Insulting Thoughts

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
69 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Insulting Thoughts

iamsomedude
Administrator

Insulting Thoughts
~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Insulting Thoughts

Rschallmo
Boris

Right on time brother! I just briefly read through it -“equitable subrogation and the general agreement of Indemnity’s assignment clause.”I am definitely going to read through this again and again but one thing that stuck out for me was “equitable subrogation”, a surety who discharges or performs the obligations of its principal is entitled to step into the shoes and assert the rights of those persons to whom or on whose behalf the Surety has performance or made payment.

 Types of rights to which surety becomes equitable subrogated.I like the part where it says - “assignment right seems to add nothing to the equitable subrogation” rights here asserted.

Rights arise upon principal’s “default”, as defined in the general agreement of Indemnity (GIA);Bond performance not a condition precedent to exercise of right.

Equitable subrogation rights do not vest until suerty has performed principle’s obligation.

Advantages of equitable subrogation, rights arise automatically as a matter of equity. In most jurisdictions, UCC Action not necessary to perfect sureties priority interest over proceeds of bonded contract. Relation back to date of issuance of bonds.

Does the exercise of the assignment clause  prejudice subsequent exercise of equitable subrogation rights?
Majority rule: NO

How should the right be exercise? Enlisting the cooperation of the principal, compelling reason for principal to cooperate is “hold harmless and indemnify” clause of GIA, right to compel collateral.

 Seeking judicial assistance in compelling cooperation. Quia timet/ injunctive relief, Specific performance, declaratory judgment action, power of attorney clause.

This got me really thinking because this is the route I have to take of the situation I’m in.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Insulting Thoughts

Rschallmo
In reply to this post by iamsomedude
Is it me or do some find it hard to get into talkshoe? They definately changed the format. I want to listen to episode three but I can’t seem to get it.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Insulting Thoughts

iamsomedude
Administrator
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Rschallmo
All roads are leading to SUBROGATION.

And the moment someone comes at you with a "debt obligation" and demands you pay else "whatever happens that affects your rights and interests" means you have just been "compelled to perform" … thus at that moment in time, you have the right of subrogation as OBLIGOR.

The CUSIP numbers and such are evidence of SURETY to bond the matter to liquidate the equity … foreclosure is a forfeiture of equity (the "thing" or "substance") or "in rem" … thus at that moment in time, you have the right of subrogation as SURETY.

And all of this occurs the moment that NAME is used to "personally RECOGNIZE the one using it" because this is the natural law defense mechanism inherently built within the operation and execution of "the system" for that NAME = Christ and the moment one comprehends this, one can be NAKED OWNER and retain disposal rights while SUROGATING the "true usufruct" and executing the duties/rights of the usufructuary.

RECOGNZIE = enter into a RECOGNIZANCE = An obligation of record, entered into before some court of record, or magistrate duly authorized, with condition to do some particular act; as to appear at the assizes, or criminal court, to keep the peace, to pay a debt, or the like. It resembles a bond, but differs from it in being an acknowledgment of a former debt upon record.


Thus, this is all about SURRENDER of the "false usufruct" (false profits: right to redeem funny money or "false promises" or "false covenants") and SUBROGATION of the "true usufruct" (God's covenant: the earth is held by the living in usufruct; the dead neither have claim nor right).

Without proof of claim, then there is NO right to utilize the equity (NOTE) for liquidation to recover "the harm and injury" done to the "investors" because the NOTE was to secure the loan, not secure the investors losses.

The investors are VOLUNTEERS, thus Equity shall not assist them; the mortgage payments are what is being used as "donation" to the "dividend pool" of the mutual fund. Thus the action at hand is ONLY to cover the "Credit rating" of the "mutual fund" NOT as one who is legally bound to pay.


Go back and WATCH the two-minute video and read the notes below that video. "Moreover, it is undisputed that the debt was paid by American Thermex to protect Johnson's credit and not to protect any interest or right of American Thermex itself. It follows that American Thermex is not a surety on the note and otherwise has no right of subrogation at law."


AND read that NC Law Firms blog:  Since the courts have held that the surety’s equitable rights trump the rights of bankruptcy trustees, lenders and taxing authorities, equitable subrogation is undoubtedly the most powerful weapon in the surety’s salvage arsenal.

