RSS

Redeeming Legal Title to Property?

09 Nov

Various Federal Reserve Notes, c.1995. Only th...

Various Federal Reserve Notes, c.1995. Only the designs of the $1 and $2 (the latter not pictured) are still in print. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

One of this blog’s readers wrote in part, “The federal citizens has a right to hold property, but due to his status and his use of legal tender [Federal Reserve Notes]  it appears he cannot hold the absolute title to or estate in the land as can white citizens and free inhabitants can (if they pay for the property rights with a lawful tender of gold or silver coin I would suspect.)”

My response:

Paying with gold or silver is not necessarily a perfect solution because you can’t buy what another man does not own.

For example, suppose you wanted to buy a house and a piece of land from me. If you paid me with gold and silver, in theory, you could buy both legal and equitable titles to the property.

But what if I had previously purchased the property with Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs)? I would apparently have equitable title to the property, but I would probably not have legal title to the property. Legal title would probably be held by the federal government and/or the Federal Reserve.  As a result of using FRNs, the land would fall into a trust relationship wherein I was the beneficiary and the federal government and/or Federal Reserve was the fiduciary.  I could “use” my land, but they would control it.

Assuming this “divided title” theory is valid, no matter how you paid me (gold, silver or corn cobs), if I only had equitable title to the property, it seems to me that I could only sell equitable title. I could not sell legal title (even if you paid with gold) because, as beneficiary, I don’t own legal title.

Assuming the “divided title” theory is valid, one great object is trying to extract legal title to property from the government/Federal Reserve after the property was even once purchased with FRNs.

In fact, if you’re looking for land to buy, you should look for farmland owned by a farmer who inherited his land from his father and probably his grandfather. Legal title moves by descent from one generation to another by means of wills. If some ancestor bought the land prior to A.D. 1968, maybe A.D. 1964 (when we stopped using silver in our money) and perhaps even prior to A.D. 1933 (when we stopped using gold), that ancestor bought both legal and equitable titles to the property. Those titles would “descend” to his heirs by means of his last will and testament. The heirs (who never purchased the land with FRNs) would retain both legal and equitable title and could therefore sell both titles to a buyer who bought with gold or silver rather than FRNs.

Do you see the apparent danger in FRNs? Once any property is paid for in FRNs, in theory, the legal title to that property may be lost to the “black hole” of government and/or Federal Reserve. How do we redeem legal title from the government and/or Federal Reserve?

On the other hand, do you see the enormous value in farm land (or any other property) that was bought by an ancestor prior to say, A.D. 1960 and then descended by will (rather than purchase) too the current owner? If you could truly own legal and equitable titles to your land and to your home, your status might be increased dramatically to something very much like that of a free man.

I’m not sure you’d even have to pay property taxes on land if you owned legal title to that land. I’m not sure that you could pay property taxes in the medium of FRNs on land if you owned both legal and equitable titles. I have hunch that property taxes paid for with FRNs only apply to property held by equitable title. It might be true that property taxes on a property which the owner held legal title could be paid only with gold or silver. (See Article 1.10.1 of the federal Constitution:  “No State shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”)

Let’s assume my notion is valid that those who pay for property with FRNs only receive equitable title, and the legal title goes to the federal government and/or the Federal Reserve. Under these circumstances, you and I as purported “property owners” would actually own only equitable title to our land and properties. When the county tax assessor came to determine how much tax you owed on you property, that assessment (if paid with FRNs) would seemingly apply only to the equitable title to the property.

So it occurs to me to ask, What about property taxes on the legal title to the property? What would happen if enough people in a small community banded together to elect officers to their county tax assessor’s office, and took control of that office, and were able to discover (as per my theory of divided titles) who or what actually held legal title to all the properties within that county?  What if they discovered that legal title was, in fact, held by the Federal Reserve? What if they assessed a property tax on the legal titles to all of the land held within their country? What if they assessed a property tax in the form of gold on whoever hold legal title to the properties within their county?

It may well be that the law reads that whoever holds legal title is not obligated to pay any property tax on that property. It would be extremely helpful if that possibility could be confirmed–if only because such knowledge would infuriate the public when they discovered that 1) they don’t really “own” their property; and 2) they are obligated to pay property taxes while the real “owner” is not.  The resulting political storm might make a positive difference in this country.

But it might also be that, if your county assessor’s board sent bills for property taxes denominated in gold to whoever holds legal title (presumably the federal government and/or Federal Reserve), whoever actually held legal title might lose their appetite for retaining that legal title if it would cost them some gold every year.  Faced with the threat of having to pay gold as property tax on all the properties the Federal Reserve theoretically holds legal title to, the Federal Reserve might choose to abandon those legal titles in order to retain its gold.  On the other hand, if the Fed did not abandon legal title to the party who already held equitable title, the county might enjoy an yearly influx of gold from the Fed.

So, I wonder . . . . might it be possible to take control of your country property assessor’s office and use that control to at least discover who owns legal title to properties within the county . . . . and, if the owner of legal title is some distant entity like the Federal Reserve . . . impose a property tax in terms of gold on that property?

Would it be possible to use the threat of charging a property tax denominated in gold on the holders of legal title to collapse the FRN-based trust and reunite the legal and equitable titles to property in a single owner’s hands?

About these ads
 
 

Tags: , , , , , ,

78 responses to “Redeeming Legal Title to Property?

