced by WORLD NEWSSTAND
Copyright © 2003. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
page image by Windy’s Design Studio
The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 aka “An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia (41st Congress, 3d Sess., ch. 62, 16 Stat. 419, enacted 1871-02-21) is an Act of Congress, which revoked the individual charters of the City of Washington, the City of Georgetown, and the County of Washington and created a new city government for the entire District of Columbia. The legislation effectively merged what had been separate municipalities within the federal territory into a single entity. It is for this reason that the city, while legally named the District of Columbia, is still commonly known as Washington, D.C. However, this act was abolished in 1874, and while the name did not change, the territorial Governor was replaced with a three-member Board of Commissioners appointed by the President. This system existed until 1974 when the District of Columbia Home Rule Act allowed for District residents to elect their own mayor.
#2272 re. #1877
Re: A4V and Secured Party Creditor?
wonderspirit888
Sat Dec 29, 2012 11:12 am
It's about trade routes on the sea of commerce. Once the railroad crossed the land (sea of commerce) then the trade route was established. That goes for Canada Inc. as well. They laid the fiction overtop of the Republic, but as most know here, the republic, for those with eyes to see (not sea) still exists. God never left, the people just became...well you know.
#2273
Special Deposit info
lawfulstudy
Sat Dec 29, 2012 11:12 am
1. Special Deposits
Deposits from the standpoint of the bank may be classified either as special or general. The legal nature of a special deposit is quite similar to that of cotton or any other commodity stored in a warehouse. The warehouseman is expected to maintain the goods securely and deliver them intact to the owner at his request. In the same way, the banker is entrusted with money, jewelry, or other valuables which must be kept in a safe place and returned to the depositor whenever he calls for them. He has a right to demand the identical deposit, for he always retains title to it. The bank is in no case the owner of a special deposit, but is only the trustee. In this capacity the bank is expected to exercise reasonable care in safeguarding special deposits and to provide the same protection as for its own property.
#2275 re. #1777
Re: TOPIC - RETURN OF EQUITY 2. No return?->Resulting trust.
prosperofla
Sat Dec 29, 2012 11:38 am
It seems that the problem with a T1013 is that if the Power of Attorney is granted by the "living" man/woman. Admiralty will not recognize any document binding a living man/woman.
-Peter
#2276 re. #2275
Re: TOPIC - RETURN OF EQUITY 2. No return?->Resulting trust.
wonderspirit888
Sat Dec 29, 2012 11:43 am
correct...admiralty cannot "see" the living.....hence the proxy....
working on that myself...
the system only sees paper and numbers...
the way I see it, the fundamentals need to be in place first. like Bill has said herein
trusts and removing presumptions....then getting them to act...yep
#2280 re. #1777
Re: TOPIC - RETURN OF EQUITY 2. No return?->Resulting trust.
lawrewrite
Sat Dec 29, 2012 2:08 pm
Sorry, have to correct you. The courts are your executors working in association with the BAR association and the government. Even though you are the beneficiary to the original jurisdiction of the Constitution, you have been declared abandoned, lost at sea or dead at birth. You are a thing as clearly indicated by your capitalized name which is a cestui que (vie) trust. You are treated as the trustee and bear all liability for doing the bidding of your government, the courts and the attorneys. You own nothing. You only have use. The Vatican lays claim to your property and your soul. You can only become the executor to manage your estate once you have been declared to be alive.
You think you are paying federal taxes when you are paying tribute to the Vatican. [Your U.S. Presidents are all Knights of Malta, subject to the whim and will of the Vatican. No statute, state or federal will be passed unless it is first reviewed by the Vatican.]You are paying a tax on the estate of a decedent. It is called a 1040 tax. It has nothing to do with form 1040 you file April 15th. It is a section 1040 tax found in title 26 United States Code.
"[E]very taxpayer is a cestui que trust having sufficient interest in the preventing abuse of the trust to be recognized in the field of this court's prerogative jurisdiction . . . " In Re Bolens (1912), 135 N.W. 164.
Black's Law Dictionary:
Prerogative. An exclusive or peculiar right or privilege. The special power, privilege, immunity, right or advantage vested in an official person, either generally, or in respect to the things of his office, or in an official body, as a court or legislature. Black's Law Dict., 5 Ed., p. 1064
Prerogative court. In old English law, a court established for the trial of all testamentary causes, where the deceased left bona notabilia within two different dioceses; in which case the probate of wills belonged to the archbishop of the province, by way of special prerogative. And all causes relating to the wills, administrations, or legacies of such persons were originally cognizable herein, before a judge appointed by the archbishop, called the "judge of the prerogative court," from whom an appeal lay to the privy council. The jurisdiction of these courts became obsolete with the transfer of the testamentary jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts to the Chancery Division of the High Court. Black's Law Dict., 5 Ed., p. 1064
Chancery. Equity; equitable jurisdiction; a court of equity; the system of jurisprudence administered in courts of equity. See Court of Chancery; Equity. Black's Law Dict., 5 Ed., p. 210
High Court of Admiralty. See Court of Admiralty Black's Law Dict., 5 Ed., p. 655
Court of Admiralty. A court having jurisdiction of admiralty and maritime matters; such jurisdiction being possessed by federal district courts. See Admiralty Court, Black's Law Dict., 5 Ed., p. 320
High Court of Admiralty. In English law, this was a court which exercised jurisdiction in prize cases, and had general jurisdiction in maritime causes, on the instance side. Its proceedings were usually in rem, and its practice and principles derived in large measure from the civil law. The judicature acts of 1873 transferred all the powers and jurisdiction of this tribunal to the probate, divorce, and admiralty division of the high court of justice. The justice Act of 1970 established a new Admiralty Court as part of the Queens Bench Division of the High Court Black's Law Dict., 5 Ed., p. 320
With the Unification Act of 1966, law, equity and admiralty were merged. There is only one kind of action called a civil action. There are no equity courts, ergo, no chancery courts, only admiralty courts. Your remedy in the courts, if you have to go there, is in admiralty. However, if you are declared alive with a proof of life anything ever taken from you through the system must be restored to you with interest. See Cestui Que Vie Act 1666.
#2292 re. not listed
Fw: Replying back with INFO - Re: Questions on SPC & A4V help please - Re: John reference to message titled Hi every one can any one here know help me out
route4401
Sat Dec 29, 2012 8:08 pm
39 USC § 3003 - Mail bearing a fictitious name or address
(a) Upon evidence satisfactory to the Postal Service that any person is using a fictitious, false, or assumed name, title, or address in conducting, promoting, or carrying on or assisting therein, by means of the postal services of the United States, an activity in violation of sections 1302, 1341, and 1342 of title 18, it may—
(1) withhold mail so addressed from delivery; and
(2) require the party claiming the mail to furnish proof to it of the claimant's identity and right to receive the mail.
(b) The Postal Service may issue an order directing that mail, covered by subsection (a) of this section, be forwarded to a dead letter office as fictitious matter, or be returned to the sender when—
(1) the party claiming the mail fails to furnish proof of his identity and right to receive the mail; or
(2) the Postal Service determines that the mail is addressed to a fictitious, false, or assumed name, title, or address.
#2302
Mommy dearest
route4401
Sun Dec 30, 2012 1:52 pm
Peter, peacemaker, et al,
I just wanted to share a fun thought I had today. Since it seems to me that the Proxy #1 grantor can be anyone - anyone without a SSN that is. Wouldn't Mom be the perfect grantor? Makes for a nice full circle, eh?
- cantinitsta
#2304 re. #2302
Re: Mommy dearest
dianne.murphy30
Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:28 pm
I'm confused. Is there anyone out there with a other who didn't/doesn't have an SSN???
#2309 re. #2304
Re: Mommy dearest
route4401
Sun Dec 30, 2012 5:26 pm
Diane,
All of us, if we so choose and operating in the correct jurisdiction, exist without a SSN.
Without the US = Without SSN = Living Man or Woman.
It's just that to accomplish the object of this group, we all need a Proxy to re-present us in the fictional world of the admiralty. But that doesn't preclude the living from adopting the role of Grantor of that Proxy. Article 1 Section X of the Constitution guarantees to us that right in the united States of America. This is a fundamental concept we all need to fully understand.
- cantinista
#2310 re. #2309
Re: Mommy dearest
galberthc
Sun Dec 30, 2012 5:41 pm
Since the Social Security Number is connected to the fictitious Trust, and fictions need the living to conduct its affairs, isn’t it true that the social security number belongs to the Corporate system that created it. Since the
beginning of time the power has been in the name. In the Scriptures it explains how Yahuawah the Creator was to powerful of a name for the hypocrites and rulers so they nullified his name by giving him an unlawful legal title called God, Lord, Adonai etc...my point is the name is connected to our birthright. It seems that if a persons name is altered it loses its power.
#2315 re. #2310
Re: Mommy dearest
route4401
Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:53 pm
The SSN re-presents the Strawman Trust along with the name. It is considered to be an employee of the United States. For our purposes it functions as our token in the world of PUBLIC commerce; much like a race car or thimble on a Monopoly Board. It isn't us, it's just a vessel for us to use in PUBLIC commerce. Its use, as Bill has pointed out, is to transfer the Strawman's PUBLIC debt to the Estate.
It has no referent in the PRIVATE though. If you ask your buddy if you can borrow five bucks until tomorrow, he doesn't ask if you're a US citizen or for your SSN. He won't even ask for your name I'll bet. That's a pretty simple example to be sure, but it makes the point.