And exactly WHAT is the "performance bond?" To be an enemy of the State (NAME) and 40 Stat 411 and 40 stat 415, etc … (12 USC 95a (2) + 50 Stat Appendix 5(b)(2)) ... is the FULFILLMENT on that contract … for I did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill.

thus the Right of Subrogation is what? An equitable salvage operation to recover on "contractual duties owed by the United States."

Which is what? Acquittance and discharge from further obligation … because the Law is fulfilled and the SINNER absolved of Sin.

How? By ENSURING that the "transfer of the ANY interest" receives book entry credit (accounted for) for the value received … NAME is now written in the "book of life"... none shall be held liable in any court for anything done or omitted in good faith while in reliance upon this statute.



The property is taken as "spoils" to cover the costs of putting down insurrection and rebellion: attorney's fees and court costs (payment to sub-contractors) because you failed to "redeem the debt" thus become "undertaker (underwriter: settler of) the debt."

Therefore, the ONLY option you have is to subrogate the rights of "the creditor" which would be to "accept in honor without any adverse claim" whatever "evidence" is offered that the "note and mortgage is original" (funds) and then make those funds "payable to the Court for book entry credit to the CRIS for value received" because the CREDITOR is holding a note that is required by law to be credited as book entry deposit (GAAP Accounting Procedures);  then motion the court (AS-IF you were the creditor) to "disburse the funds to the rightful owner/recipient" because you "RELEASE your right of equitable redemption of the note in lieu of the proceedings" (surrender the usufruct) in exchange for the property (inherit the naked ownership).



EXACLTY what Christ did on the CROSS. He SUBROGATED your "right of sin" and now he stands in your place to pay for sin. NAME = Christ … in other words, Christ = OWNER of the SIN (SINNER) once the SINNER (dead to God; thus WITHOUT right to the Earth) accepts Christ in his/her heart … Christ then "pays for the sin" (absolution) so the SINNER be redeemed and his soul "restored" (pledged back into "God's good graces" : living thus with RIGHT to the earth).

Remember the two thieves on the cross at the same time Christ was crucified?

Which thief will you be? One thief chose the Tree of Life; the other, rejected Christ's offer. From which tree will you eat (be usufruct)?


There can be no debt as Christ already paid for all. Therefore, when anyone comes at you with a debt, that one is the ACCUSER accusing you of not accepting the GIFT of God: the gift of grace through his the sacrifice of his only begotten son, for which you will be found "infidel" or "heretic" or "heathen" and BANISHED from the Kingdom (EDEN); suffering under the CURSE of Genesis 3 as mentioned in Malachi 3:7-11, and DEVOURING the inheritance (NAKED OWNERSHIP).


~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Insulting Thoughts

iamsomedude
Administrator
In reply to this post by Rschallmo

Not sure to which Talkshoe you refer, but I see the link changed; the updated one for iamsomedude talkshoe (Surfing with the Alien) is here:

https://www.talkshoe.com/show/surfing-with-the-alien

~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Insulting Thoughts

Jo King
In reply to this post by iamsomedude

 Since the courts have held that the surety’s equitable rights trump the rights of bankruptcy trustees, lenders and taxing authorities

can any one help find some cases to confirm these statements by the attorneys?  Would like to use that atatement but it would be nice to have cites to back it up.  Thanks
 
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2018 at 9:55 AM
From: "iamsomedude [via UNDERGROUND CANTINA]" <[hidden email]>
To: "Jo King" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: Insulting Thoughts


All roads are leading to SUBROGATION.

And the moment someone comes at you with a "debt obligation" and demands you pay else "whatever happens that affects your rights and interests" means you have just been "compelled to perform" … thus at that moment in time, you have the right of subrogation as OBLIGOR.

The CUSIP numbers and such are evidence of SURETY to bond the matter to liquidate the equity … foreclosure is a forfeiture of equity … hell, all cases are = "in rem" …  … thus at that moment in time, you have the right of subrogation as SURETY.

And all of this occurs the moment that NAME is used to "personally identify the one using it" because this is the natural law defense mechanism inherently built within the operation and execution of "the system" for that NAME = Christ and one comprehends this one can be NAKED OWNER and retain disposal rights while SUROGATING the usufruct and executing the duties/rights of the usufructuary.

