Now I am confused --- Maybe

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

Now I am confused --- Maybe

Tony
Hello all

I decided to write the county of Ramsey, MN and request the documents Boris did.  I am referring to the one dated 09-27-2016.  The point of this was NOT to copy what Boris did but rather see where I have gone wrong.  This filing has been turned 180 degrees from my understanding - MAYBE?  I did not have my paperwork apostilled, I did do an affidavit of Life. I have the authenticated BC.  I do not understand how Boris can make a claim "Affidavit of ownership"?  How does one make a claim to property not owned?  I see Boris used the words:  "registered owner of record, entitlement holder and authorized signatory, with fully vested title... and beneficial interest in said title"  OUCH.  I do not mean to disagree - I just want to understand - how one can be sent a "COPY" and then take ownership of said title where the original is still retained by the "owner", State of XX.  This stuff reminded me of Jonah Bey.  I fully understand the presumption of abandonment, but I do not see the bridge to "claim ownership".  I see the purpose of rebutting the presumption of death.  I like the affidavit of correction.  

Another thing, I do understand the defining the difference between JOHN DOE - the John Doe, corporate soul BUT I was under the impression courts do not care if it is JOHN DOE, John Doe or john doe.  All caps, no caps, the courts STILL take jurisdiction over it property.  All the courts are interested in is the two titles put together to make up the "person".  

The next item is the bankruptcy court - The affidavit of correction - I am guessing this was filed under a MISC FILING with the bankruptcy court AFTER all the documents were notarized and apostilled by the SOS in GA?  

First I want to say, all my paperwork was about surrender, release, etc, to and for the account of the US.  I have used scriptures, international law, case law, etc.  All I got was zero back.  With all this said -
WOW -- some of my [un] educated analysis with what Boris did which I hope will be confirmed or denied by someone who can help me understand.  

I am SUSPECTING that there is some evidence that by making an affidavit of ownership, one is HOPING that the State of XX or the US will DARE to open their mouths attempting to rebut this false statement.  If the state were to open its mouth, chaos in the streets.  So I am guessing that this is how one can make such a claim to property he does not actually own.  Is this correct thinking?  

I guess too, I am a little confused as to the various USC, case law, etc references in the various pages.  I see the disclaimer for "illustrative purposes".  I got away from using those references in attempt "not to steal" private property lol

I like how Boris defines Corporation Sole - Oath.  I get what he was doing - I ATTEMPTED to clearly separate me with the person [but still with USE rights for the public good], here Boris does that but still uses the name.  I see this as tricky, but this is why I am asking questions now to clear up.  

I do not understand the purpose of being a minister in this process?  Is it not enough to use the appropriate scriptures, rebut presumptions, and correct mistakes?  

Obviously, there is more to just recording these documents, there is still the irrevocable trust part - which I still need some clarity on as well.  

Anyway, Boris do not be mad with me obtaining this info.  I have just been in the twilight zone on what more I can do.  Everything you, Boris have taught and info provided is appreciated more than you realize - I sense we all in the same "zone" just a little different way to see it but just not over the hill.  
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Now I am confused --- Maybe

iamsomedude
Administrator

 
Your questions are answered with a simple question right back:

When someone uses the name of a DEAD-DUDE to identify or recognize one, what happens under Cestui Que Via Act of 1666 by way of operation of law?

Answer that, answer your questions.
~ 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: Now I am confused --- Maybe

Monarch
Pursuant to the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666:  "If the supposed dead man prove to be alive, then title is revested.  Action for mean profits with interest."
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Now I am confused --- Maybe

iamsomedude
Administrator

Now you know what the paperwork represents: operation of law.

expression of the trust
 
 
That is the purpose of the Minnesota Rule 220.
~ 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: Now I am confused --- Maybe

Tony
In reply to this post by Monarch
OK, I fully get what you all are saying and MAYBE I am a bit anal in my understanding.  So here it goes, again, I do not want to argue - I simply want to get a real understanding if this concept.

The birth record, instrument, title is to a "piece of property" owned by the State of XX [generally speaking].  It is dead paper.  The "smart ones" devised a scheme to trick the people, but the people have freewill - as ignorance of the LAW [whether Universal or Man's] is no excuse.  

The people are "franchisees" of this piece of property owned by the state for the purpose of doing commerce.  In a sense, ignorantly, the people have accepted liability for property that vests in the State, which benefits the State and its operations,  Under the rule of usufruct, the State receives benefit subject to liability.  However, how does one find the appropriate State official to discharge "ALL state obligations"?