  1. Lex Mercatoria

    November 9, 2012 at 1:23 PM

    If one tenders limited “money” then one gets a limited title–truly a case of getting what one pays for. One must tender substance to get substance. Under their current system one can get the practical equivalent of alloidial title, though it wouldn’t be called such.

    Titles are a fictional, legal construct. They and the fictional monetary values therefor belong to the Matrix, per the Lieber Code while the use and enjoyment of the physical things of the world belong to people, and the Matrix even states so. That is in harmony with the truth that one enters this world with nothing and leaves it with nothing. The military seems to have set up the framework for our remedy to this mess. We need to stop making claims on titles, which we do any time we use a name. Either fighting for or against something within their system ties one to the fictions of the Matrix and, in effect, makes said fictions real by our actions.

    This is something that isn’t easily explained in one comment.

     
    • Don

      November 9, 2012 at 3:34 PM

      @….one enters this world with nothing and leaves it with nothing.”

      THEN I AIN”T LEAVIN !!!

       
    • Don

      November 9, 2012 at 11:51 PM

      @This is something that isn’t easily explained in one comment.

      It must be SHORT to get the attention of the intellectuals on this blog,but I’m glad I’m not one of them.

       
  2. deb

    November 9, 2012 at 1:27 PM

    @”Do you see the apparent danger in FRNs? Once any property is paid for in FRNs, in theory, the legal title to that property may be lost to the “black hole” of government and/or Federal Reserve. How do we redeem legal title from the government and/or Federal Reserve?”

    I’m curious what David Merrill’s comments would be with his use of lawful money vs. legal tender and converting fed. property to private property.

    Would buying the land with lawful money instead of FRN regardless who had use of it prior to the lawful money purchase, take full legal and equitable title?

     
    • Mike

      November 9, 2012 at 1:37 PM

      Have you ever noticed how every contract to purchase states “for ten dollars and other considerations in hand”? Twenty dollars is the minimum to guarantee a jury trial of right.

       
      • Don

        November 9, 2012 at 3:38 PM

        jury trial ??

        What happened to “Trial by jury.”

         
      • Don

        November 9, 2012 at 3:49 PM

        @ten dollars
        Today, this term must mean 10,what is commonly known as “Silver Dollars,”

         
      • Don

        November 12, 2012 at 3:05 PM

        Mike
        November 12, 2012 at 1:49 PM
        @Cite please.

        Hindcite,forecite,but mostly through ear & eyecite in agreement with brain & mindcite. Want some more incites? By what I C as in SEE SIGHT.

         
    • Don

      November 11, 2012 at 9:07 PM

      “Once any property is paid for in FRNs..”

      How is anything “paid for” with fiat promise to pay debt notes?? No, some of us don’t know what you mean? Paid for?? It IS a discharge in equity, but it is not paid for. I will consider your no response to mean you agree.

      Biologically speaking, It appears that a Federal Reserve Note, a.k.a. a fern, is a form or stage in the life cycle of an organism: a sexual generation of a fern. (Freeline Dictionary)

       
      • Mike

        November 11, 2012 at 9:19 PM

        The point is that the constitution secures the trial by jury ONLY in matters exceeding TWENTY dollars. When you explicitly state that the contract is dealing with less than that amount it doesn’t really matter whether those dollars are made of silver or cotton.

         
    • David Merrill

      May 14, 2013 at 2:51 AM

      Sorry it took so long for a search engine excursion to turn up this comment.

      Here is a suitor excursion into ownership:

      http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/914/ownyourcarlawfultitletr.pdf

      As a scientist, or maybe technologist I have no conclusions about how this translates to land/property ownership. At least yet anyway.

      The Diminished Money Counterclaim (savingtosuitorsclub.net) is breaking some new ground now. The suitor bought up a $5 US note from the coin dealer and spent $3 on a purchase, then filed that into the case to prove an injury. He only got $3 from this currency that is obviously not to be used as a reserve currency but just as obviously is pegged in value to the Federal Reserve note!

      So life gets better and better!

      David Merrill.

       
  3. Mike

    November 9, 2012 at 1:28 PM

    I sent you a link a few weeks back that identifies the Achilles Heel of the property tax scheme. Yes, there is a way to take control of the process by forcing them to abide by the laws on the books.

     
    • Don

      November 11, 2012 at 10:15 PM

      @trial by jury ONLY

      Whether it’s 20 cents or 20 million doesn’t matter,anymore. You are not going to get a trial by jury.
      Trial by Jury is over with,period.

       
      • Mike

        November 12, 2012 at 1:49 PM

        Cite please.

         
  4. Mike

    November 9, 2012 at 1:32 PM

     
    • Don

      November 14, 2012 at 11:26 AM

      @ Rights cannot be taxed. That statement is true !! Apparently most people do not have the right to “buy” food because when the Total amount “due” includes the “sales tax” enuff said.

       
      • Adask

        November 14, 2012 at 1:01 PM

        Animals have no rights. Neither do dummies–at least not in “this state”.

         
      • Yartap

        November 19, 2012 at 11:44 AM

        Mike, who is this guy from Florida? Does he have a cite?

         
  5. deedums1

    November 9, 2012 at 2:56 PM

    The way I understand it – Recognition of Title to property is only ONE leg of the ‘ownership’ stool. In light of Adverse Possession laws, it seems its not at all necessary to own Title in order to be left alone in enjoyment of the property. What are we fighting over in foreclosure court? I understand (and anyone correct me if I’m wrong) that – at least in judicial foreclosure states, the foreclosure process – is actually 2 legal proceedings. One (in equity) to obtain judgement (as to rights in Title), and the other to get you out. If the other 2 legs of the stool are 1) possession and 2) the willingness to absolutely DEFEND your possession – Then, why not hand over your equitable title to the legal title holders and simply collapse the trust? If your foreclosure proceeding is in equity – rather than at law – (and the bank isn’t suing you on the contract – but rather, most likely -negligence of your fiduciary duties) collapsing the trust would 1) force them into proceeding at law (not likely) 2) render their claim and/or judgement unsecured.