The point is, one doesn't have to use a SSN in PRIVATE commerce. Although the grantor, without SSN, will appoint the Strawman, with name and number, as a trustee of our Proxy. Then, unless I miss my guess, the Strawman will make its one and only decision for the trust by PRIVATELY contracting the living man, without SSN, to be the Authorized Representative charged with making all other day to day decisions and actions in behalf of the trust. The PRIVATE Express Trust.
- cantinista
#2321 re. #2302
Re: Mommy dearest
route4401
Tue Jan 1, 2013 9:53 am
Upon further contemplation, it seems to me that Mom would then also need to be the one to whom the Security Interest is granted so that she could then grant/entrust it to the Proxy.
The only mechanism I can come up with is for Mom to prospectively grant the Security Interest contingent upon the grant of the Security Interest to the trust itself. I think this can be accomplished by appointing the trustee and charging him with the duty to grant the Security Interest to the trust. It's all good once the Strawman accepts the appointment and the charge, right?
It might even be interesting to incorporate the Security Agreement directly into the trust indenture as res. Then you could make the Strawman's grant of the Security Interest contingent/concurrent to his acceptance of trusteeship. However, this seems to be towing the line of making the Strawman the grantor. It might be best to settle the trust one day and then execute the security agreement the next.
In any event, I find it quite fascinating just trying to puzzle out the details :)
- cantinista
=================
#2565 re. post not included
Re: Classes available: summary
prosperofla
Thu Jan 10, 2013 9:33 am
The Living Man/Woman must create an entity that is recognized in Admiralty, which is probably a private trust- the "connective tissue" to the public. An entity does not have to be a taxpaying one to be recognized in Admiralty. Some of us who are leaving "remedial" learning and shifting in to "intermediate" are studying this part of the process.
-Peter H.
#2569 re. #2565
Re: Classes available: summary
congrace7
Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:50 pm
So we craft a Trust Indenture, as Grantor, appoint Geithner, (and as he's leaving) his successor, and the Deputy Secretary of Treasury Wolin as Co-Trustees, bound under the United States Code, and Code of Federal Regulations, put the BC Bond, the BC, UCC 1's in their hands as res, with our instructions... naming Grantor (same name) as qualified Beneficiary?
I can't help but want to give this trust a name. And here is where I keep running into problems. Beneficiary cannot "receive" anything. I guess they could write a check to Beneficiary, but then comes the problem of "cashing" the check. So, the Beneficiary at some point needs a Banking number/ identity. ? Strawman? which would make sense as to liening strawman. But, who is liening strawman? As for that, Who is liening Estate? This can be done as AR for the Grantor/Beneficiary. Numbers not necessary for "secured party" on UCC1.
Also, I was experimenting with the different ways to fill out the UCC1, it occurred to me, the UNITED STATES has no security interest. It is only a legal "owner." What are we liening?
Still lack critical understanding. UNLESS, I use an (anonymously granted) Express Trust with a Name and IRS identity #, of which I am the Grantor/ Trustee, and Beneficiary (among many). Also make it Liener of Strawman.
Thoughts appreciated.
#2573 re. #2565
Re: Classes available: summary
prosperofla
Thu Jan 10, 2013 2:40 pm
This is the best-of-my-knowledge answer, which is actually my current subject of research. All are welcome to critique, of course:
1. I believe that the Trust should have a name - simply because it CAN. And as it doesn't hurt (as I assume it won't) then it would be helpful, especially if it ever issues checks, etc. in the future. Of course I am referring to the PRIVATE ESTATE TRUST, not the PUBLIC ESTATE TRUST, as that already has a name, "JOHN DOE/ 123-45-6789".
2. Bill, our Moderator, said clearly that his Security Agreement has the United States (exact "name" yet to be learned) as Debtor/Party Aliened.
3. If you have earned the basic status, then your PRIVATE TRUST is NOT paying the JCPenney bill; your PUBLIC TRUST, via Dept. of Treasury, under instruction from it's Grantor (same as from the PRIVATE TRUST and established by Security Agreement/UCC-1 FS), such instruction being known as a "setoff", is paying the bill to JCPenney.
4. Remember, if you are trying to achieve STATUS, DO NOT LIEN THE STRAWMAN! See point #2, above. If you lien the SM, all you get is access to the SS Trust, not the WHOLE estate. Remember that the SM and the 9-digit number ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME. Keep in mind that the name on the COLB is not the
Strawman. The SM didn't come into fictional existence (oxymoron alert!) until the BC derivative Trust was established down the line, which gave itself a SM NAME. THEN the SS Trust was made which appointed the SM as Public Estate TRUSTEE.
As a reminder, the stream goes like this:
Birth Record by Doctor/Hospital
COLB (long form BC)
BC (short form BC aka Birth Bond that gets transferred to Federal Reserve as collateral and held by DT while it is traded on market.
BC Trust (names the Strawman)
SS Trust (makes SM the Trustee.
5. On your last point, as stated above, we are liening the US/USA (we have to figure out what actual name goes in there) as represented by the SM Trustee. Remember that crazy SM is the "Trustee", an employee of the US/USA. Our PRIVATE Trust's Grantor gives him orders.
As always, my exclamation marks are of passion and not anger. :)
-Peter H.
#2574 re. #2573
Re: Classes available: summary
prosperofla
Thu Jan 10, 2013 2:46 pm
I should add to the last point (#5) that we don't give the SM orders directly, in a sense; we given them to the SM's Patriarch, the US/USA through its Treasury Department. That's why we are liening the Patriarch, not the crazy SM. He takes orders from his Patriarch, doing the dirty work.
-Peter H.
#2575 re. #2569
Re: Classes available: summary
route4401
Thu Jan 10, 2013 2:49 pm
The only government agent allowed in your trust is the Strawman (but not making ALL decisions for the trust).
No Geithner.
No tax id.
NO AGENCY HOOKS into your trust!
Private Private Private Private Private!
NO PUBLIC!
tersely yours,
- cantinista
#2580 re. #2575
Re: Classes available: summary
prosperofla
Thu Jan 10, 2013 2:57 pm
cantinista,
As I understand it, there is FORMAL public status and EFFECTIVE public status. FORMAL would be "in name only" and effective would mean what it does practically. The Patriarch (US/USA) is controlling our SM now and getting its’ hooks in because it fooled us Living Beings into assuming the role of fictional SM/Trustee. So, if we claim that top security, the COLB, the "effective" part dies. It only continues FORMALLY as PUBLIC because it all comes from the PUBLIC/Admiralty world. It's just that now, the PRIVATE is in charge. so, effectively, it becomes private because a PRIVATE legal body is in control.
Perhaps that is the point you were trying to make.
Love the exclamation mark.
-Peter H.
#2586 re. #2573
Re: Classes available: summary
route4401
Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:09 pm
Peter H,
I am going to make some corrections/clarifications of the process based on what I see as the correct methods. I will intersperse them into your very good comments.
“This is the best-of-my-knowledge answer, which is actually my current subject of research. All are welcome to critique, of course:
1. I believe that the Trust should have a name - simply because it CAN. And as it doesn't hurt (as I assume it won't) then it would be helpful, especially if it ever issues checks, etc. in the future. Of course I am referring to the PRIVATE ESTATE TRUST, not the PUBLIC ESTATE TRUST, as that already has a name, "JOHN DOE/ 123-45-6789".”
Not only can the Private EXPRESS Trust have name, but your UCC1 will require a name for the Secured Party. This trust is NOT an ESTATE Trust. Also, the PUBLIC ESTATE TRUST has the name JOHN HENRY DOE and number 123-45-654321 and was established by the US Treasury upon receipt and deposit of the Long Form COLB. This is the entity you want to place a lien on. The tricky part, in my estimation, is exactly how to do this through the trustee, JOHN HENRY DOE #123-45-6789.
“2. Bill, our Moderator, said clearly that his Security Agreement has the United States (exact "name" yet to be learned) as Debtor/Party Aliened.”
I need to go back and find it, but I remember reading the passage where Bill fairly clearly alludes to this.
See:
I believe the exact name is "United States" as referred to in the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution for the united States of America, and the statutes adopted thereunder. These, particularly the Constitution (clearly a trust indenture), comprise the charter for the "United States". The Constitution chartered the "United States", as a separate entity from the confederation of 13 independent states, expressly as an Admiralty jurisdiction to facilitate international commerce by the those united States.
“3. If you have earned the basic status, then your PRIVATE TRUST is NOT paying the JCPenney bill; your PUBLIC TRUST, via Dept. of Treasury, under instruction from it's Grantor (same as from the PRIVATE TRUST and established by Security Agreement/UCC-1 FS), such instruction being known as a "setoff", is paying the bill to JCPenney.
4. Remember, if you are trying to achieve STATUS, DO NOT LIEN THE STRAWMAN! See point #2, above. If you lien the SM, all you get is access to the SS Trust, not the WHOLE estate. Remember that the SM and the 9-digit number ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME. Keep in mind that the name on the COLB is not the Strawman. The SM didn't come into fictional existence (oxymoron alert!) until the BC derivative Trust was established down the line, which gave itself a SM NAME. THEN the SS Trust was made which appointed the SM as Public Estate TRUSTEE.
As a reminder, the stream goes like this:
Birth Record by Doctor/Hospital
COLB (long form BC)”
First derivative of the HBC, COLB is deposited generally by Treasury to establish the BC Estate Trust.
“BC (short form BC aka Birth Bond that gets transferred to Federal Reserve as collateral and held by DT while it is traded on market.”