Thus, this is all about SURRENDER of the "false usufruct" (false profits: right to redeem funny money or "false promises" or "false covenants") and SUBROGATION of the "true usufruct" (God's covenant: the earth is held by the living in usufruct; the dead neither have claim nor right).

Without proof of claim, then there is NO right to utilize the equity (NOTE) for liquidation to recover "the harm and injury" done to the "investors" because the NOTE was to secure the loan, not secure the investors losses. The mortgage payments are what is being used as "donation" to the "dividend pool" of the mutual fund.

The property is taken as "spoils" to cover the costs of putting down insurrection and rebellion: attorney's fees and court costs.

Therefore, the ONLY option you have is to subrogate the rights of "the creditor" which would be to "accept in honor without any adverse claim" whatever "evidence" is offered that the "note and mortgage is original" (funds) and then make those funds "payable to the Court for book entry credit to the CRIS for value received" because the CREDITOR is holding a note that is required by law to be credited as book entry deposit (GAAP Accounting Procedures);  then motion the court (AS-IF you were the creditor) to "disburse the funds" because you "RELEASE your right of equitable redemption of the note in lieu of the proceedings" in exchange for the property.

EXACLTY what Christ did on the CROSS. He SUBROGATED your "right of sin" and now he stands in your place to pay for sin. NAME = Christ … in other words, Christ = OWNER of the SIN (SINNER) once the SINNER (dead to God; thus WITHOUT right to the Earth) accepts Christ in his/her heart … Christ then "pays for the sin" (absolution) so the SINNER be redeemed and his soul "restored" (pledged back into "God's good graces" : living thus with RIGHT to the earth).

Remember the two thieves on the cross at the same time Christ was crucified?

Which thief will you be? One thief chose the Tree of Life; the other, rejected Christ's offer. From which tree will you eat (be usufruct)?

You have no debt. There can be no debt as Christ already paid for all. Therefore, when anyone comes at you with a debt, that one is the ACCUSER accusing you of not accepting the GIFT of God: the gift of grace through his the sacrifice of his only begotten son, for which you will be found "infidel" or "heretic" or "heathen" and BANISHED from the Kingdom (EDEN); suffering under the CURSE of Genesis 3 as mentioned in Malachi 3:7-11.

 
~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
 
If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://underground-cantina.83190.x6.nabble.com/Insulting-Thoughts-tp3195p3200.html
To start a new topic under Unreadable Webpages, email [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from UNDERGROUND CANTINA, click here.
NAML
Take the road less traveled
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Insulting Thoughts

franc
In reply to this post by iamsomedude
The page to which you link (http://underground-cantina.83190.x6.nabble.com/file/n3195/insult.html) in your original/first post above has the first (episode 3) and last (3 -feasences) links not operational.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Insulting Thoughts

patchy
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Jo King
Since subrogation is an equitable remedy and is a jurisdiction of its own, I would stay away from mixing legal statute with your claim. The legal side sees the legal title holder as superior, equity sees the equitable title holder as owner and superior.. legal is a subset of Law, not unlike the model target employees have to follow, it is not the same as substantive Law. Its a private membership club. In my opinion, fwiw, if you wish pure equity vs statutory equity, don't co-mingle.  You'd be better off opening Gibson suits in chancery https://archive.org/stream/cu31924084259872/cu31924084259872_djvu.txt
or refer to the maxims of Equity-
https://member.suewrongdoers.com/research/equity-law/20-equity-maxims/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subrogation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_unjust_enrichment_law
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Insulting Thoughts

Rschallmo
In reply to this post by iamsomedude
Boris

This is awesome. At this point I have no choice but to go into Superior court Seeking judicial assistance and compelling cooperation. Quia timet/ injunction relief. I can’t wait around to see what’s going to happen with my birth certificate at land Court, for all I know they’re just gonna put it in the file and let it rot. This can be my chance right here to put into the court of jurisdiction ,about equitable subrogation,proof of claim ,jurisdiction etc. I just need to put a complaint with the proper wording.

If you guys would help me put something together what I can put in the court I would appreciate that I need to do this Monday. In the meantime I’ll be reading and rereading everything you sent.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Insulting Thoughts

iamsomedude
Administrator
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by patchy
Where do you think all of this originates? Right out of Gibson's.