    Let me have it… how far off in la-la land am I? :O)

     
    • Adask

      November 9, 2012 at 3:25 PM

      It’s possible that by paying our property taxes in FRNs, we implicitly admit and are deemed to have consented to allowing the Federal Reserve (?) to hold legal title to our property. I.e., if I only pay property taxes with FRNs, perhaps I’m only paying for the property tax imposed on my equitable title to the property. Because I’m not (in theory) paying the property taxes on the legal title to the property, perhaps that non-payment is deemed evidence that I consent to the Federal Reserve (?) holding legal title to the property.

      But–assuming the previous conjecture were roughly correct–what would happen if I paid my property taxes just one year in gold?

      There is law in at least some states that says whoever pays the property taxes on a property is deemed to own that property. Whether than law applies to only equitable title or also to legal title is unknown to me. So let’s suppose the property taxes on my home were $2,000/year and let’s suppose those tax payments only applied to the equitable title to my property. What would happen if I added twenty-one silver dollars as payment for the property taxes on the LEGAL TITLE to my property? Would I be creating evidence that I owned legal title to my property? How many years might I have to pay 21 silver dollars as property tax on my legal title before the courts would rule that I truly and lawfully HAD legal title to the land?

       
      • Don

        November 9, 2012 at 3:44 PM

        @paying our property taxes in FRNs

        How is anything “paid for” with fiat promise to pay debt notes?? No, some of us don’t know what you mean?

         
      • Don

        November 11, 2012 at 10:37 AM

        @(paying) in FRNs

        Biologically speaking, It appears that a Federal Reserve Note, a.k.a. a fern, is a form or stage in the life cycle of an organism: a sexual generation of a fern, (Freeline Dictionary)

         
  6. William

    November 9, 2012 at 2:57 PM

    What about the status of coins? Aren’t coins lawful money?

     
    • Don

      November 9, 2012 at 3:59 PM

      Aren’t coins lawful money?

      No, coins made today are Legal Tender. They are not in compliance with the Lawful meaning the “coinage acts.” Thet,coins made today, are within the meaning of the LEGAL coinage acts via “Appropriate Legislation.” These type of coins are appropriate for the time.

       
    • NDT

      November 9, 2012 at 8:29 PM

      If you can melt the coins down into a valuable metal then the coins have lawful value as a commodity, and can be used as money.

       
  7. pop de adam

    November 9, 2012 at 3:47 PM

    All this talk of property and owners and the taxes on both, it might be remembered that the word “owner” may have “owe” as part of its etymology. The renter pays rent and the owner pays the taxes levied out of this rent the owner charges the renter. On closer inspection of property deeds in incorporated places the “owner” is listed as “tenant”. This implies that the municipal corporation is the actual “owner”, will they admit or deny paying the taxes as owners? But lo, what might we have here? These municipal corporations are corporations which means they incorporated their organization into the larger corporation that is the state and they in turn to the larger again national government. These distinctions of rent and taxes are effectively obscured, as are the terms owner and tenant. The only way to really know is to stop paying and challengeing each would be owner to prove their ownership through paid tax receipts to its next in line superior. Where would it lead? The Queen of England, Crown Corporation, The Vatican, bankers, I doubt a straight answer is even possible. For this one true creditor to raise their head and claim to own it all would be an admission that they would be liable for an enormous tax debt based on the fact taxes are levied on the owner. I think it is all a confidence scheme, even within towns, counties, and municiple corporations they generally spend everything that comes in, and float loans and bonds for shortfalls, in doing this do you think it is possible for them to also pay their tax as owners? If your taxes are your rent to the locality and they are not paying up the chain, isn’t it fraud for them to then tax you as a sub-renter to pay taxes on something you don’t in fact own? You get to pay state taxes because your locality fails to pay its taxes, you get to pay federal taxes as your state has failed to pay its taxes, all while no one owns anything.

    As Austin Powers(Mike Myers) said: WHO DOES NUMBER TWO WORK FOR?

    pardon the rant, Pop

     
    • colleen

      November 9, 2012 at 4:10 PM

      I “get’ what your saying “POP”! I HAVE LOOKED ALL over MY documents as to THE deed and deed of trusts and DON’T see ANY wording at all that says-the “owner” is listed as “tenant” anywhere!
      Where would it be? The year was 06″. And POP, don’t forget the investments in our loc-cal that
      also have CAFR ACCOUNTS that could pay for it!!!

       
      • pop de adam

        November 9, 2012 at 6:13 PM

        Here in thre northeast it might just a historical relic but many if not all “states” are conversions of former colonies, royal grants and former plantations. Another version of the company town and associated company store. Many deeds list the “owner” as “tenant”, as the king/queen dispensed grants of land to different peoples and companies, but the royalty was quite careful to never fully relinquish full title, charters could be revoked. Who knows what the present realities are.

         
    • Don

      November 11, 2012 at 10:58 AM

      @ I doubt a straight answer is even possible.