Birth Bond is second derivative, it is represented in the PUBLIC as the Short Form BC, and backed by COLB BC Estate Trust. This bond is monetized by a government contract between the Treasury and the Fed whose number gives rise to the Strawman number 123-45-6789, and sharing the BC Trust name. Thus a taxpayer/debtor/vessel/trust is created and construed as trustee of BC Trust. Well, something more or less like that.
“BC Trust (names the Strawman)
SS Trust (makes SM the Trustee.
5. On your last point, as stated above, we are liening the US/USA (we have to figure out what actual name goes in there) as represented by the SM Trustee. Remember that crazy SM is the "Trustee", an employee of the US/USA. Our PRIVATE Trust's Grantor gives him orders.”
Agreed here.
For the record, my current THEORY is that the lien debtor on the UCC1 is; United States (or United States Treasury Account?), organization number 123-45-6789.
The BC Estate Trust is expressly listed (by what name?) (decedent's estate?) as number 123-45-654321 as part of the UCC1 (and Security Agreement) collateral description. May or may not be necessary in light of:
UCC1add clarifies debtor: as Trustee on behalf of property held in trust (the Estate) and a transmitting utility.
The Trustee holds the legal title to the Estate and is the only one who can grant a (consensual) lien against it.
Just my two cents for consideration.
peace,
- cantinista
#2588 re. #2580
Re: Classes available: summary
route4401
Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:17 pm
Hi Peter,
I'm not sure I fully grasp your distinction beyond the idea that the Private entity is going to wrest control of the Strawman as a portal into the public world of commerce. That's why it will be a trustee of our Private Trust. This effectively reverses the default arrangement whereby the Strawman was a portal for the public to control us (and our private labor).
- cantinista
#2595 re. 2586
Re: Classes available: summary
congrace7
Thu Jan 10, 2013 5:18 pm
But isn't the strawman a SUBTRUST first? So liening the estate, liens the strawman.
Or:
Debtor: UNITED STATES Trust 121-60-12345, (could have a 2nd debtor:) UNITED STATES Trust 123-45-1234, as Trustee
And I thought about this one, but Strawman "is never a creditor" is playing in my head for some reason:
Creditor: STRAWMAN (number?), as Trustee for NEW TRUST, as Beneficiary,
#2592 re. #2588
Re: Classes available: summary
prosperofla
Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:45 pm
LOL! That's what I was trying to say, but in a slightly oblique different context. The Private entity is KICKING DOWN THE DOOR, spitting on the floor, pulling out its six-gun and declaring to the town folk and their sheriff that it is taking over its rightful property.
-Peter H.
#2593 re. #2592
Re: Classes available: summary
route4401
Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:54 pm
Yeah, I thought we were on the same page.
- cantinista
#2594 re. #2593
Re: Classes available: summary
congrace7
Thu Jan 10, 2013 5:16 pm
Me, too. Believe it or not. Stupid questions can cause clarity to come when there are those as gracious as you two. : P Thanks, you are both awesome, cantinista, and peter. : )
#2595 re. #2586
Re: Classes available: summary
congrace7
Thu Jan 10, 2013 5:18 pm
But isn't the strawman a SUBTRUST first? So liening the estate, liens the strawman.
Or:
Debtor: UNITED STATES Trust 121-60-12345, (could have a 2nd debtor:) UNITED STATES Trust 123-45-1234, as Trustee
And I thought about this one, but Strawman "is never a creditor" is playing in my head for some reason:
Creditor: STRAWMAN (number?), as Trustee for NEW TRUST, as Beneficiary,
#2596 re. #2595
Re: Classes available: summary
prosperofla
Thu Jan 10, 2013 5:33 pm
Correct. The Strawman is not the Creditor...the REAL man is.
Yes, I am in general agreement with you about the name of the Debtor on the Ucc-1 and SA.
Peter H.
#2597 re. #2596
Re: Classes available: summary
congrace7
Thu Jan 10, 2013 6:13 pm
No, real man doesn't show up in fiction world.
#2598 re. #2597
Re: Classes available: summary
route4401
Thu Jan 10, 2013 6:20 pm
Grace,
By the way, I, and Peter H. as well I'm sure, am flattered to be called gracious by Grace herself. Made my evening!
Anyhooo. In this case the important concept is that the Strawman Trust is the trustee of the Estate Trust. It owns the legal title to the Estate Res. The Estate Res is the property of the Strawman. It can grant the Estate Res as collateral if you lien the Strawman Trust. That, in a nutshell, is the object of the whole exercise.
If Proxy #1 is granted the Estate Res as collateral, it then controls the Estate Res - through the Strawman Trust. That is why we make the Strawman Trust the trustee of Proxy #1 - to create a portal into the Estate Trust. Portal = Transmitting Utility.
Make sense?
Is it just me, or are things getting warmer around here?
- cantinista
#2599 re. #2598
Re: Classes available: summary
route4401
Thu Jan 10, 2013 6:33 pm
The Real Man is not the creditor.
Proxy #1 is the creditor.
The United States (true name of the Strawman/agent/employee) #123-45-6789 is the debtor.
(JOHN HENRY DOE is a d/b/a) on BEHALF of property held in trust (see item 17 of UCC1 addendum) as a
Transmitting utility (see item 18 of UCC1 addendum)
Property held in trust = "all rights to and interest in birth certificate #123-45-654321"
Make sense?
in sense, but not incensed,
- cantinista
#2601 re. #2599
Re: Classes available: summary
prosperofla
Thu Jan 10, 2013 7:03 pm
Drum roll.....
The Real Man uses a CROSSOVER process, employing 2 Proxies, attorneys-in-fact, to carry out his'/ her' will.
-Peter H.
#2602 re. below
Re: Classes available: summary
route4401
Thu Jan 10, 2013 7:05 pm
peacemaker,
Let the first be last and the last be first.
The road to the Estate Trust passes right through the Strawman Trust. (paraphrasing Roger Elvick)
- cantinista
eponymous_680 wrote: re. #2595
Lien what is first - and that encompasses all the sub-sequent trusts.
- peacemaker -
#2603 re. #2598
Re: Classes available: summary
congrace7
Thu Jan 10, 2013 7:08 pm
lol. : )
Re: Strawman is the Trustee of the Estate trust. That is what "they've" tried to make him. Strawman is actually the beneficiary trust. So We make him the Trustee of Proxy 1 - now the transmitting utility works for us - getting value from the estate.
A sub trust cannot "grant" for the daddy trust.
#2604 re. #2603
Re: Classes available: summary
route4401
Thu Jan 10, 2013 7:13 pm
Actually Grace, a sub trust can grant for the daddy trust IF it is the trustee of the daddy trust, as our beloved Strawman has been construed to be. The United States construed the Strawman to be trustee. Now our proxy will use that construction to take back control of the Estate. Call it Commercial Jiu Jitsu.
- cantinista
#2605 re. #2604
Re: Classes available: summary
prosperofla
Thu Jan 10, 2013 7:22 pm
Ummm...
To the best of my understanding - three months of study - you're correct, but in the abundance of caution, it should be noted that that crazy SM is still limited and serves in a limited context, so one should NEVER forgot, whatever else one is discussing, that if you truly want to Reclaim Your Securities, go above the Strawman's birth-trusts, the derivative trusts, and head straight for the C O L
B.
-Peter H.
#2609 re. #2605
Re: Classes available: summary
route4401
Thu Jan 10, 2013 7:55 pm
Peter,
The road to the Estate Trust passes right through the Strawman Trust. There is no other route. It may seem counter-intuitive, but only the trustee can grant a lien on the Estate Res. How else are you going to get there?
The trustee is the legal owner of the Res (The Estate).
If the owner (Strawman) offers the Res (see below) as collateral, thus granting a lien right to that property,
The lien holder (Proxy #1) holds the Security Interest in and controls the Res and, can assign that interest to a holder in due course (Proxy #2, another great story).
Estate Res = collateral = "all rights to and interest in Certificate of Live Birth #123-45-654321"
The beauty of it is that "THE NAME" doesn't appear anywhere on the UCC1.
How can I tell when I've been Proxified? 'Cause they quit calling my name :-)
- cantinista
#2610 re. below
Re: Classes available: summary
route4401
Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:13 pm
And how do you propose to claim the COLB, if not through the Trustee? The Trustee doesn't own the Trust, only the Trust property which it can offer as collateral if you lien it(the Strawman Trust). It can't lien the BC Trust itself, it can only grant the BC Trust property as collateral.
Trust property = "all rights to and interest in Certificate of Live Birth #123-45-654321"
- cantinista
eponymous_680 wrote: re. #2602
yeah, we're saying the same thing - the strawman is the pass-through, tranny
utility - the COLB is what is claimed first - and that takes care of the
subsequent trusts - what came first - the chicken or the egg?
- peacemaker -
#2611 re. #2610
Re: Classes available: summary
route4401
Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:27 pm
It must be charged by its granting of a Security Interest (a maritime lien) in all of its property in exchange for paying all of its bills in the past and the future(maritime services to a vessel).
The only way anyone ever makes a claim against the Estate is through the Strawman Trustee. Our Proxy is no exception. We bill/charge/lien the Trustee.
- cantinista
#2612 re. #2611
Re: Classes available: summary
congrace7
Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:36 pm
From Joshuasdad: post #146
When you take control of the Estate, you also take control of all trusts derived from it such as the Strawman cestui que trust. A cestui que trust is simply the beneficiary of an estate that's held in trust. Your strawman is the beneficiary of the public trust that has been presumed to be a trustee instead.
Then: here's this repost: post 43
In order to process the security, you need a proxy who the agency will recognize as having a security interest in admiralty, AND a second proxy who has all of their approvals and qualifications to collect on it. (Most do not. Defect 2.)
