Reply – Re: Corporate Sole 508 Exclusion
Your Name
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: Corporate Sole 508 Exclusion
— by Tony Tony
OK, I do not have the reference in front of me, however, is it not true that regardless of capital, NAME or no caps, name, it is all about a fictional title, the first and last put together to create a title?  I just want to be clear about how a court looks at the name.  We have been through this and you answered it, as it does not matter, it is about creating a record/trust.  I can accept this.  I just want to bring up this point as “how a court looks at the title” whether caps or no caps, it is about title, instrument, or property of the State.  

Of course, we must USE a name to live in society, for the purpose of provisions and relative comfort.  I fully understand we must rebut their presumption of surety.  How this appears to be effectively done is through creating records, ie, affidavit of life, affidavit of correction, etc.  No question, they are allowed to presume anything that profits them and places us in position of surety.  These are their rules under a private corporate entity called the United States.  

And again, this irrevocable trust, as you stated:  “serve[s] as the Law under which the Trust operates when administrated and the State (Storehouse) is the beneficiary of of the usufruct of all WORKS done while one exercises their FAITH.”  In other words, we are still surrendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s as an exercise in faith [that the State will provide provisions according to how this trust was set up, putting it another way, “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.”]  This was a “trust that was created”

You are suggesting though this irrevocable trust and all the records created, the name, caps or no caps, itself is transformed into a corporation soul, a single business entity without liability based upon intent and will/desire.

OK, to answer your question – what did I expect [of them]?  To follow their law.  Yes, they are permitted to deceive in order to protect the United States.  I get that.  BUT TOO, we can go back to many references from the LON, Lieber Code,  ICCPR, DOI, Hague, etc.  LON II, § 104. Protection due to foreigners - The sovereign ought not to grant an entrance into his state for the purpose of drawing foreigners into a snare; as soon as he admits them, he engages to protect them as his own subjects, and to afford them perfect security, as far as depends on him.

Finally Boris, I truly hope you will consider having a weekend seminar, as you did in the past.  I am in Fort Lauderdale and to journey for this experience would be awesome.