      You got that right!! AND,I doubt a straight & complete answer is even possible about anything,any subject matter that is brought up. It’s mostly speculation,or “here’s the way I look at it,or,it seems to me,or,this may be true,or,assuming this is true,or,let’s assume my notion is valid,or,what you say may well be true,or,but it might also be true,or, then again we may both be wrong, who knows?”

      The Shadow KNOWS !!

       
  8. colleen

    November 9, 2012 at 3:58 PM

    Yet, another idea……what if you could “prove” that it was a wired transfer from your (private) DDA
    account and copies of 15 checks made out to “pay” for the home BEFORE we evened showed up
    to CLOSING! are THOSE FRN’S?-I BELIEVE”TAKEN” from your “private” funds?

    I had asked for our file from the title co. closings of our propertys and THAT’S part of what they gave me.
    Now, they didn’t WANT to-AND came up with ALL kinds of excuses-like because of the storm surge
    of hurricane IKE and flooding, the papers were lost. Then, because of my pursuing-daly, THEY sent it to me by email.

    I’ll bet most people haven’t seen such a thing. I too, didn’t “know” what to make of it. But, it seems the closing agent started a bank account in our name, and hers, and she signed all the checks to pay off ALL the folks connected to the home. Like the real estate people, the taxes, the insurance and the title co. None of which shows up at the closing. Even AFTER our home was stolen by the
    third party debt collector lieyers. In Texas, you are mailed the original blue inked signed by the sellers WARRENTY DEED. WE HAVE IT. And I know a warrenty deed is worth far more then a
    “special warrenty deed”.Plus we put in county records an acknowledgement of our deed to add to it. Hopefully to REALLY cloud it and it can’t be re-sold. At this point, I see NO ACTION or responsibility of ANY public records from our ser-vants. So, how can there be ANY law in affect
    if the public records are all LIES?- WE LIVE IN CONSTANT “limbo” cause WE know not to buy or
    sell as it is now. The people in our home now AT any time could lose it sense it was sold from
    fraud. We got the proof.

     
    • Don

      November 9, 2012 at 4:04 PM

      “…..original blue inked signed……”

      That’s what “Bluebloods” do.

      Hi Colleen. Did you get the link I sent you?

       
  9. colleen

    November 9, 2012 at 4:12 PM

    Sure Don, and thanks! Also, what do you mean by…That’s what “Bluebloods” do. ???

     
    • Don

      November 9, 2012 at 5:26 PM

      A co-hort working in belalf of his/her superior,who is a member of the aristocracy,who is a member & an extension of, who is a member & an extension of & so on, all extensions of the RULER of this present evil world,Satan.

      I think the video is just a sampling of things to come, worse things. Are you still my friend? After reading over what I wrote “that time” after I rested a few hours, I saw that what I wrote could mean something I did not intend, to/for you. I was frustrated & angry when I wrote to you, NOT AT YOU, though. Notice some of the comments I get NOW are loaded with satire. No good need will go unpunished, remember that. I wish I could. אני אוהבת אותך

       
  10. palani

    November 9, 2012 at 4:51 PM

    Impossibility: Finding evidence of private property in the communist plane.

    No one is forced to attempt the impossible. It is like finding gold in a silver mine.

     
    • Don

      November 11, 2012 at 11:20 AM

      palani
      November 9, 2012 at 4:51 PM

      One,is a lonely number.But, you’re not alone.Believe it or not,even I,understand your
      comment. So,that’s two of us

       
    • Don

      November 13, 2012 at 7:03 PM

      @No one is forced to attempt the impossible.

      No one is forced to attempt to understand the impossible either,but we keep trying,don’t we?

       
    • Don

      November 14, 2012 at 7:36 PM

      @No one is forced to attempt the impossible. It is like finding gold in a silver mine.

      Another not so true statement. I found gold & silver in you. You’re a goldmine to me, with a lot of silver linings.

       
      • deb

        November 14, 2012 at 9:27 PM

        Hi ya hoot,
        @Another not so true statement. I found gold & silver in you. You’re a goldmine to me, with a lot of silver linings.

        …”Like apples of gold in settings of silver”?? Prov.25:11

         
  11. Virginia

    November 9, 2012 at 5:19 PM

    Great topic…….I will most likely find out what they are going to do next. I recently decided that since their property tax statements come in SMITH JOHN….I sent a letter asking them for validating of this debt/obligation/tax and for them to send me a proper notice. Of course I ended up getting mass mailings from the counties attorney offices, no signatures or anything like that, but just threats. I have answered all the letters, asking these debt attorneys to validate this debt or acquiesce, they acquiesced and sent nothing back. I have also let them know that if the mere recording of the property in the recorders office is what has caused them confusion, for them to remove it all together or make a note on the account.

    They are aware that so far I have noticed the county, the tax collector, the assessor’s, their debt collector attorney’s and his school clients……….no one has bothered rebutting anything, BUT Ilet them know that only the Creator is true owner and we have rights of possession over this land and are not willing to relinquish anything anytime soon. I also let them know that this land is private, not located “in their State”, not doing business, and also not ceded to them and that if they have evidence to the contrary to please let me know…….no answer.

    Many important aspects as to us being the man/woman giving of our labor/energy to their system so it can function was also mentioned and the fact that NO compensation is ever given to us for this. They are unjustly enriching themselves as our cost. FRN’s………are not of any value, unless we as man/woman pretend it to be. Scripture says “you have sold yourselves FOR NOTHING, and will be redeemed without money”…….just maybe we were suppose to have remedy here in this system for our labor/energy that this system survives on, but we are denied so it can enrich itself double.