Both of those proxies need to be constructed so the AGENCY DOES NOT HAVE RIGHTS AS A TRUSTEE (defect 3 for many). The first must have a RECOGNIZABLE proper lien in the security. The other is the holder in due course of the security interest AND has all the qualifications for the agency to do the processing.
I've set these here to see first thing in the morning.
I'm going to sleep on it. Good night.
#2613 re. #2612
Re: Classes available: summary
route4401
Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:59 pm
Control = Security Interest = collateral
Only the Trustee can grant a Security Interest in the Trust property to (properly constructed) Proxy #1. Then Proxy #1 can assign that interest to Proxy #2 which (properly) has all the qualifications to collect on it (the foreign claim from without the United States), but is not beholding to the agency (but, in fact, directs the agency).
- cantinista
#2614
Re: Classes available: summary
route4401
Thu Jan 10, 2013 9:22 pm
From Post #199
"The BC and BC Bond accomplish completely different tasks. The banker's acceptance noted on the BC effectively says: "I never abandoned my claim. I realize I'm a bit late, but here's my acceptance signed by a bona fide admiralty proxy. And to prove my claim, I've attached copies of UCC-1's demonstrating my lien against the strawman trust and the assignment to another proxy."
I take this to mean, obviously, that the UCC-1s list the Strawman trust #123-45-6789 as debtor, and, less obviously, that the bond is the assignment to another proxy. At first this confused me because usually a UCC-3 is used to notice an assignment. However, one can also notice the assignment directly to the assignee which I believe is what the BC Bond accomplishes.
Any and all input is welcome and appreciated.
- cantinista
#2618 re. below
Re: Classes available: summary
e.ciprian
Thu Jan 10, 2013 11:24 pm
How can one perfect a security interest without an authenticated security agreement? In many cases both parties didn't sign..
--- I've been stumped by the question ALL day lol Help pls!
Re: Classes available: summary re. #2610
eponymous_680 embury111@...
Thu, 10 Jan 2013 22:57:33 -0800 (PST)
How? I would look up 'entitlement holder' - that's how.
- peacemaker -
#2621
How many BCs?
fires1up
Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:54 am
Can anyone tell me how many certified copies of the birth certificate, minimum, might be required to go through this process; assuming we'll be setting up several trusts after sending one of them to Treasury?
#2635 re. below
Re: Classes available: summary
prosperofla
Fri Jan 11, 2013 12:39 pm
Here's a curve ball for ya:
If one were, after Reclaiming One's Securities, to close the two derivative trusts, the BC Trust and SS Trust, would the Strawman exist any longer in Admiralty?
All that would be left is the COLB and the BC (short form). Remember that our Moderator's derivative trusts are closed.
This topic really segues into some advanced learning, but as a fundamental point I think it important to understand.
Peter H.
eponymous_680 wrote: re. #2605
That's just plain logical. Stop making sense, would you?
- peacemaker -
#2637 re. #2614
Re: Classes available: summary
prosperofla
Fri Jan 11, 2013 1:44 pm
The UCC-3 goes with the UCC-1. The UCC-3 assigns to proxy #2, the settlor. The BC Bond, which is a Private Offset Bond, is basically an order from the Settlor (VIA that Proxy #2) to Treasury how to obey the Settlor's instructions with regard to setoff, pulling funding from the main PUBLIC estate. I'm not certain if this bond itself is formally considered a Trust.
My understanding (seemed clear to me, but I may be wrong) is that the UCC-3 represent the assignment and the BOND is the detailing of the assignee's orders to the Treasury.
- Peter H.
#2639 re. #2621
Re: How many BCs?
prosperofla
Fri Jan 11, 2013 2:15 pm
What would those trusts be, necessarily?
-Peter H.
#2641 re. #2639
Re: How many BCs?
fires1up
Fri Jan 11, 2013 4:56 pm
The first of the ten trusts woulddddd.............
Actually I only see a need for one BC, to send to Treasury. But I'm just getting ready to send off my request for the BC, and someone had posted about getting TEN BC's, so I wanted to check.
As to your question:
The first trust is to set up the proxy.
The second trust is set up by the proxy, for the proxy to operate, to receive the securities.
The third trust will be to interface with the commercial world (Admiralty?).
And the fourth trust is the Private Trust Organization referred to earlier, set up to dispense funds to the beneficiaries.
Emory-Brent: Johnson recommends a 5th trust, as was posted yesterday.
#2642 re. #2637
Re: Classes available: summary
route4401
Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:30 pm
Peter,
I have my own ideas as to Proxy #2. But I don't remember Bill ever mentioning a UCC3 which had me confused for a while until I remembered the UCC1add which I took to mean his second UCC1. This is how the debtor is denoted as trustee on behalf of trust property and a transmitting utility. You could, and maybe should file a UCC3, but there's no need to send it with your Treasury package.
The bond indenture is indeed the instruction to the Treasury Secretary as to what to do with respect to the bond. But a UCC3, like a UCC1 is just public notice - in this case public notice of the assignment of the Security Interest. It is redundant in the Treasury package.
- cantinista
#2643 re. #2641
Re: How many BCs?
hdzegzula
Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:27 pm
While on the subject of BC's, how do you find the CUSIP # that is connected to your BC?........hd
#2648
UCC in DC
route4401
Fri Jan 11, 2013 9:05 pm
It occurred to me that IF one were to lien United States organization number 123-45-6789 with its home address at 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, then as a good UCC filer you would have to file with the proper authority for the home of the debtor. That is, the District of Columbia where the debtor resides (is seated).
I did manage to find National UCC forms at the DC Office of Tax and Revenue, BUT I have been unable to locate any means to search any UCC filing database that might exist in DC. I find that curious.
Is it possible that any lien placed upon the Public Trust, and noticed in its home town, is automatically a secret and invisible maritime lien?
Just askin'
- cantinista
#2650 re. #2643
Re: How many BCs?
fires1up
Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:01 am
The number on the back of your BC is a CUSIP number, I am pretty sure. Here are comments from Bill (posts #1232 & 1243)
Those of you who created a second trust to act as Secured Party have recorded it on your UCC’s as an individual. But it is not. IT'S A TRUST. A replacement for the strawman. Those filings are incorrect.
Sure, there are some interesting things one can do with a CUSIP # for a court case or the SSN. But consider this.......
If the Grantor claims all securities, accounts, trusts and deposits represented by, associated with, or derived from, the global designation 123-45-123456, then haven't you claimed the Case bond, the SS account, the SS bonds, and every other security? Do we really care how the derivatives are identified?
For your answer, check out 31 CFR 356.5..."When we issue additional securities with the same CUSIP number as the outstanding securities, we consider them to be the same securities as the outstanding securities." Is that a remarkable quote? THEY'RE ALL THE SAME SECURITY. If you snare the Certif. of Birth, you've snared
them all. 356 governs the sale of "marketable Treasury" securities (think Certif. of Birth).
The options are many once we claim the COB. The problem is that most patriots issued their claims years ago and then walked away at the first sign of resistance. That's not how you play poker with a big bluffer. Bill
#2653 re. #2650
Re: How many BCs?
route4401
Sat Jan 12, 2013 6:06 am
Actually, I am rather more inclined to believe that the number on the back of the BC is the number of the bond issued against it. The same as the number on the back of your SS card.
Interestingly, you are only allowed ten SS cards in your lifetime and I've heard that each is backed by a $3.5 billion bond. That limits the number of SS bonds attached to that name and SSN. I don't know if there is any limit to the number of BCs one may obtain in their lifetime, but I suspect not. I've never heard what the $$$ value of a BC bond is. But remember, the BC bonds are used to back the issuance of new FRN’s and the Fed is allegedly buying $45 billion of bonds per month under QE3+.
- cantinista
#2654 re. #2653
Re: How many BCs?
fires1up
Sat Jan 12, 2013 6:29 am
Correction, I wrote: the number on the back of your BC is a CUSIP number, I am pretty sure.
I meant the number on the SS card.
#2655 re. #2648
Re: UCC in DC
lil_griffin0907
Sat Jan 12, 2013 6:39 am |
Here's what you are looking for. DC online UCC system.
#2660 re. #2653
Re: How many BCs?
lil_griffin0907
Sat Jan 12, 2013 7:10 am
How can the number on the BC and the SSN reverse side number be the same? I have personally had 7 different SSN cards and they all have a different number, although all indicate the same FRB. The BC identifier may be linked to the SSN card account identifier, but the initial event was a stand alone account creation. The SSN's are not assigned at birth. I didn't get my first one until age 15 and was not in the state where my BC is registered.
Also, you may have 10 cards in a lifetime, but that applies to the birth name. The POM explains that this rule does not apply when name changes from marriage or other life events are a factor. I've been married 3 times, 2 divorces and went back to original each time. I have had 4 cards in the original name. I could conceivably get 9 more in the current legal name and still get 5 more in the birth name, if I ended up divorced again. Not that it's likely. :-). Three times the charm.
This is simply deductive reasoning and reading the regulations.
#2661 re. #2648
Re: UCC in DC
congrace7
Sat Jan 12, 2013 7:29 am
IS where the debtor resides where the debtor is registered? Is the US a Delaware corporation? OR the Puerto Rico Trust?
Inquiring minds want to know. : )
#2665 re. #1427
Re: HERE'S WHY IRS IS IGNORING YOUR EXECUTOR LETTERS...
wonderspirit888
Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:43 am
WHO PAYS ALL THE BILLS? The Executor of an Estate! But....these guys are obviously not um dead in the system yet....
