Of course, you may be correct, what I presented to various public officials "could be wrong - logistically"; however, overall, the intent was most clear. The overall intent was, "white peace flag upper left corner with a Hello, I am here, a man alive, a living incarnate soul, who remains naked and spoliated, a peaceful inhabitant, I surrender and release any potential CLAIM of interest in the Name to and for the account of the United States, AS USUFRUCTUARY, scriptures attached, notarized with me known as the man, footprints, thumbprint, even over a $1.00 stamp [international].
Even did the first notice, second notice and final notice of default because no response.
I am not looking to justify, whine or complain, I simply want to journey back Home. I can presume that most within this forum feel the same way. I have a sense that things are starting to bubble out there, more so NOW, and our time is kinda short on this matter. I am not paranoid, just a sense.
I am hearing you all - Cestui Que Trust. I am not lost at sea, nor am I abandoning my estate. There is not controversy, sincerely, I want to learn and understand this topic.
Again, I WAS WILLING to surrender it all back to the United States, AS usufructuary, meaning, any check I received in the name, I guess would go directly to the treasury and then I could get a debit car or something. I was willing to give more than take out. But the public officials could not see their way to talk to me. Please know I am not giving every bit of detail with all of this, there is much more to the documents I prepared. No question the sincere intent was there.
May I ask specifically are "HM bills being discharged/paid", the stuff you need as provisions to live? Or is this still in the works?
In reply to this post by Tony
In our "state" constitution it plainly states under the judiciary section "Original jurisdiction in law and equity for the administration of the estates of deceased persons and all guardianships and incompetency proceedings, including jurisdiction over the administration of trust estates.........shall be provided by law" So with that in mind, among the other presumptions glued to our behinds, are we not considered infants, incompetents, wards etc. until the estate is claimed? So if probate is equity, and I'm looking to claim my estate before lawful authority, Would I take advantage of a proceeding for restoration to capacity as against said state, for an order from the court to such effect for termination of guardianship/conservatorship? In reference to the order form it says, " The Conservatorship of ____ is hereby terminated and all of the protected persons rights...AND POWERS...are hereby restored effective immediately. The termination of the conservatorship shall not relieve the conservator of liability for previous acts or the obligation to account for funds and assets of the protected person. The conservator shall be discharged by separate order of the court upon the final account being settled and allowed." The form of the proceeding should conform to the rules of civ. procedure, which means I get 35 interrogatories for our lovely state to answer, peacefully of course. Ive had top down, bottom up questions noodling around in my head.....meaning should I go local then federal or the other way around? Still working on that one (GSA) Thoughts anyone?
This may be my final post here
3 Parties to every transaction. Creditor, debtor, and you, the surety.
The birth certificate you have is an indemnity security. It is not issued to indemnify you but a claimant, seller, creditor; anyone or entity seeking or expecting performance or payment. In that sense you are indemnified.
The holder of this security is to show it to a claimant to indicate to the claimant to where he she or it is to go for payment or performance. One may do so via a photocopy of the BC/indemnity security. The security is same as proof of insurance.
The issuer of the indemnity security, the principal debtor, is and has always been on the hook to pay for property.
If you paid or performed you did so on behalf of the issuer of the security, the principal debtor. If you paid you are entitled to full reimbursement.
But there is another method of operation that when discovered one will no longer have to pay only to be reimbursed. I will not say here what that is for each should have the knowledge and understanding internalized. No one else can do this for you. I will say there is a provision in the Ontario Financial Administration Act regarding guarantee and indemnity. It is of paramount assistance.
A surety may invoke all rights of subrogation. This is an equitable right. The surety is King. The surety may demand the principal debtor, issuer of the BC, perform.
This knowledge may be used to stop the involvement of you as party to any and all claims and it matters not the type of claim. The only reason they come after you is, you used a BC as personal identification in the stead of an indemnity security. All they want is want payment of performance. It's all about the money. All claims are about the money and that includes criminal.
Indemnify a claimant you indemnify you. Indemnity is to protect against loss or other financial burden.
Mercantile Law Amendment Act
Right of sureties paying the principal debt, etc., to assignment
2. (1) Every person who, being surety for the debt or duty of another or being liable with another for any debt or duty, pays the debt or performs the duty is entitled to have assigned to the person or to a trustee for the person every judgment, specialty or other security that is held by the creditor in respect of the debt or duty, whether the judgment, specialty or other security is or is not deemed at law to have been satisfied by the payment of the debt or the performance of the duty. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.10, s. 2 (1).