    What will happen with the property tax issue I am currently experiencing, I do not know, time will tell. There is no mortgage or anything like that, but I know I cannot be surety for what ever it is that they create when we are born, without going against my conscience, my will and intent. From my understanding is that they have always held the legal titles to EVERYTHING, and we hold the real stuff. The problem is, they have forgotten this and we have forgotten who we are.

     
    • Don

      November 15, 2012 at 9:25 AM

      Virginia,

      @for them to remove it all together…”

      Can this be done? If so, this will explain something to me that I never thought of. I know the county recorder can & will REFUSE to “file” “documents” IF he/she wants too, & I know this from first hand experience but I never knew that once something is filed, that it could be removed. Maybe this “action” on their part makes the documents I have “made a matter of public record, now, of historical interest only, too.
      Thanks

       
  12. David Merrill

    November 9, 2012 at 8:37 PM

    See Title 12 USC §411.

     
  13. Virginia

    November 9, 2012 at 10:14 PM

    David……could you kindly explain more? The title pretty much talks about being able to redeem FRN’s for lawful money if we go to a Federal Res. bank right? If one can request that their automatic payroll deposit be redeemed in lawful money, what exactly will they give you or is this even possible? Do people get arrested for requesting this? Thanks

     
    • David Merrill

      November 10, 2012 at 5:49 AM

      I am glad you inquired into the US Code and read carefully. The first sentence describes that you should not have Federal Reserve notes unless you are a state bank by the 1913 definition in the Federal Reserve Act. …”for no other purpose”. The key sentence is:

      “They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand…

      One might assume “They” are Federal Reserve notes from two sentences before:

      Buck says: “also consider that states were granted statehood. If the land were owned by individuals, those individuals would not need permission to form a state. If the land were owned they could have done as they pleased. I think a title is an exclusive contract to rent land from the government and taxes are the rental dues. Statehood is the fed granting permission to form a union on federal land.

      Im just shooting from the hip.”

      Pretty good! You have a good sense about survey. Colorado failed to cure the Territory in 1861. I think I can link that below in my first video. Colorado is a masonic monument so to speak and the Constitution had a faulty quorum with Grand Master Robert LIVINGSTON swearing in George WASHINGTON on the steps of the Lodge – in New York where we will find only one delegate ratifying that same CONSTITUTION. That gets deep fast in the “perpetual inheritance” of the Patroons on Manhattan Island…

      Good instincts then; both of you! Nobody gets in trouble for Redeeming Lawful Money and very few people have troubles getting full refunds of withholdings. It is suggested that you do some studying and set up an evidence repository in the USDC before you file a Return (in your true name – First Middle only. This equips you mentally to Refuse for Cause presentments that would obligate you as Trustee for FIRST MIDDLE LAST.) You should become the court of record by keeping one with the US clerk of court. You might study further at SAVINGTOSUITORSCLUB.NET.

      The point being you will receive US notes in the form of Federal Reserve notes (since 1971). So take advantage of the pronoun “They”. “They” are people. People shall be redeemed in lawful money, from the Federal Reserve System of elastic currency (false balances) when they make their demand clear to any agency state bank.

      Regards,

      David Merrill.

       
      • Virginia

        November 11, 2012 at 12:34 AM

        Thanks so much!

         
      • Don

        November 11, 2012 at 11:32 AM

        Hi, David
        @any agency state bank.

        I have been unsuccessful at finding ANY agency state bank. Any suggestions?

        I hope you are no longer placing your “pearls” on the “Squatloose Perverts.” They don’t value our “pure backwoods frontier gibberish.”

         
      • Don

        November 11, 2012 at 8:53 PM

        Hello again, David,
        Before, when I had access to a law library, that is, the ones I was allowed into, being that I am not a licensed attorney,I very often came across, “An Act to amend an act to amend an act,so many times,in trying to keep up with “Appropriate Legislation” changes. To your knowledge, has the “Appropriate Legislation” showing in the link you provided been amended? I hope this question is not inappropriate.

         
      • Don

        November 15, 2012 at 3:52 AM

        David,
        Ordered to get laid & we both know without vasaline. I will continue to listen after I TRY to get some rest. I HOPE you are not standing alone. Do you have “supporters” that show up with you in their “Statutory” courts of “Record?” Oh my!! I pray that you do. Bless your dear heart Brother. IF I can be of help in ANY way & IF I can, I WILL. donaldbailey02@comcast.net
        Thanks, David.

         
  14. Buck

    November 9, 2012 at 11:41 PM

    I think you own the title, not the land. Its not a” certificate of land ownership” its a deed granting ownership to title, a bank has a lien on the title. I suspect the federal gov owns all lands and the land can be used as a pledge for debts.
    Same with a vehicle title, except i think a vehicle is an asset that’s owned by the state. Again you do not have a “certificate of vehicle ownership” you would have a “vehicle title” and a title is not synonymous with ownership.

     
  15. Buck

    November 10, 2012 at 12:11 AM

    also consider that states were granted statehood. If the land were owned by individuals, those individuals would not need permission to form a state. If the land were owned they could have done as they pleased. I think a title is an exclusive contract to rent land from the government and taxes are the rental dues. Statehood is the fed granting permission to form a union on federal land.
    Im just shooting from the hip.

     
  16. Tom

    November 10, 2012 at 3:36 AM

    Alfred, can you comment on “Standing upon the Land” by Randy Lee and the elect at Piru, California?