Ever here of: In her but not of her! Thank you for keeping us on track Bill!
#2666 re. #1429
Re: What would you do....Thanks!
wonderspirit888
Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:47 am
Hebrews 9:16
For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Hebrews 9:15-17 (in Context) Hebrews 9 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
#2687
Step by Step
wavggg
Sun Jan 13, 2013 9:31 am
Is there a step by step example, with explanations of each step, of what Bill suggested as the proper way to establish all our claims, status declarations and public filings that gives the greatest chance of success?
For those of us that have been on this journey a long time (and don't have time to do this 8 hours a day) it is a bit confusing with each of us running down one or another cookie trail to clear up some single bit.
I'm hoping that if this does not already exist, perhaps we as a group could shape a tutorial so that we have a solid checklist of exactly what to create and in the right order.
No, I'm not asking for someone to do anything for me... I'm just looking at this like a student/apprentice that would like a class that is organized well enough so that one could go back and review their notes later and get the same knowledge that they got the first time.
If anyone else thinks this would be helpful, chime in.
Best
Gg
#2689 re. #2687
Re: Step by Step
prosperofla
Sun Jan 13, 2013 11:27 am
Hello.
There is no step by step process listed here, nor will there ever be, as it is not the group Moderator's/Originator's intention. It is required of students who join this group to pore through the postings, all of them, and glean the facts, learn the mistakes. Some of the facts are comprehensive, some which are hints; you'll learn the difference as you go.
If escaping from the enclosure of chattelry (cattle farm captivity) is worth it to you, you will easily be willing to put in the time and effort, as I and many others on here have. Studying the postings here, especially those of the
Moderator, Bill (joshuasdad), you will come a long way to understanding the fundamentals. After the fundamentals, you'll be required to do further research, as some of us are doing now. No one is entitled to the hard work of others. Everyone is responsible to learn for themselves - wouldn't you agree?
If those who have done all of the grunt work studying, and still trying to finish their studies, spend so much time trying to speed things up for others, it just makes the more advanced students unfairly burdened, and keeps them from finding answers. We all must carry our own weight.
If you do this, you will likely come close to achieving Reclamation as some of us already are - and some already have. When those more advanced students make their way through, I'm certain they will then assist others who have already carried the burden of study the postings to the same point. Also, in doing all of the hard work, you will find the rewards that much more valuable- because it is your own.
Furthermore, our Moderator does appear when he can to clarify points and give additional information.
I came on here in the beginning back in October expecting something similar, but the Moderator did not found this group for that specific purpose. He has also warned that he will close the group if the participants don't abide. I think we can all empathize with him.
I hope this helps you to understand the way the group operates and to enjoy your studies.
Sincerely and respectfully
Peter H.
#2692 re. #2655
Re: UCC in DC
route4401
Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:36 pm
I found that page as well while searching for a UCC database, but the descriptions there in items 1-7 don't indicate such a database.
- cantinista
#2694 re. #2689
Re: Step by Step
route4401
Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:10 pm
I would like to add to prosperofla's excellent post by reiterating a point made by the Moderator. While it may seem inconvenient to read all the postings of this group (and I would suggest cataloging the best ones), as well as researching the other topics and resources suggested; it is unavoidably necessary.
What the Moderator has counseled as the purpose of this group is to help its members to understand the "Why" of the process and, thereby, ferret out the "How" of it. Without the comprehension of that "Why" one runs the risk of being ignored by the system - or worse. With that in mind, please do avail yourselves of the postings and the contents of the file area. They will prove invaluable as you endeavor to understand "Why" and "How" to achieve the competence necessary to acquire the desired status to rule the Admiralty and Commerce.
It will be a very challenging endeavor, but the many rewards will be more than adequate compensation for your efforts.
- cantinista
#2695
Brent-Emory...Johnson on Trusts
fires1up
Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:44 pm
Brent-Emory...Johnson, notes from The American Sovereign.
Here is a better synopsis of Brent's writings on trusts.
There are two types of trusts, statutory and common law. Statutory get their existence from the State.
Common law trusts – also called Pure Trust Organizations (PTO's), True Trusts, or Unincorporated Contractual Organizations (UCC’s) – get their existence from fundamental law, British Ecclesiastical Law, the Magna Carta, the Holy Bible, and you Natural Right to contract. Neither the federal nor the State gov't can regulate common law trusts, nor can either in any way obstruct your right to contract.
"...insure that the trust does not have the appearance of a corporation...the IRS and the State will tax it and the federal gov't will regulate it as a corporation. If your trust possesses any three, it will be treated as a corporation.
The first attribute is centralized management, which does exist within any trust. Second, limited personal liability of the principals, which is also true of trusts. Third is a continuity of life, because a corporation continues into perpetuity; a trust, however, is a contract, and must therefore have a
termination date, which may be extended, but which extension must first be incorporated into the body of the trust. Fourth is easy transferability of beneficial interest; corporate stock certificates are negotiable instruments,
transferable at any time to anyone. A properly written common law trust contract includes the issuance of Certificates of Evidence of Right of Distribution to holders of beneficial interest in the trust. However, in order
to transfer these Certificates, the Holder must obtain the written approval of the fiduciary agents. This means that transferability is not easy. So a properly written common law trust contract shares only two of the four attributes of a corporation, and will therefore be treated as a trust.
How to set up a Pure Trust Organization
"In the beginning, you – the Exchanger – are the owner of real or personal private property. You enter into a contract with a Creator, to create the trust; then you exchange into that trust certain assets which you currently own. You receive back from the trust Certificates of Evidence of Rights of Distribution in the amount of 100 units, representing all the trust assets. You no longer own the real or personal private property; the trust now owns it. However, only the Holders of these Certificate units can benefit from or use those assets. "...You divest yourself of legal control [of a house, for example] while maintaining practical control.
"Once the trust is created, a fiduciary agent is appointed. This person cannot be a direct relative of the Exchanger...The sole function of the agent is to manage the assets of the trust on behalf of the Holders of beneficial interest, and to defend the trust from attacks against its property...You may assign optional titles of General Manager, Assistant Mgr, and/or Secretary to any qualified person(s). ...you may hire on as GM. Anyone can hold these offices, except for the fiduciary agent or Protector. You may establish independent contracts with the trust, to receive a stipend in exchange for performing the functions of any of these offices.
"As Exchanger, you are initially the only Holder of Certificates of evidence of Right of Distribution. You may choose to assign to others all or part of your beneficial interest in the assets held by the trust. Such assignments must be officially approved by the Board of fiduciary agents (i.e. Trustees, Fiduciary Owners, etc.).
"Should a Holder of beneficial interest die without having assigned successors in interest, that Holder's units revert back to the trust corpus, to be redistributed by the fiduciaries, or retained by the trust. Units of beneficial
interest are specifically excluded from community property, even if you live in a community property state. They are also excluded from estate property; they cannot be passed on to a child or spouse or parent through a will or other statutory estate process. The only ways to transfer units are either through pre-established assignment of successors, or by the direction of the fiduciaries. Neither they nor the Protector may hold any beneficial interest in the trust.
"The fourth principal in a PTO is the Protector, whose only job is to ensure that the fiduciaries for the trust do their jobs on behalf of the Holders. He has the authority to instruct the agents and, if they do not accede to his
instructions, to fire them and hire new fiduciaries. The importance of the Protector goes directly to the issue of legal control. Without a Protector, it will be presumed that the Exchanger/Holder directly instructs the fiduciaries, giving hi/her legal control and thereby invalidating the protections for which the trust was created in the first place.
"A trust may make periodic distributions, comprising income (profit) and/or principal. These are made to Holders, in proportion to the number of units held by each. The frequency of distributions depends on the type of trust created. A complex trust, such as PTO's, may distribute funds at any time, as the fiduciaries may determine. Other types of trusts, such as a simple trust, require one annual distribution. You must look to the original trust contract to determine the trust's distribution requirements. A trust may pay its expenses before making a distribution.
"If your trust ever encounters a lawful challenge, there is only one element that the courts will examine to determine whether or not your trust is legitimate. That is whether or not the Exchanger has divested himself of legal control of the trust assets...centers around whether you have the power to manipulate, distribute, transfer, or otherwise control the assets. If you exchange a business into a trust, you may be hired as General Manager, to run the business. To avoid compromising the protections of the trust by giving you legal control, while at the same time protecting your interests, any banking or other financial accounts held by the trust should require two signatures for any transaction. One signatory on a trust account must be the fiduciary agent.
Trust Conduits
"A conduit is a chain of trusts starting with a domestic and ending with an off-shore trust. This structure allows you to move your assets out of the United States, avoiding any taxation whatsoever. A foreign grantor trust may make distributions to US citizens who may bring that money into the country tax free. IRS Revenue Ruling 69-70.
"The conduit structure which I believe is most effective contains five trusts: two domestic and one foreign. First, a Domestic Complex Trust, with the beneficial interest held by the 2nd, a Domestic Management Trust, with the beneficial interest held by (3) a Foreign Conduit Trust with the interest held by (4) a Foreign Accumulation trust, with the interest held by (5) a Foreign Passive Trust (Grantor Trust), with the interest held by YOU.
You can establish any number of trusts on the first level, containing any amount of property. The second level holds a domestic management trust, which is the Holder of the interest in each of the first level trusts. Distributions from any of the first level trusts go to the second level.
The third, the Foreign Conduit trust, makes distributions to the Foreign Conduit trust, which is where the initial transfer of property – from domestic to off-shore – occurs. This distribution requires that a K-1 Form be filed with the IRS.