The "Bill for exoneration of surety" and "bill of subrogation and substitution" = the CR(tm); the Turnabout … all of this … verified right from Gibson's. I use the maxims of law for they lead me to the maxims of equity and the maxims of equity support the maxims of law: all inter-related for there is no division.

Maybe you could answer Derek's post about the "bill in chancery" … have you used or know anyone use "bill in chancery" with success that can be verified?


I tire of people coming in here and trying to convince me that the "equitable right of subrogation" is not equity and that equity and law are separate, when they are related … part and parcel of each other.

And while we are at it, can you provide the definitions of "PURE EQUITY" and "STATUTORY EQUITY"?



… I can give one example:

If a "Pure Equity Trust" is a trust wherein the trust assets are acquired by an exchange of certificate of beneficial interest in lieu of assets as opposed to gifting; then each time you "pay" for something, one only has Statutory Equity and as long as one follows the Statutes, then that property remains in Trust with the one; else that Statutory Equity is forfeit which is the basis of the "in rem" proceeding since one used the Banker's PRIVATE Money (since 1933) … PRIVATE BAR MATTERS … further leading me to believe that BAR does not really mean "British Accredited Registry" is means something more like "Bank Asset and Recovery" because the CUSIP number used to "track" all these securities (STATUTORY EQUITY) all belong to a PRIVATE INSTUTITION: ABA.

Therefore, the CERTIFICATE one receives from STATE OF BIRTH would then be the "beneficial interest" used to acquire "Trust Assets" as that is the "evidence of the pledge" and the Fed Res Note is just the evidence of the "beneficial use of that pledge" which underwrites one's equitable right of subrogation the moment one is "compelled to act AS-IF one were enemy of the STATE" by and thru the use of the NAME to recognize one.

It is the JOB of these BAR Agents to PREVENT one from redeeming those CERTIFICATES because they are " 'lil devils " and work to PREVENT Christ's return and I hold that NAME acts like Christ (or PURE EQUITY) when one utilizes it properly: WWJD?



So, for example, when one receives the CUSIP and one did not receive any "proof of claim" then the CUSIP identifies the USUFRUCT, which is the one making the claim because that is one attempting to "profit from property that does not belong to them."

Therefore, in execution of the right of subrogation, one undertakes an equitable salvage operation, wherein one would "Accept the "evidence" as the original note without any adverse claim" which would grant the creditor to DUTY to credit the "securities account of the obligor" pursuant to GAAP Accounting rules should one "accept and deposit the "evidence" for book entry credit for value received" and then "distribute the "funds" to the rightful recipient with the remainder "gifted" to the Treasury upon condition it use those "funds" to reduce the National Debt" and restoring "pure equity" to the Treasury so the Treasury can generate more "statutory equity" for "market capitalization."

Thus, one can act AS-IF one were the CREDITOR while remaining the "presumed DEBTOR" of which is "uncompensated position" and as the CREDITOR,  … now the NOTE is accounted for by way of ACCOUNTING: the asset and the debt now MATCH.

Now the property can be released for "beneficial interests" changed hands: "release of the right of redemption of the note" in lieu of the "in rem proceeding" and now both parties leave with equity:

STATUTORY EQUITY or "usufruct" to the "Treasury" (PROFITS = the remainder AFTER the duties of the usufructuary are accounted for); PURE EQUITY or "naked ownership/possession rights" to the one who GAVE EQUITY (SOURCE OF THE PROFITS: source of the LIFE for the usufructuary of man (ie: the dead)) for the dead neither have claim nor right to the Earth and the living hold the Earth in usufruct … thus SOCIETY holds "what mankind DOES with the usufruct God gave them" in usufruct as usufructuary while mankind (individually and collectively) retains "naked ownership" for he reaps what he sows: live as naked owner; experience as usufruct.




Energy is recognized as the key to all activity on earth. Natural science is the study of the sources and control of natural energy, and social science, theoretically expressed as economics, is the study of the sources and control of social energy. Both are bookkeeping systems: mathematics. Therefore, mathematics is the primary energy science. And the bookkeeper can be king if the public can be kept ignorant of the methodology of the bookkeeping …

In this structure, 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 ...
   - Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars
~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Insulting Thoughts

Rschallmo
That is some funny shite! I thought the same thing what proof does this guy have. Debbie downer. Nothing positive about that. That’s a real insulting thought. No pun intended . I need to get back to the drawing board.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Insulting Thoughts

Rschallmo
In reply to this post by Jo King
Jo king

Not sure but I think if you go through what Boris posted on equitable subrogation there are numerous court cases in there,not sure if that’s what you’re looking for.