     
    • Adask

      November 11, 2012 at 12:20 AM

      I met Randy Lee about 15 years ago. I have no doubt that he was spiritually motivated. He accompanied John Quade from California to one of our meetings at Dallas. I’m not a student of Randy Lee’s materials so I can’t comment on “Standing Upon The Land” other than to say it’s probably well-researched.

      As an aside, John Quade was a motion picture character actor. He was featured in a number of Clint Eastwood films and may be most famous (to me, at least) for his portrayal as “Cholla”–head of the “Black Widow” motorcycle gang in “Every Which Way But Loose”. He was a very intelligent and significantly ugly man. A brilliant speaker. When he spoke at one of our meetings in Dallas, he brought tears to the eyes of 70% of the audience–including me. He was a heavy-duty student of the Bible and serious Christian. He passed on in A.D. 2009. We were acquaintances. Not close friends. But I admired the man. He’s one of the few people whose deaths affected me. This world just seemed more comfortable to me so long as John Quade was still around.

      I know nothing about Piru, California.

      Sorry.

       
  17. pop de adam

    November 10, 2012 at 10:02 AM

    to David Merrill-

    Is it wise to cite codes? If knights and subjects were to give oaths of allegience and then break them it would seem proper that they perjured themselves and proceed to suffer the penalties. Anyone might live their life as if they are a knight, but without the oath they can’t be held in violation of the knights code of honor or a subjects pledge of fealty to his king or lord. I think there are some really insightful information in both the USC and the CFR, my favorite oddity is USC 26, 6331(a) explaining the authority of the treasurer, the authority to apply levy and distraint and the persons they may act upon. If someone cites codes it might possibly be easy to imply such knowledge of the codes is evidence that someone is within the codes application, after all, this someone is attempting to utilize the codes.

    Many people absent mindedly sign the “signed under the penalties of perjury” portion of many forms and documents without questioning what the implied oath associated with it might be. I believe no one can be compelled to give an oath involuntarily in this nation as it would go against the idea of “volutarily giving an oath” in comparison to “the kings taking or confiscating an oath”, the former is an action of surrender and violates no one, the latter could be an action of trespass or aggression. An oath can be compelled as a condition of employment, so unless your employer is a true government employer few people ever take any oath of allegience, and the government will often presume your signature is evidence under the penalties of perjury impling that this person did in fact give an oath.

    There is another line of reasoning in consideration of the above also: If your employer themselves has signed on under the penalties perjury. Many companies and corporations utilize “Certified Public Accountants” who push the use of these government forms. The word “Public” in their title should be a clue, same with the term “Certified”, if some one balks at signing these forms they may find themselves unemployable at such companies. If you don’t sign and still manage to work, the code and penalties focus upon the company or employer, most companies won’t knowingly tread there, who could blame them, they already took that dive.

    I like your ideas in regard to USC 12, 411, the government gave the common people no alternative but to utilize their fugitive scrip. Just because it finds its way into our hands doesn’t mean we have knowingly joined under some unknown oath or agreement. If it is fugitive of their system and they wish to mitigate it, then why did they tender it in exchange for goods and services outside their fiefdom, who is the theif under this scheme? It has been said the value of the fiat dollar/FRN is in what it will buy. Use of the FRNs is one of nesessity at this point, not choice effectively, since they vigorously attempt to stamp out any contenders.

    Your thoughts on endosement and election on checks do make sense to me, they left us no other viable options short of bartering. Many people should be made aware utilizing the banks themselves carries risk. A bank account often requires a signature acknowleging much of the above information. I have heard and read people might utilize non-interest bearing accounts with fewer vulnerabilities, but remember if you do this you have placed another individual or entity between you and your stored labor/effort, which is the true value they wish to commandeer(pirates).

    -rambling again, Pop

     
    • David Merrill

      November 10, 2012 at 10:28 AM

      I have no SSN or birth certificate and am not employed. So I hear you all right.

      If you can prosper without these things great. If you scrape by without these things then you might rethink the whole deal. If you find that you must have these things then getting out of private banking is just the thing for you!

      That is all the original law (1913 Fed Act) is designed for. If you endorse you are a private bank – a state bank. Here is where they allow informal Fed Banks like you (if you endorse private credit from the Fed).

      I write for people who have to function within the system and even resort to a higher municipal code for my “perpetual inheritance” – waiver of tort. Try on the facts without trial. If you establish a record of the facts you become the court of record.

       
      • Don

        November 13, 2012 at 7:12 PM

        @ “If you establish a record of the facts you become the court of record.”

        I know this was true,at least once upon a time. Have you been in any of “their” courts,lately, “appearing” as the “Court of Record?” If so, how did it go?

         
    • Don

      November 11, 2012 at 11:08 AM

      @-rambling again, Pop

      If you,pop,call what you wrote,rambling, then keep on rambling. It’s one of the best & most sensible comments I have read(red) yet,from anybody on this entire blog.

       
    • Don

      November 11, 2012 at 12:01 PM

      pop,you ask:”Is it wise to cite codes?” Then, you say,” I like your ideas in regard to USC 12,411..”

      I’m not understanding something here.

       
      • pop de adam

        November 11, 2012 at 2:32 PM

        Don-

        I see no harm in studying the codes the officials/authorities are most responsible for following, after all they took the oath to uphold them. Any oathes they subscribe me to must be false ones, as I have never expressly given any oathes. Also, what if someone finds themselves under competing oathes? If initially the two oathes don’t conflict there is likely no issue, however the moment an allegience is conflicted wouldn’t it be logical that this someone is in breach and instantly perjured with no action on their part? To reverse and upend this suppose there was a request/demand for paperwork by the IRS, would it be a reasonable response that it is illegal to divulge any information regarding taxpayers? It is their code after all. If someone were to begin citing codes back to said authorities, these authorities might conclude that these persons might be presumed to be responsible for following them also.