The fourth level, the Foreign Accumulations trust, can still be connected to the domestic management trust through the K-1. In order to end any possible paper trail, a fifth level is recommended. This Foreign Passive trust receives distributions from the fourth level, and you may be the Holder of beneficial interest in that level, completing the structure.
Common law PTO’s are not required to file 940s, 941s, 1040s, or any other forms (except in the case of K-1s). Pure trusts are not required to pay income taxes. The IRS considers this type of trust to be a "foreign estate" or "foreign trust", because it is foreign to federal jurisdiction. 26 USC 7701 (a)(31). In General
As Exchanger, you no longer own the property held in trust. You are therefore free from liens, levies, attachments, taxes, etc. Likewise, the property is free from them.
A common law trust may be considered a living, or inter vivos trust, since these terms apply to any trust established during the lifetime of the Exchanger. A common law trust is irrevocable; once you set it up you cannot arbitrarily change your mind. However, under certain circumstances, the fiduciary may terminate the trust prior to its contracted termination date.
PTO’s are considered to be active, because the fiduciary has actual duties to perform in administering and conserving the trust estate. A trust can be either complex (able to accumulate income and make distributions at its discretion) or simple (income must be distributed at least annually).
(Volume 13 of American Jurisprudence provides information on the legal validity of these trust entities.)
Corporate Sole
A corporate sole is a statutorily recognized fictitious entity. It is not a corporation, and therefore is not under the jurisdictional control of the federal government. It is a not-for-profit religious society. "I find the most effective way to protect assets is to establish a PTO, then either set up a corporate sole as Holder, or otherwise have the PTO make periodic donations to the corporate sole. The PTO holds the assets, and the corporate sole is used to provide regulatory protection. Unlike a trust, a corp. sole allows you to maintain direct legal control over all the assets.
#2696 re. #2695
Re: Brent-Emory...Johnson on Trusts
sbfree1111
Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:47 pm
Lately researched equivalent study material from another nations members of the United nations in relation to Security Agreements, International Laws, Hague's articles related to securities, etc. and began to read study material in Spanish. It seems other nations are more clear and more generous explaining the processes in Spanish. Comparing one sees how lots is lost in translation.
Said by a professional to me, I want to protect his privacy and agreement we had, " there are many ways to skin a cat"...horrible saying, I have a cat lol...
For you researchers;
Here is the "PROBATE PROCESS" page, TRANSLATED, "Proceso Sucesorio" (sp)
I like this page a lot:
"Process of Knowledge" - " Proceso de Conocimiento"(sp)
My browser translates text, I hope your does too.
The "Study Material" section has more linked pages of the Judicial School of a state of that nation.
Cheers.
Sil Via
#2975
Re: Classes available: summary
wonderspirit888
Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:53 am
I WILL REMIND PEOPLE....this is not letting your eye be single if you get into
commerce again with at public trust? WHY?
You have your remedy, now teach others that have a brain and a good heart to
FISH!
Blessings!
#3045
Putting a common law copyright notice/putting a notice in the paper?
carlos_palom
Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:41 am
Hi,
I'm new at this, made several attempts with states in filing copy rights and name registration on my sir name with letters of rejection. How does one copy right and register a sir name? All info would be greatly appreciated.
Chuck
#3051
FOCUSING
peterpapoulias
Tue Jan 22, 2013 12:18 pm
I have been silent for a while. Just reading posts and general topics. Everyone seems to be all over the place. Some people claim to know the score. THEY DON'T
Number one. The Birth Certificate certainly belongs to them. But what is it? ITS A CERTIFICATE OF INDEBTEDNESS ISSUED BY THE DEBTOR.
Is the BC valuable? Yes and no. In of itself it has NO intrinsic value (what does in the public anyway?)
- BUT -
IT HOLDS VALUE
What value? Our estate (evidence of the existence of the flesh and blood – Birth registration) that is why they take a footprint (proof of life on the land).
SO WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN
- WELL -
IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO PROPERTY LAW (more specifically abandoned property law)
VERY FEW on this board quote any law (well any of significance at any rate. So I will
Cestui-que vie act of 1666 - last amended (language was modernized) in 1946 I believe.
how about these little nuggets
Definition of United States trust.
The proposed regulations define an individual as a United States person if she is a citizen or a resident alien under the rules of §7701(b), but defining "United States" as provided in 31 CFR 103.11(nn) rather than as in 26 CFR 301.7701(b)-1(c)(2)(ii). The determination of whether an entity, including a trust, is a United States person does not rely on the definitions provided in the Internal Revenue Code. Instead, an entity "created, organized or formed" under the laws of the United States or any state, the District of Columbia, or any territory is treated as a United States person
``Person''.—The due process clause provides that no States shall deprive any ``person'' of ``life, liberty or property'' without due process of law. A historical controversy has been waged concerning whether the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment intended the word ``person'' to mean only natural persons, or whether the word
was substituted for the word ``citizen'' with a view to protecting corporations from oppressive state legislation. 39 As early as the 1877 Granger Cases 40 the Supreme Court upheld various regulatory state laws without raising any question as to whether a corporation could advance due process claims. Further, there is no doubt that a corporation may not be deprived of its property without due process of law.
the 14th Amendment, Abandoned Property Act, Uniform Abandoned Property Act, USC 42, USC 40, Trust Indenture Act and many more clearly reflect the Grantors legal rights to make property claims
Title 42 > Personal Property
Disposition of Unclaimed Property
The District of Columbia currently lacks statutory authority to act as custodian for substantial sums of abandoned personal property within its jurisdiction. This chapter is intended to mandate the report and delivery by holders and to authorize the receipt for safekeeping and fiscal growth by the District of Columbia of any and all personal property which is abandoned, without regard either to the maximum length of time for which such property was abandoned or to any statute limiting the right to sue to claim such property. §42-201
Unclaimed Property
In order to constitute "unclaimed property" within the meaning of most state laws, the following four elements must be present:
o The property must be intangible. The only exception to this is tangible personal property held in a safe deposit box or a different type of safekeeping depository.
o The apparent owner of the property cannot be located.
o The property must remain unclaimed by the owner for a period of time referred
to in the law as the "dormancy period".
o There must be a fixed and certain legal obligation of the holder to the owner.
Foreign simple and grantor trust. A trust is foreign unless it meets both of the following tests.
• A court within the United States is able to exercise primary supervision over the administration of the trust.
• One or more U.S. persons have the authority to control all substantial decisions of the trust.
In most cases, a foreign simple trust is a foreign trust that is required to distribute all of its income annually. A foreign grantor trust is a foreign trust that is treated as a grantor trust under sections 671 through 679 of the Code.
THE GRANTOR IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY
So the grantor must make the claim - but the claim must reside in a trust as all public entities are trusts (ships) the grantor needs a ship to navigate the waters of commerce. Do we use the ship they gave us (BC) owned by them (debtor) or do we create our own?
hmmm
Remember anything they can do - we can do as they get their GRANT of power from us (silent or otherwise)
Everything that has been done to you has been done by way of contract.
DO YOU REALLY THINK THE IRS HAS POWER OVER YOU? REALLY? hmmmmm
"It is no longer open to question that the general [federal] government [including its agents, the IRS], unlike the states, Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 275, 38 S. Ct. 529, 3 A.L.R. 649, Ann. Cas. 1918E 724, possesses no inherent power in respect to the internal affairs of the states, and emphatically not with regard to legislation". [Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936)]
Constitution: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17
"To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;"
The IRS lacks territorial jurisdiction. The current system of enforcement of the Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle A and C is repugnant to and violative of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution and its implementing statute, 40 USC 255. 40 USCS § 255 says: "In view of 40 USCS § 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to
enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial. Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed 1421, 63 S Ct 1122." (plaintiff's emphasis).
The IRS must establish jurisdiction or it will be sanctioning FRAUD: "Silence is a species of conduct, and constitutes an implied representation of the existence of facts in question. When silence is of such character and under such circumstances that it would become a fraud, it will operate as an Estoppel." Carmine v. Bowen, 64 U.S. 932
hmmmmmmmm
WAKE UP - CLAIM YOUR RIGHTS (like your right to your property) - THEN ENFORCE THEM - the law is there.
Start with UCC 8, then UCC 9 then UCC 2 then UCC 3
Peace
#3054 re. #3051
Re: FOCUSING
iamsomedude
Tue Jan 22, 2013 12:23 pm
Seeing what has been stated in pewee coal is much easier and has already been validated time and time again by the courts on numerous occasions.
#3056
A hint
peterpapoulias
Tue Jan 22, 2013 12:30 pm
Look at the names people use on this board.
hmmmm acronyms, handles, etc...
I am known by Peter T Papoulias. I am the grantor/owner and entitlement holder of the certificate of indebtedness. I have registered my claim. I hold the highest claim over that certificate. as such I can set-off any public debt.
I can also claim back any security.
Why is everyone hiding?
What is everyone afraid of?
I am who I say I am. Let he who casts any doubt or accusations prove up their claim.