Pearlman v. Reliance ins. Come., 372 U.S. 132. (1962)I think there are a couple of other ones that talk about equitable subrogation rights,, don’t know if this helps or not. Only a student as well.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Insulting Thoughts

iamsomedude
Administrator
In reply to this post by franc


The article in that posting was written a few years ago and I can't make any changes now.

But here is the 1st part of the Lawyer recording and the 2nd part.


Here is the 3-feasences


apologies … this is why that page is now here. ;)
~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Insulting Thoughts

Rschallmo
How do I go about doing that FOIA in my case? Is it to late?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Insulting Thoughts

patchy
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by iamsomedude
Firstly, the response was to one who was seeking legal cases to back up what gonzo has said or to support whatever his claim is, which I opined would be best supported by equitable maxims or something from gibsons. I was not in any way lecturing, arguing, critiquing or negating anything you've written or done, at all. Neither was I attempting to dissuade anyone from asserting their claim.

I haven't read in full what you wrote yet but I will and if a response is indicated and I can respond with anything meaningful I will. If I had this on lock I wouldn't be reading your site as I have since it appeared.  I've spent a number of years listening to CW and studying on my own and it was impressed that to mix statute with equity in your equity claim would negate your chance of getting in camera as the style/terminology of your paperwork declares the court you're in. I considered deleting my post but thought it couldnt hurt to stick to using the maxims or referencing gibson or even the bible in his claim/bill if he felt it necessary.  I kinda wish I hadn't posted now as it seems this has caused upset unnecessarily when all I seek is harmony.

That said, maybe all that was impressed during the study of equity with CW has created a confusion preventing remedy for its complexity as separating private/equity from public/at-law since you the man are  taking two positions or offices, one as defendant/trustee in public and the other as claimant/grantor, settlor in private (in camera). This complexity is why I like chainsawz simple approach which evidences trust and interest, done in private confidentiality, and as he states has been successful without courts.

Probably like you, I have heard tales first second and third hand from people who I believe regarding exclusive equity done in camera, where they succeeded, which was sealed or were done outside of court that had no evidence to show other than their word and they are quite tight lipped about it likely for good reason. So no, I do not have any verifiable success stories of suits in equity to introduce.

As to Law and Equity/Chancery, I believe it's Pomeroy equity jurisprudence that tells the historical on how the equity jurisdiction was separate and is still available thru the courts regardless of their running concurrent jurisdictions, i.e statute and equity though there is no separate building any longer. Further he explains how when you couldnt get adequate remedy at law, you can take it to chancery which could override the legal remedy, as one guy said you get a de novo via exigent special circumstances as there one could get injunction directly on the person to do something or stop doing something and it was the sole jurisdiction for wills, trusts, heirs etc. Then law and equity were combined (concurrent) in all courts thru statutes, i.e statutory equity, as you dont see bills in equity entered in legal cases, there are forms and such, but you find contract law running the day because we don't comprehend equity and most attorneys aren't taught much about it because it interferes with the contract game and you would be in rare position to have a public defender or attorney tell you about subrogation or equitable estoppel or explain that you are the grantor of every instrument, negotiable or non that you sign.

Everything is a trust, our signatures as grantor funds it all as full faith and credit supporting this thing called the U.S. though when the trust goes unexpressed or claimed it converts by operation of law to a resulting constructive trust whereby the defendant is presumed trustee, their quasi contract.

I had to dig into files to locate something from Pomeroy that makes it clear the power of equity and its separate jurisdiction but I found something 32 pages long and this is why it is so difficult to communicate things learnt over much time with myriad books and audios etc given hard drive crashes etc - luckily I found it here on gargoyle
https://books.google.com/books?id=HlolAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA66&dq=equity+jurisprudence+concurrent+jurisdiction+pomeroy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjblZWn3azdAhVHZawKHaGoAbcQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=equity%20jurisprudence%20concurrent%20jurisdiction%20pomeroy&f=false
 section 180 concurrent jurisdiction starting at page 223.