        We often find authorities cagey and evasive, what’s good for the gander is good for the goose.

        -pop

         
    • Don

      November 11, 2012 at 4:30 PM

      Thanks pop,
      Did you get my message about me having a dream about you?

       
    • Don

      November 11, 2012 at 8:14 PM

      pop de adam,

      I see no harm in studying the codes the officials/authorities are most responsible for following,

      You are right,in this sense,& I’m sure you will agree. I believe in certain situations,e.g.take the U.C.C., they rely on their own rules for a response from us,”time wise.” Although I would not use the U.C.C. in my response,I would know “time wise” what they would consider a “timely response” even tho I would only be sending information as to my position/stand.etc.,but my “response would not be to “file” papers in “their” courts.I’ve had judges to tell me before, “well you filed so & so in this court & I say,I did not file ANYTHING with this court,I only sent papers explaining my position/stand. This is, if I (<?) am considered the "defendant."

       
  18. tom

    November 10, 2012 at 11:27 AM

    Has anyone hear ever look up “Standing Upon the Land” by Randy Lee? Lots of great insight. Would like to hear your perspectives after reading that.

     
    • Don

      November 11, 2012 at 12:06 PM

      tom
      November 10, 2012 at 11:27 AM
      Hi,tom,
      @Has anyone hear ever look up “Standing Upon the Land” by Randy Lee?

      I’ve hurd that quite a few people have & it is worth looking up.

       
    • David Merrill

      November 14, 2012 at 8:20 PM

      That would be where I got suae potestate esse!

      http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/2976/approbationtothedeclara.pdf

      Sure enough take a look at the last signature on the Declaration (last page).

      Interestingly this was written by a recent Matthew THORNTON, or so it is signed:

      I come from the soft position where nobody dies,
      And only the Table of Elements supports that thought.
      From distant fields of collaboration someone cries,
      And on these fields of forgiveness, that is where you are brought.

      From that mathematical place that you call your heavens,
      Suffers the ship of death in harbors of anticipation;
      Is where they are walking about waiting for the revolution
      Of connecting living tissue from the past which is your present solution.

      To intercept this motion of earthly commission
      We stand on the face of this mysterious strategic position.
      Surveying the numbers, counting and recalculating the cost
      To lay down your life like a little Jesus, just as you were taught.

      So in each generation of death’s continuing mystery
      You perfected its path by blushing on additional misery.
      How many more ways must you prove that you can before
      The fact that one of you will be the first to walk on land?

      To stop this thought, This is just what has to be!
      Are you living to die? Or are you dying to be free?
      How about if I choose the measurable place of neither,
      To reunite my family and retrieve this Holy Spirit of my mother.

      Thus standing up to my father and face my new kingdom,
      Forging through heavenly waters, insisting on my opinion.
      To make this final crossing and leap across this vast canyon,
      Now that I know… my creator… is my companion!

       
  19. Peter

    November 10, 2012 at 5:50 PM

    I only pretend that I’m buying my house since I’m only a tenant and will never own it even though I pay off the mortgage balance.

     
    • Don

      November 12, 2012 at 3:24 PM

      Peter
      November 10, 2012 at 5:50 PM

      @ “I only pretend……..”

      FrankenSTATE are The Greater Pretenders. They claim 2 B what they are really not U C hiding behind their black robe night gowns & raising revenue for the Crown. I’d like to crown-umm so hard they would C stars they never knew existed. Know what I mean?

       
  20. Don

    November 14, 2012 at 1:17 PM

    Adask
    November 14, 2012 at 1:01 PM
    @Animals have no rights. Neither do dummies–at least not in “this state”.

    You know it too. I knew you did. So did I. Where do you “buy” your groceries,or, do you use “food stamps?”

     
    • Adask

      November 14, 2012 at 1:26 PM

      I’m old enough to collect SS. I don’t take it. I don’t like this government so much that I don’t even want its “money”. With the grace of God, I’m able to support myself. I don’t use “food stamps” either–unless that’s what you call FRNs.

       
      • Don

        November 14, 2012 at 1:48 PM

        Adask
        @November 14, 2012 at 1:26 PM

        This is why I feel like a double standard hypocrite. I have not figured out a way YET to get around it. I have offered to PAY before with silver dollars but it was not accepted on any occassion. In fact I was arrested one time for offering to pay with silver dollars.However,IF my offer had been accepted I would have said something like, Well, I just wanted to see IF you would accept, and then I would have handed over the frns instead. A County clerk did accept silver dollars from me for filing costs, NO PROBLEM there.

         
      • Don

        November 14, 2012 at 1:52 PM

        Urban Dictionary > A white person is successful: Assumed to be because of HARD WORK; A black person is successful: Assumed to be because of AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

         
  21. David Merrill

    November 14, 2012 at 8:06 PM

    @ “If you establish a record of the facts you become the court of record.”

    I know this was true,at least once upon a time. Have you been in any of “their” courts,lately, “appearing” as the “Court of Record?” If so, how did it go?