NOTHING IS PRIVATE IN THE PUBLIC
Peter
#3057 re. #3056
Re: A hint
fisherre2000
Tue Jan 22, 2013 12:33 pm
I have been in many places, but I've never been in Cahoots. Apparently, you can't go alone. You have to be in Cahoots with someone. I've also never been in Cognito. I hear no one recognizes you there. I have, however, been in Sane. They don't have an airport; you have to be driven there. I have made several trips there, thanks to my friends, family and work. I live close so it's a short drive. I would like to go to Conclusions, but you have to jump, and I'm not too much on physical activity anymore. I have also been in Doubt. That is a sad place to go and I try not to visit there too often. I've been in Flexible, but only when it was very important to stand firm. Sometimes I'm in Capable, and I go there more often as I'm getting older. One of my favorite places to be is in Suspense! It really gets the adrenaline flowing and pumps up the old heart! At my age I need all the stimuli I can get! And, sometimes I think I am in Vincible but life shows me I am not. People keep telling me I'm in Denial but I'm positive I've never been there before! I have been in Deepshit many times; the older I get, the easier it is to get there. I actually kind of enjoy it there. So far, I haven't been in Continent, but my travel agent says I'll be going soon.
S
#3058 re. #3054
Re: FOCUSING
peterpapoulias
Tue Jan 22, 2013 12:36 pm |
NUMBER 1 - WHO ARE YOU?
Number 2 Pewee Coal is a franchise of the US Government Corporation.
Number 3 What kind of validation are you looking for?
Number 4 What in pewee coal was stated that are you claiming was validated?
#3060 re. #3058
Re: FOCUSING
iamsomedude
Tue Jan 22, 2013 12:54 pm
NUMBER 1: Please define "YOU"
Number 2: what leads one to believe NAME is not a franchise as well? How do you know it fails to be "employed" by the State and "licensed" to others under the rules of usufruct?
Number 3: what evidence is there we seek validation when all we ask is for the "contrary arrangement"?
Number 4: Ever heard of "Google"? It appears if one were to do 5 minutes of searching, one can find these and I'm sure if one were so inclined, one could find more
#3061 re. #3060
Re: FOCUSING
peterpapoulias
Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:13 pm
By the term YOU I meant that its easy to float around and claim no ownership to your words/deeds. So Some Dude, take some ownership.
Name is NOT a franchise of anything, unless you can show me the law (not statute) otherwise. NAME is just that, INDENTIFIER of a vessel in commerce. Which, in the end, is what this board is supposed to be all about "COMMERCE".
All you are doing is taking people astray from their main goal/desire.
It is of course your right to expound on anything you wish. But in the end YOU, at least to me, have yet to provide anything of REAL value here.
Trust law is very simple.
YOU can be the following:
Grantor, Beneficiary, or Trustee
Grantor/Beneficiary
But if you are trustee YOU cannot hold any other office of the trust.
THEY are borrowing our commercial energy. The debt owed is expressed as the PUBLIC debt.
WE must setoff that debt or it grows. Collapsing an express trust (court case) just extinguishes that claim. THEY can always bring it back. Why? Because the CHARGE must be DISCHARGED (at least in their eyes) Be we must set it off, GROUND it out. and the only way to do that is to claim it back (back to the principal
SOURCE). Get the books balanced.
The rules of usufruct only applies if the property remains unclaimed (escheated to them for safekeeping and monetary growth). The issue to tackle first is establishing your claim of right (you were cast out into sea on their ship. The BC).
Although I do not claim that what you say is not valid. I do claim it is irrelevant and immaterial. It serves no purpose, accomplishes no end and seems, to me at least, to be a distraction.
#3062 re. #3945
Re: Putting a common law copyright notice/putting a notice in the paper?
peterpapoulias
Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:20 pm
you register a federal copyright on your signature (artwork)
you register a federal trademark on your name (FULL BC NAME)
#3063 re. #3061
Re: FOCUSING Treasury
duquelong
Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:26 pm
Hi Peter
Do you have any insights to what the 2 proxies are in the Treasury Process (admiralty)? BC and Lien.
Post #66
I think at least one party is a trust.
VR DL
#3064 re. #3063
Re: FOCUSING Treasury
peterpapoulias
Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:33 pm
I will do my best to help. I am not sure what Bill is referring to exactly.
You endorse the front. I don't know if that creates a new security. It does create a new security interest - the grantor's. Followed by a maritime lien then a trustee's lien.
Once that is done we loan them (Bond for setoff) some value. This value is what we use to setoff any claims (charges) against the estate. they are claiming to be tenants on our land (estate).
I know this is valid as I have seen the bond ledgered and blocked.
#3066 re. #3061
Re: FOCUSING
iamsomedude
Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:24 pm
The public trust known as "united States of America" and its disclosure is found its the last line of its declaration:
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
The functional operation of this public trust is found within the Lieber Code and now in Hague, Geneva, and Vienna conventions.
First start with Geneva Art. 5. Inhabitants of the country who bring help to the wounded shall be respected and shall remain free. Generals of the belligerent Powers shall make it their duty to notify the inhabitants of the appeal made to their humanity, and of the neutrality which humane conduct will confer.
The presence of any wounded combatant receiving shelter and care in a house shall ensure its protection. An inhabitant who has given shelter to the wounded shall be exempted from billeting and from a portion of such war contributions as may be levied.
And As the Generals of the belligerent Powers shall make it their duty to notify the inhabitants of the appeal made to their humanity, and of the neutrality which humane conduct will confer, then would the reverse corollary also then be true; the inhabitants shall make it their duty to notify the Generals of the belligerent Powers of the acceptance of their appeal?
Which leads us in the operation of a peace treaty under Article 2 of the Lieber Code thru Article 43 of the Hague (restoration of public order and safety) of which the 1st essential task is to ensure the inhabitants can live their day to day lives, 2nd essential task is to establish an agreement which maximizes the benefits of both inhabitants and occupying army, and, in keeping with the provision of Article 2 of the Lieber Code that the occupying army remain as a condition of the peace, the 3rd essential task is that government administrates the agreement of which is laid out in Article 31 and 38 of the Lieber Code and Article 55 of the Hague, of which the occupying army is administrator and usufructuary of all public buildings, real estate, agricultural estates, etc, and must administrate them in accordance with the rules of usufruct. The ‘live birth certificate’ is an ‘indemnity receipt’ issued to the ‘spoilated owner’.
And without any evidence NAME fails being self-evident fact the State is holder of and has seized, sequestered, and appropriated title to property our parents intended we receive and not of our mind, body, and soul as these are subject unto a higher authority, and as such, the State is now and always has been beneficial owner and proprietor upon general deposit of the birth record by the hospital of birth with the county registrar, and as the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1951 in United States v Pewee Coal 341 U.S. 114 .... “Whatever might have been Pewee's losses had it been left free to exercise its own business judgment, the crucial fact is that the Government chose to intervene by taking possession and operating control. By doing so, it became the proprietor and, in the absence of contrary arrangements, was entitled to the benefits and subject to the liabilities which that status involves.”
Where is the contrary arrangement?
The functional governing philosophy behind the trust is simply JOB 32:21-22
Job 32:21 Let me not, I pray you, accept any mans person: neither let me give flattering titles unto man.
Job 32:22 For I know not to give flattering titles: in so doing my maker would soon take me away.
Greatest thing is Mike Rose showed you all even something more important ... Vienna Convention regarding non-parties. If there is no evidence of a contrary arrangement, would it then mean the estate known as NAME would then also serve as evidence of a "self-governing dominion under trusteeship" thus defined in their own codes as a "foreign nation"?
22 USC § 254b - Privileges and immunities of mission of nonparty to Vienna Convention
With respect to a nonparty to the Vienna Convention, the mission, the members of the mission, their families, and diplomatic couriers shall enjoy the privileges and immunities specified in the Vienna Convention.
Now if one is operating with 100% charity, the "self-governing dominion" is now a "mission" for the benefit of the public and other charitable purposes.
You see ... the Declaration created an international public trust which serves as a "depository for title" and in order to "fund the trust", that "title" so "deposited" is "appropriated" and "sequestered" for the "commercial needs" of the "trust" and whatever we deposit into that trust, we will be governed by the same because we all reap what we sow. The property is no put under lien or mortgage, LEGAL TITLE, or usufruct or "future earnings" of the "property" is what serves as the collateral: securities. As "spoilated owner" that NAME one uses becomes nothing but a "transmitting utility" ... "usufruct" into the trust ... "naked ownership" into you.
Now, what evidence do you have the Birth record and its certificate fails to be evidence of this pledge?
Who is the "beneficiary" of this pledge?
Why are you withholding sacred honor yet availing yourself to the protections that trust affords you?
Who said we hold any position in any trust other than by-product or third party beneficiary? A third party beneficiary to a trust or contract has what duty? Could it be to see the contract or trust be enforced PROPERLY?
So, where is the contrary arrangement?
#3069
Hypothetical Question
club_hub
Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:36 pm
If you found a Promissory Note laying on the ground (you didn’t steal it), how would you go about enforcing it?
Sent from my Tandy TRS-80
#3070 re. #3066
Re: FOCUSING
peterpapoulias
Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:41 pm
This whole presentation relies on your presumption that you are part of that declaration. ONLY the signatories of that declaration/pledge are parties to it.
What did YOU pledge? What did your family pledge? are you or any members of your family parties to that compact?
hmmmm
#3071 re. #3069
Re: Hypothetical Question
peterpapoulias
Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:56 pm
That's a great question.
Let's look at it from two perspectives.
1. Let's say that the promissory note is from the Federal Reserve (legal tender) all federal reserve notes are promissory notes. And they are negotiable. Why? because both parties to it endorsed it. So in this scenario you can't enforce it per say but you can negotiate it (disposition) for goods and or services from any merchant willing to accept it for exchange.