With this said, as part of a "legally permissible deception", the State took the given name, John and the family name, Doe and created a "title".  As far as I can tell by my studies, truly all the State took from us is "our energy, a future potential", leaving us naked owner of that energy or natural rights to "fictionally fund" its operations.  I am not quite seeing how if one does an affidavit of Life and presents it to the PTB, how the title to a name vests back to us as beneficiary?  I CAN SEE TELLING THEM - HEY, what makes you think I am an UNPAID public employee acting as trustee for State property?  I made a mistake, I unknowingly accepted liability which I had no business accepting but NOW, public official, you are paid to do the business of the State, take care of your property under the rule of usufruct!  

HERE IS THE FINE POINT - and I could be wrong, this is why I am asking -- We are separate from the person yet by necessity, we must USE a person in order to have the necessities of life on this planet.  OK, THUS there is no "people's debts" but rather a "person's debts".  Persons = State and its internal property.  Man = spoliated/naked owner of HIS Natural Rights or HIS ESTATE freely given to each of the Creator's children NOT the property or "individual public estate" [tax class #5] of the State's Name.  

The Cestui que Vi says - and I get what you all are saying -  "If the supposed dead man prove to be alive, then title is revested.  Action for mean profits with interest."  But what I am not bridging or understanding is how can State property - as a State created factitious entity for the purpose of INTERNAL State business ever ben deemed "an individual [man's] property"?  

I get what you are saying and again, I am not looking to argue, but do you see my point?  If anything, the rule of usufruct is the answer, it keeps the fiction separate from the man except as USER.  But to continue onto a claim of property, then to do a irrevocable trust, with beneficial interest, making the Executive branch, SOT, Catholic church as trustees - how does on enforce this any better than by surrendering the usufruct to the one "making the claim"?  

I hope I said this well?  

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Now I am confused --- Maybe

iamsomedude
Administrator

"Enforcement" is as follows:

One has read but does not understand this babble.(written)
Then, recite the Lord's Prayer (spoken)

Everything else relies on FAITH.

And this is what that paperwork you have is founded upon; FAITH, for Jesus Christ is the foundation all those filings are simply works built upon the foundation. But if you do not have FAITH in what you do, then NOTHING will work for "faith without works is dead" as is "works without faith"



Again, the question is:

What happens under Cestui Que when the DEAD-DUDE is no longer dead?

This is the answer: One gets to claim the fucking estate AS IF it were theirs; the NAME is 100% irrelevant. One gets to express the CESTUI QUE, rendering the Cestui Que into an Irrevocable Living Trust, and now it can no longer be used to pirate from the public trust nor used to FORCE one to act as a trustee; effectively SEGREGATING the Estate (NAME) from the rest of the Trust without removing anything from the Trust so one can fulfill on the covenants and live their life as our Father intended.

Everything you read in the filing is an EXPRESSION of the operation of the Cestui Que. That is it. Nothing else, nothing more and this is WHY we choose not to give out paperwork: people just do not get what we are doing and we do not feel like explaining everything along the way, it only slows the entire process down.



You can think of it whatever you wish, but we simply followed the NATURAL-LAW defense mechanism built within the Trust to protect from Tyranny when someone attempts to USURP the purpose of the Estate (NAME).

This is what I and others did; what makes you think you have to?

We simply have FAITH in what we have done and stand as such; the rest is everyone Else's problem.


~ 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: Now I am confused --- Maybe

Tony
OK, sorry not to understand everything so good.  

It just so happens today at "church", the entire discussion was about "faith can move mountains", so on that aspect of this info, I do understand.  

Now that I understand that the "name is irrelevant", which going back to my studies, this was the foundation, I can move past this now.    

I just reviewed what I did last year in February - where I hand delivered 36 pages to Broward County probate judge, Mark Speiser - my letter was sincere and to the point.  The gist of the letter was to have my "postlimy" changed - with a willingness to do "equity" - all through a private communication with the judge.

This package included a 3 page letter, authenticated BC, Affidavit of Life, CJS vol 33 #16, Cestui que Vi Trust Act 1666, and various Statutes at large info.  I got no response.  I even tried this last year under the "Jubilee of Mercy" that ended Nov 20, 2016.  One priest clearly thought I was nuts, the other one, through the secretary would not even talk to me, said I should go to an attorney.

I suspect like many of us, and you too Boris, I just wish we could "really understand this stuff".  Some of my prior paperwork is not all that far from yours, so I am in the right neighborhood, just the wrong town.  

Boris, all your hard work is appreciated, thanks