    Better than that! I appeared at the court-ordered psychologist as a court of record taking photos and audio recordings. We spent a half hour with him trying to get me to sign a consent form. Hilarious! I produced a video about it:

    https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1EaV_bU7VImNWI4OWZmNzEtMjY1My00MzJlLWE5ZmYtMjZjMmU2Y2UxNDFh/edit

    Listen to the last 1/3 of Part 1 if you are in a hurry. They dropped the charges. I perfected a $20M lien against the AG’s Corporation – State of Colorado Capital Finance Corporation. Within hours all the officials around there swore out bogus oaths and have been running vacant offices ever since. They stay away from me though. No problem here with that.

     
  22. Don

    November 15, 2012 at 1:42 AM

    deb
    @November 14, 2012 at 9:27 PM

    Shalom,Sweetheart,
    I really regret what happened on the e-mails. Did you get the link I posted? IF so, I hope you watched it. It explained what I tried to say, but just didn’t know how. Please try & understand that all I know about computers is how to push the “start button”(<?) & the Turnoff or whatever it is & that's it. BUT, I can tell when something is "just not right." Ever since I posted that I am going to try & send you an e-mail, it has been a "down hill" drag. So far,in writing this to you,the mouse has "frozen" i.e. stopped working completely,3 times. All I have to do, tho, is "unplug it & plug it back in" & it starts to work again. I don't think you would believe what has happened, "computer wise" since I FIRST tried to send you an email, & once again,for the first time, in ALL these years,my attemptS to send e-mail to you did not "work." Also, my computer "freezes "EVERY TIME" I bring up the thread (<?) re: ???, now I can't remember the name of it, but it was the one where I said I am going to try & send you an e-mail. REMEMBER !!! The enemy says: "In God we trust. ALL others, we MONITOR !! It's not funny !! From what I have SEEN lately, IT'S TRUE. I AM NOT being facetious,fuh-c-shus.

     
    • David Merrill

      November 15, 2012 at 9:04 AM

      That is all ancient history and the DA is running a vacant office on a bogus oath. Not much to worry about around here. If he were to persist in bothering me about a parking ticket he would risk every conviction under his belt rioting for a retrial. The statutory stipulation is that he swears “to the ever-living God” which ties up the “IN GOD WE TRUST” bond on the money (1863).

      http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/7770/danmaydaoathandinsuranc.pdf

      Note that he carries a $5K insurance policy instead of tying into the public trust. That is an admission of guilt! He knows that he is outside statute and carries no sovereign or judicial immunity. So he has a $5K bond instead of the state treasury backing him. Like I said, my lien was perfected hours before he voided his office with that bogus oath.

      I am keeping to one link per posting so…

      I just want to keep this on topic. Think about the “IN GOD WE TRUST”/I SWEAR BY GOD” trust. That is the fungible fidelity bond that the entire Fourth Judicial District (municipal jurisdiction METRO 1313) signed out of that same day, hours after my lien cured. This is truly about the redemption model. I will also tag an example of how it works with a car. It should work similarly with land property if you study the CAFR and select your services (fire, 911, street maintenance etc.) per capita and pay them up front, like a menu. Prepay for the services instead of waiting for them to bill you (tax).

      The main problem is finding a new suitor who knows about redeeming lawful money while they have enough cash on hand to buy a home. That just has not happened in our brain trust yet.

       
    • deb

      November 15, 2012 at 11:43 PM

      Yeah me too. The clip was very confusing, not sure what its relevance was.
      The thread was MOOA.
      Have you thought of expatriating into Yahweh’s kingdom and forsaking the entanglements of the world’s govt.?

       
  23. David Merrill

    November 15, 2012 at 9:06 AM

    It is an identical redemption model to Jesus CHRIST – Title 12 USC 411. Dan MAY chose to be outside the model:

     
    • deb

      November 19, 2012 at 1:44 PM

      David,
      @ Nov. 15 9:06 AM–“It is an identical redemption model to Jesus CHRIST” How So? Are you equating the blood paid redemption of Yeshua to redeeming FRN’s in “lawful money, per man-made codes and regulations”??? Yeah I see the identical model, hmm?

       
  24. David Merrill

    November 15, 2012 at 9:08 AM

    When the county clerk and recorder (SoS agent) kept asking how much he had paid for the car, he just kept saying, “That is a private matter.”

    http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/914/ownyourcarlawfultitletr.pdf

     
    • Don

      November 15, 2012 at 9:59 AM

      @“That is a private matter.”

      And, it’s true too !! F.R.B. being a “PRIVATE” MONOPOLY, like in Monopoly money. :/

       
  25. David Merrill

    November 15, 2012 at 9:48 AM

    Don
    November 11, 2012 at 11:32 AM

    Hi, David

    @any agency state bank.

    I have been unsuccessful at finding ANY agency state bank. Any suggestions?

    I hope you are no longer placing your “pearls” on the “Squatloose Perverts.” They don’t value our “pure backwoods frontier gibberish.”

    Don
    November 11, 2012 at 8:53 PM

    Hello again, David,

    Before, when I had access to a law library, that is, the ones I was allowed into, being that I am not a licensed attorney,I very often came across, “An Act to amend an act to amend an act,so many times,in trying to keep up with “Appropriate Legislation” changes. To your knowledge, has the “Appropriate Legislation” showing in the link you provided been amended? I hope this question is not inappropriate.

    The Quatlosers are an invaluable echo chamber when you sift out all the infantile, fear-based rants. Just that I have gotten inside the Quatloos Head like this is a big Tell right there. The main attack is on my identity and that sends a clear signal right there.

    If you probe around in Title 12 you can locate the legislative history of any Section that interests you.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,030 other followers