2. Let's say you found a promissory note for a mortgage. Firstly its a cognovit note (conditions precedent) in other words a mortgage (death pledge) note is the product of the execution of a contract (contract?) secondly the conditions of the note are found in its reference to the mortgage lien( deed of trust, security deed, varies state by state). Therefore a mortgage note is not "An unconditional promise to pay a sum certain upon demand or fix time in the future". Furthermore the mortgage note is only signed by the trustee of the maker trust (BC).Thus further making it non-negotiable. Now some banks will claim they endorse it in blank. Really? Show me the law.
Now remember how the "law" works (statutes)
The law tells us what we cannot do. How do I know this? Well show me the law that says I am allowed to breathe, eat, sleep, walk, etc..
As far as ens legis (legal fictions) - the law describes what they CAN ONLY do.
For example without the Federal Reserve act, the Homeland Security Act those entities cannot exist. Those entities bound to their enabling act are limited to those powers/duties enumerated in the act.
So now think about the IRS - where is their enabling Act?
Look at 4 USC 72, 40 USC 255
So show me where it says banks can lend ANYTHING.
#3073 re. #3070
Re: FOCUSING
iamsomedude
Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:26 pm
All one need do is accept.
#3075 re. #3056
Re: A hint
prosperofla
Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:43 pm
Peter,
Thank you for your insights and plain-talk!
You seem to say that you claimed your COLB using your birth name. My understanding is that the "birth name" isn't acceptable in Admiralty, that we must set up a Proxy - a fictitious entity that only represents us. If I offer MY name, they won't recognize me and will think that it is my STRAWMAN. so, I am trying to answer this riddle on how you claimed successfully using that name.
Can you help?
-Peter H.
#3076 re. #3070
Re: FOCUSING
iamsomedude
Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:44 pm
Its an offer ... like everything else.
".....the law describes what they CAN ONLY do......Those entities bound to their enabling act are limited to those powers/duties enumerated in the act."
I believe this is from a recent post.
So where is the "law" stating the NAME and SSN are intended to be used to recognize the one using it?
And remember "recognize" = one bonded to perform.
#3088 re. #3075
Re: A hint
route4401
Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:43 pm
Peter H,
Peter P. provided a hint about this back on July 22 in Post #206:
"In maritime law in order to identify a vessel we need to give things a name and a number.
So look at the paper you hold
SSN
BC
DL
Those 3 things may all have the same name BUT different numbers – separate vessels.
ALL VESSELS ARE TRUSTS!!!"
Like a lifeboat on a cruise ship?
There's a lot of useful information in that bit of posting. You can give a trust
your name with no problem - provided you give it a different number than other
trusts of the same name. Then that trust itself can be grantor or trustee or
beneficiary of another trust. Those principles contain both complexity and power
if you can master the potential they represent.
- cantinista
#3092
Re: Classes available: summary
peterpapoulias
Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:29 pm
OK,
Here it is in plain English
You setup a private irrevocable cestui-que trust
You register the trust's business in the public. What does that mean?
You get an EIN for the trust. You are not registering the trust into the public. Only its public transactions.
Think of it this way.
You sail a private (foreign) ship into the harbor in Washington D.C
You tell the harbor master you intend on doing some business in their jurisdiction and that you will adhere to their laws concerning that business (26 USC 671-679)
The harbour master gives you an account number (EIN) to track those transactions
SO NOW WHAT DO WE HAVE
Private vessel bringing in evidence of commercial energy into the public (unloading cargo) through the trustee
ledgering into the public books. Then claiming back the evidence of commercial energy (loading the cargo)
through the trustee.
THE PARTIES
Grantor (fictional representation of the real man)
Beneficiary (fictional representation of the real man)
Trustee - SSN (legal fiction already created in the public)
Remember the SSN is the beneficiary of the BC
HOW DO WE KNOW THIS?
Look at your paycheck - SSN on the stub
IRS publication 6209 (I think) states W2 = tax return for gift
The SSN receives the gift of your labor and pays the tax on it.
The 1040 was meant to claim back the withholdings (gift)
1942 congressional record - read it - its quite enlightening.
So we make the SSN trustee (neutral in the public) and stop using it for anything else
Since we now have a public ledger for all public transactions of our private trust (EIN) we don't need to use anything else in commerce
We can now show the source (private trust) and can claim back all principal to the source(private trust)
THIS IS AT A HIGH LEVEL
There are steps and procedures to undergo
WE are playing in their domain - so their rules
The only thing they deal with are the transactions. The trust remains private and out of their jurisdiction/control - they are not a party to it!!
NOW GO FIND THE STEPS AND PROCEDURES. There are no shortcuts.
Peace.
#3093
Re: Classes available: summary
Posted By: peterpapoulias
Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:41 pm
NOTICE
This is all I am willing to post on this public forum. This is the foundation for EVERYTHING commercial.
Be careful. This is powerful stuff - as in you will be operating on your FULL commercial liability. IF you do it correctly - you will be rewarded
What is the reward - well for one thing reducing the public debt - for every dollar you take out about 10 dollars of public debt gets setoff.
Secondly the rightful return of your commercial energy.
side note
STOP CALLING THE BC "The Strawman" - go look it up in black's law
A strawman is a corporate veil - the BC IS NOT A CORPORATE VEIL
It is a trust, the debtor, holder of the evidence of the estate (you)
Certificate of indebtedness (financial side) issued by the debtor
IT HAS NO VALUE - IT HOLDS VALUE (like a battery)
It borrows from the battery (you)
There is more but not here.
#3094
traffic ticket Court date more than a year later
Posted By: getfree.team
Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:41 pm
OK here is the long story short
.
The SM DL is suspended due to a ticket from 2009 for a failure to appear.
I send the Court a pracipe by way of restricted appearance to challenge jurisdiction for the 2009 ticket and a motion to dismiss. This was back in August of last year.
So today I get a notice of summary trial for two tickets from 2011 one for Suspend DL and No Registration. Now this notice states that they entered my plead of not guilty. Back in 2011 I sent them a notice of mistake and never heard a thing about these two tickets now all of a sudden these tricky lil buggers send me this notice of hearing.
I am thinking about sending this back notice of mistake as I never said anything about these two tickets and never pleaded to anything.
Ideas?
#3095 re. #3094
Re: traffic ticket Court date more than a year later
Posted By: peterpapoulias
Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:50 pm
Go to court as the authorized rep for the DL. Ask the Judge who entered the plea of not guilty? He will say he did. Remember not guilty is not the same as innocent. Then state " I believe that I have fulfilled all my duties, I have violated no law, and I have harmed no body. I claim the due process right to face my accuser and question him/her in open court"
Then sit down and shut up.
The prosecution must now prove its case. In order to do so the corpus delicti rule applies
The legal principle that the prosecution cannot prove that a crime has been committed from the defendant's confession alone, but that the prosecution must prove that corroborating evidence exists that the crime that the defendant has confessed to did actually occur and that a party has been injured (victim/accuser).
#3096 re. #3096
Re: traffic ticket Court date more than a year later
Posted By: peterpapoulias
Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:55 pm
Remember their rules/statutes only apply to you if you agree. NEVER TESTIFY only ask questions.
So if they claim you broke their law ask them to show you the LAW that says you HAVE to have a DL or the paperwork you signed expressly agreeing to get one.
Ask them to show you the paperwork you signed agreeing that their laws apply to you.
Ask them to show you the law or paperwork you signed agreeing to be the surety.
Ask them to show you the paperwork signed by the OWNER making them agent/beneficiary.
Their status is by operation of law only.
REMEMBER THEY ARE ONLY the safe keepers and cannot do anything without your consent (silence is consent)
So question EVERYTHING they do in there.
If they try to ignore you - "Objection your honor, are you trying to deny me my right to due process of law?" or "Objection your honor are you trying to rush me to judgment?"
If they still ignore you then at the end you simply state "I do not understand, I do not consent to anything stated herein this court and I will not sign anything"
PEace
#4388 re. not listed
Who am I?
Posted By: cantinista
Sat Aug 17, 2013 1:34
just someone with the unmitigated audacity to submit a post related to the topic of this forum.
To wit:
Secret Agent, Man
(and a double-agent at that!)
"They've given you a number, but they've taken away your name" - Johnny Rivers
For the purposes of our Treasury process we, the living, (hat tip to Ayn Rand) are, in fact, the agent/authorized signor for the Secured Party. We attained that status when, lo those many years ago, we submitted a Form SS-5 with our unqualified signature. This made that Form SS-5 akin to the signature card that one signs when opening a checking account. In both cases the accounts are in the NAME of the strawman while we, the living, provide the authorized signature for those accounts.
When we acquire the enforceable Security Agreement that we need to support our Treasury process, the terms of that Security Agreement make the Secured Party the authorized signor for the Debtor. However, the Secured Party is merely the transmitting utility through which we, its secret agent, provide the indorsement on behalf of the Debtor.
Official comment 3 of UCC 9-313 provides that the same person may be the agent for both the Debtor and the Secured Party. However, it is cautioned against a circumstance in which the agent is so controlled by, or connected to the Debtor that the Debtor retains control of the collateral. For our purposes the Secured Party must control the collateral. Fortunately, we, the living, only represent the Debtor on the Secured Party's behalf. Therefore, our agency is controlled by the Secured Party. Hence, you might say that while we, the living, are acting as a double-agent, our allegiance is to the Secured Party.
That's enough for now. I have to answer my shoe!
- cantinista
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- getroman com reviews
- acurafinancialservices.com account management
- acurafinancialservices.com account ma
- getroman.com tv
- http cashier.95516.com bing
- http cashier.95516.com bingprivacy notice.pdf
- connected mcgraw hill com lausd
- education.com games play
- rushmorelm.com one time payment
- autotrader.com used cars
- b com 2nd year syllabus
- gmail.com sign in