The thing is, if the legal courts can give you the equitable remedy you seek you dont need the pure aka exclusive equitable remedy but if one seeks to be heard in camera re state secret trust and equitable title, from what I've learned its wise to keep a bill in equity untainted by statute.

I hope this clears up my intention in posting and I'll be very cautious in the future. Back to lurk mode.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Insulting Thoughts

iamsomedude
Administrator
"Everything is a trust, our signatures as grantee funds it all as full faith and credit supporting this thing called the U.S. though when the trust goes unexpressed or claimed it converts by operation of law to a resulting constructive trust whereby the defendant is presumed trustee, their quasi contract. "


There you go … everything summed up in one paragraph only thing is that one is not only grantee, but ALSO obligor thus has every right to come into any matter as King and do what is necessary WHEN it is necessary, not for one's benefit, but for the benefit of the Kingdom from which one receives the blessings.

That is the beauty of what has been constructed: by "them" for "us" as it is written that the "meek shall inherit the earth"

For we are all Kings unto ourselves and servants unto everyone else … with one common treasury.


All we gotta remember is WWJD?

…. and let THAT light guide us.

~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Insulting Thoughts

iamsomedude
Administrator
In reply to this post by patchy

you know, the more I learn of these things called "equity" and "legal" the more I am coming to the realization that the reason all this BS exists is due to one inescapable conclusion:


for some reason, man believes he can do better than God at creation; his acts and actions are done with purposeful intent of supplanting God's immutable, divine law with creations of his own such as "civil law," "equity", and "common law" … all based upon His Teachings, but with each passing, diluted towards "man's reason," not God's will.


Just like what is written right on the DOJ website:

"The common law derives from the will of mankind, issuing from the life of the people, framed by mutual confidence, and sanctioned by the light of reason."


It all originated within the Tower of Babble and everyone just keeps "babbling-on" …

~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Insulting Thoughts

patchy
In reply to this post by iamsomedude
I meant to write grantor, not grantee. My error. We are the originators granting funds by signature or au to graph.  That's another reason its all so confusing is due to multiplicity of terms that mean a similar thing in different circumstances. Wears you out.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Insulting Thoughts

Rschallmo
In reply to this post by iamsomedude
Boris

I went over all the material and listened to the video but have some questions. I know I’m looking for administrative remedy thru equitable subrogation but I,m confused on “ stating a claim upon which relief can be granted. How who one put this into the court? On behalf of the United States?

If one has assigned an interest under 12 usc 95a(2) to fulfill the terms of the contract (BC) and surrendered it to the court ( sending it to Land Court), a surety becomes subrogated to the owner’s right to apply BC for discharge,settlement and closure. The courts have held that the surety’s equitable rights trump the rights of lenders and equitable subrogation is the most powerful weapon in the surety’s salvage arsenal.

I understand the fact is that one is being compelled to perform as OBLIGOR in order to protect rights and interest, thus has right of subrogation. Levinson v American Thermex.

Subrogation of rights- Lender does not have the right to subrogation because there is no evidence of a written assignment of the note to lender by the holder. The name of the lender appears nowhere on the face of the note and there was no evidence that lender had ever legally obligated itself to pay the note. The debt was paid by lender to protect surety’s credit and not to protect any interest or right of lender itself. Lender is nor surety on the note and has no right of subrogation at Law.

The Right of Subrogation- The surety or guarantor has the legal right of subrogation. This means that any right that the creditor had against the debtor now becomes the right of the surety or guarantor. The surety or guarantor now stands in the shoes of the creditor and may pursue any remedies that were available to the creditor against the debtor, page 553 Business Law Twelfth Edition.

Subrogation: “ the legal right of subrogation arising out of the payment of the debt of another extends only in favor of a surety for the payment of the debt or in favor of the one who is compelled to pay the debt to protect his own right or interest .

How would one present this to the court for remedy? Stating a claim upon which relief can be granted? And exercising my right to equitable subrogation ?

I have to work today, not enough time in the day to get things done. I will get it done.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Insulting Thoughts

iamsomedude
Administrator
In reply to this post by patchy


this is why I just keep it "usufruct / naked owner" … way more simple.
~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
1234