Person vs person

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
Locked 1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Person vs person

iamsomedude
Administrator
posted Mar 06, 2016 by Becky Wright
Hey Boris,
My name is Lee and my wife's name is Becky. We are members of your awesome site. We are studying the philosophy diligently and are in the beginning stages of this process. We are both waiting on our authenticated certificates of live birth to be returned from John Kerry, our EIN's should be here this week for our living trusts and we are going to try to get our dba's done this week as well. We both have situations coming up in chancery court in Lee County Mississippi this month dealing with our ex wife/husband pertaining to child support issues.
Everything we have read so far involves the state versus a person in justice or circuit court not a person versus another person. Do you feel the four corners would still be the best approach or coming in as the executor of the estate of our names on the certificates, what would you advise? Hope this question isn't too stupid, but hey, we are stupid pieces of s**t! Ha! Hope all is well with you and thanks for all your hard work with information, but most of all thanks for being willing to share! We are lighting this fuse with you!

Lee and Becky


   

some_dude said Mar 07, 2016
why not just authorize payment to the ex-significant others to account for the children of the previous life you all left behind in search of this new one and issue those orders to the court as the king and queen you are?
~ 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.




Becky Wright said Mar 07, 2016
My question is more along the lines of the specifics of representing myself, I will have the authenticated birth certificates of the children involved by the upcoming court date and know my name is private and I am the holder of the certificate of title to what was presumed abandoned and that I never intended to abandon my children and will demand said property be returned to me with the surrender of the certificate of title. I fully intend to continue to do right by my children without the need of court/other parent interference and just want to handle this situation privately yet this has been pushed upon me. So with that said can you please expand on what you have said in any way that will help?




some_dude said Mar 07, 2016
you misunderstand ... you are a king and queen ... why are you attempting to do anything on behalf of this property interest unless you are the usufructuary? Is this your position?

If it is not, then you must rid the power of appointment and until you do, the usufruct and naked ownership consolidates within each one of you, and now you are owner and fuct.

Again:
why not just authorize payment to the ex-significant others to account for the children of the previous life you all left behind in search of this new one and issue those orders to the court as the king and queen you are?
[Last edited Mar 07, 2016]
~ 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.




Becky Wright said Mar 12, 2016
As always, thanks For all you're doing Boris. We both have about 2 weeks before court with the ex trouble makers. Can you explain to us, after we authorize payment, how exactly will the actual funds flow to them?




some_dude said Mar 12, 2016

From the treasury per the court order as this is what the bank is charging from the treasury and the "ex trouble makers" are nothing but debt collectors and "seek permission" for payment of their claims from the "insurance policy"
[Last edited Mar 12, 2016]
~ 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.




Becky Wright said Mar 12, 2016
We have heard you say this in your audios. But of course with this new consciousness swirling in our stupid heads we really wanted to ask you and hear it again. I guess it's no secret that these chancery court judges will know exactly what we are talking about and exactly how to issue their beloved paper work? Also, since we do hold superior title these properties, will there be any need at all to show the court the authenticated BC's we hold?




some_dude said Mar 12, 2016

the authenticated BC is evidence of their duty to service ...
~ 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.




Becky Wright said Mar 30, 2016
Boris, just got of chancery court. These judges here in MS do not have a clue as to what an authenticated birth certificate is or is for. I as a private with superior title to the property authorized payment to my ex to account for the children and the judge proceeded to state they were my children and my responsibility, followed by the threat of jail which she did not follow through on however she did rule in favor of my ex and order " mr wright, private or whatever you want to be known by" to pay by April 11th....
She said she had no idea what I was talking about payment from the treasury and looked at my birth cert like it might explode at any minute...am I missing something, some step...anything.

She almost blew her top when I refused to take an oath that's for sure!!
[Last edited Mar 30, 2016]




some_dude said Mar 30, 2016

http://iamsomedude.com/insult.html 

all court cases are the same and you all FAIL to present your equitable claim. The claim is not the damn BC, it is the FACT you are the SURETY for the NAME property registered on the BC, thus when you perform under 12 USC 95a (2), you have an EQUITABLE SALVAGE CLAIM as surety and everyone else takes a back seat.