Remedies on such assignment
(2) Such person is entitled to stand in the place of the creditor, and to use all the remedies and, on proper indemnity, to use the name of the creditor in any action or other proceeding in order to obtain from the principal debtor, or any co-surety, co-contractor or co-debtor, indemnification for the advances made and loss sustained by such person, and the payment or performance made by the person is not a defence to such action or other proceeding by the person. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.10, s. 2 (2).
Gibson's Suits in Chancery is a good source to gain understanding. There is a section on sureties, exoneration, and subrogation.
This has been legislated in Ontario Law.
We are the insurance company in that our property was taken at birth. What some refer to as the spoilated owner.
When a birth is registered an estate is registered; your estate. Your failure to make use of the indemnity security as intended is akin to lost at sea, whereabouts unknown.
This is purely a private matter in equity. Neither kings nor queens enter pubic courts nor partake in public proceedings. The remedy is equitable.
Courts with inherent jurisdiction are courts of equity, non statutory. Courts of inherent jurisdiction draw on ancient doctrines that existed long prior to and supersede the existence of the State, legal mumbo jumbo; hence, lawyers cannot help you.
Such courts can issue Writ of Mandamus to compel performance should one face resistance. If one faces resistance it is either a test or something is amiss on your part. Nevertheless, the remedy is there.
If I comprehend this correctly, the man can recover a payment made on behalf of the birth certificate fictional entity?
So, the "state" is the Principal, and the birth certificate fictional entity is part of the Principal?
For example, Birth Certificate Fictional Entity "JOHN DOE", stays the night at a hotel, the next morning the man "john doe" settles the bill on behalf of "JOHN DOE", can then the man "john doe" recover from the Principal in Equity?
I thought someone would have replied and said I was dumb. Being what it is, it makes sense the entity belongs to the State and we are its surety.
The thought of admitting to be surety scared me, especially after reading this: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D7652%26context%3Dpenn_law_review&ved=0ahUKEwiZgaej9tDUAhXE0iYKHe5KBCMQFgg0MAA&usg=AFQjCNE1DORNgpZu6CR6HYOTDkOHuwkadg The Surety - Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository - University of ...
However, after reading this: "Guarantee or indemnity authorized":
22 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may by order authorize the Minister of Finance, on behalf of Ontario, to agree to guarantee or indemnify the debts, obligations, securities or undertakings of any person. 1991, c. 55, s. 9; 1994, c. 17, s. 62 (2)." ..from the Ontario codes....
...& considering that the son of " ", died for our sins (debts), I feel full indemnification could be had by this method of thinking.
....still attempting to correlate it with appropriate enactments here in the states though...
Does anybody have any input as to how this plays out in the States? Since many no longer live in the same State that the birth record was created and subsequently we have many different "Counties" that we have lived at, in addition we have the United States as the alleged mother ship. Is the State of birth the primary point of contact and resolve or did it all get turned over to some department of the United States? As the CAFR was mentioned how might the accounting play out where one may have lived in 10 counties? Do the various counties submit accounting to the State of birth or mother ship? Asking as communicating with one entity is more efficient then dealing with several.
In reply to this post by Tony
The issuer of the indemnity security, the principal debtor, is and has always been on the hook to pay for property. In the court case this is the prosecutor and the bond is the security. He has the security, make him pay. I think this subrogation thing has some legs on the land. Got to love equity. This is a option.
JUDICIAL NOTICE: "Judicial notice, or knowledge upon which a judge is bound to act without having
it proved in evidence". Black's Law 4th edition Take Judicial notice of AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE
BOOK 16: CONSTITUTION LAW SECTION which a judge is bound by oath to obey.
The clerk or the magistrate are the judiciary arm of the county. When you give them judicial notice they are bound to act. There is a difference between public and private. We just all went to public schools and through omission and obfuscation were taught to believe we were the public surety. Surety is trustee. We are private citizens who have agreed to be public citizens. Restate your claim as the beneficiary of the private Jurisdiction. The estate, the land. They know who and what you are; get it on the record and the oz is back in Kansas.
If you have a summons, give notice you are not a government employee, but a private citizen and will not stand as surety in their nisi prius court. You are the superior court and they will either recognize or accept the liability. O' yeah, be nice. Always give them an honorable option. This is the key. As Boris says: remember the Lords Prayer. Remain humble, because the dude in the black robe is not your judge.
Rebut, rebut, rebut. I am not the usufruct, I am the naked owner, the living source from which all blessings of the government flow. The government can not receive the blessings of God, only the blessings of man.
We are the rightful owners of the blessings of God.
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|