This is where you do the set-off ... the money used to pay the claim ORIGINATES from your surety-ship to the NAME entity.


this is the "counter claim" : acquittance and discharge from further obligation for performance under contract and now the State can take care of its obligations instead of you since you completed delivery, thus any charges against that property is now a matter of the State.

~ 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.




Becky Wright said Mar 30, 2016
Thanks, but with all due respect, there's no possible way on God's green earth we could've gotten that info from the first responses. The article link you attached wasn't on the site that I am aware of before today, and am currently working on it, We do appreciate the fact that you are taking your time to get people to see how this is nothing more than debt collection schemes and slavery. We study very diligently almost every waking hour. We will not give up on this way of thinking or life, but for a lot of people reading your site, it's not going to be cut and dried to most. The court ordered me to pay by 4/11 even after I authorized payment to account for both children to reconcile the claim being made of money owed. This court had no clue! We may be fuct for now but will NOT give up......





some_dude said Mar 30, 2016

And I apologize for the delay in getting this material out from the ether as I have been caught up in my own personal trials and tribulations ... do you comprehend the matter regarding being a surety as posted within the article?


~ 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.






Becky Wright said Mar 30, 2016
Yes, we do understand that we are the estate holder, the trustee of the trust/name on BC? Are we wrong? Here's the problem. These courts do NOT understand no matter the verbage used, I may as well have sprouted a second head. I know I hold superior title and authority to the name and children and stated so yet when issuing orders authorizing the payment to account for the claim made against the BC name regarding the children shared by the partied represented the judge was lost...
I really think a face to face with the judge would be in my favor based on previous interaction with her, based on the calls made today I was told only open court or through an attorney was that possible since I am representing myself do you know of anything that could be filed with chancery clerk to obtain face time or is registered mail my only option of communication before my next date? Since this court had no clue what I talking about, I'm really at a loss for next moves. After I stated my name was private, the judge said "I know you by Mr. Wright by previous court appearances. I don't care if you call yourself private or Mr. Wright, you are going to pay this amount". And when I authorized payment the judge just giggled...like....WTF are you smoking. The only thing she really paid attention to was my authenticated, John Kerry signed BC. The judge made copies of this.





some_dude said Mar 30, 2016


registered mail is the only way I know ... maybe even do a acceptance upon proof of claim that you ARE the "person" so identified within the documents ... for court matters, I do recommend the 4 corners and 3 questions and all of this is easier when it first starts ... now, it gets more complicated. You could do an acceptance upon proof of claim "the debt can be aid pursuant to constitutional authority" ... or maybe do a novation. I do know the case (trust) is an open escrow account ... maybe take the BC up to the Sec of State, inform them of the surrender and assignment and tell them you want the matter settled and closed.

did you do a counterclaim or just go in there and try to order payment? If not, then do the counterclaim under a conditional acceptance or something like that.

Right now, you are being treated AS IF you were the PERSON, thus without rights, anyone representing themselves WAIVE all rights and due process per DoJ documents... so, you should do a counter claim on the "representing yourself" via a conditional acceptance.

remember, each time they deny, you accept upon proof of claim. They say you are "pro per" or "pro se" ... then you do a proof of claim ... each time.

This is what they are doing. They are saying you WAIVE you rights to access if you go in "pro se" or "pro per" ... this means there is a "preferred class of citizens" and only with them are these courts open ... and equality under the law is no longer paramount and mandatory by law ... unless of course, each matter is a PRIVATE CLAIM thus PRIVATE BAR BUSINESS.

Just take it for what it is worth.

Maybe one need to ask are we here in public or am I engaged within private bar business?

The action itself is just a debt collection effort for the United States, so there MUST be some sort of evidence of a debt owed, correct? This is where the equitable subrogation comes into play. You are attempting to collect on an equitable arrangement and being denied access to the courts, thus must be prisoner of some war of which you were unaware and contact the SoS to initiate the surrender ... or even with the County Attorney pursuant to the Audio from Dec 2, 2015.

but what do I really know, I am just making shit up as I go along anyhow.

~ 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.
~ 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.