25 responses to “Actions of Account

  1. James

    June 14, 2009 at 10:46 PM

    Very interesting read. Thank you! So are we, as human beings capbale of being free under a just rule of law? Or are we slaves to system so to speak?

    • adask

      June 15, 2009 at 8:10 AM

      First, freedom is something given by men or masters to subjects or slaves. Liberty is given by our Father YHWH Elohiym. Our “Declaration of Independence” declared we had received a number of God-given and therefore “unalienable” Rights: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That Declaration did not give us “freedom”; it declared that we were each endowed with a RIGHT to Liberty. But the fact of our “Liberty” actually empowers us to choose to live in a kind of bondage–if we so desire and consent. If you would like to work as a servant in the White House, your Liberty entitles you to choose to voluntarily submit to that servitude. Your Liberty also allows you to choose to resign that servitude (consistent with any agreement/contract you entered into). In other words, if you contracted to be a servant for two years, you are not at liberty to break your contract. At the end of the two years, you are at liberty to “re-up” for two more years of servitude or go your way.
      Second, as per Genesis 1:26-28 God made “man” in His image and gave “man” dominion over the animals. God did not make “persons” or “citizens” or even “human beings” in His image. Similarly, our “Declaration of Independence” declares “We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . . .” There is no declaration of God-given, unalienable Rights for “persons,” “citizens” or “human beings”. If you would claim your unalienable Rights to Life,Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, you must do so in the capacity of a “man” (including “women”). Insofar as you define yourself or allow yourself to be defined by others as a “person,” “citizen” or “human being,” you are presumed to have voluntarily chosen to act in a capacity that has no claim on God-given, unalienable Rights.
      Third, we are slaves if we “choose” to be slaves. There is text in the Bible that declares, “Choose this day who you will serve–God or mammon.” I sometimes think that choice may be the only true “Liberty” we have. If you choose to serve God, you can have Liberty. If you choose to serve mammon, you can have bondage punctuated by occasional grants of freedom.
      For example, “mammon” will sometimes grant its citizens the “freedom” or “privilege” to drive a car–provided that the citizen has a drivers license, insurance and fastens his seat belt. Other such “freedoms” can be granted by “mammon” to its best subjects.
      In any case, whether you like it or not, you will serve one of the other–God or mammon (secular society). This choice is not easy. There is a price that comes with either choice. Today, virtually no one recognizes this choice and therefore don’t consciously “choose”. However, based on the people’s failure to expressly choose and on their conduct (use of legal tender, or taking drivers licenses, etc.), the system “presumes” that most people have silently but voluntarily “choosen” to serve “mammon” (secular society; the “system”, “this state,” etc.). But if you understand your right to choose and you can properly manifest that choice, I believe “mammon” can and will (eventually) honor your choice.
      Why? Because the 13th Amendment prohibits slavery and “involuntary servitude” but allows “voluntary servitude”. By your conduct and silence, you are presumed to have voluntarily entered into the “servitude” of being a “person,” “citizen,” “subject,” “consumer” or “human being” of “this state” (mammon).
      The Achilles heel of this “system” is that it is appears to be based on the mere presumption that we have voluntarily chosen to enter into and submit to it. If you can learn how to properly manifest your refusal to “consent” to voluntarily enter into this “system,” you can defeat the system’s primary presumption and hold hold the system at bay. It’s not easy and it’s not without some serious costs. But your Liberty is there–if you have sufficient intelligence, knowledge and courage to claim it.

      • Dan Pendergast

        January 3, 2012 at 5:57 PM

        This was a well done and most provoking article. I can’t say I have full comprehension of the principles covered here, but it sure has whetted my appetite.
        I have read it several times and it brings me to the conclusion that a tack I had decided to utilize a couple of years ago when threatened by the NC Bar assn. for unauthorized practice of law may have been right on point. I was writing common law trusts to which I was always a party and I was treatened with arrest for doing so.
        I prepared a self-deposition [Winston Shrout material] that I kept at the ready should an arrest come about. I’m sure you are probably aware of the format of that self-deposition as it does, in actuality, deny any fiduciary relationship to the NC Bar, the State, or any other de-facto enterprize. I have since been threatened by an attorney for appearing in court as the trustee in defense of a trust holding title to a property in a foreclosure matter.
        By the way, I’m sure you won’t remember, but I sat at a table with you at a Shout seminar in San Antonio several years ago where we had a lengthy conversation regarding your pusuits in the ‘man classified as animals’ controversy.
        Again, thanks for spending the time and great effort to bring some clarity to subject of equity jurisdiction. Any comments on the above mentioned ‘self-deposition’, either pro or con, are appreciated.

  2. Felipe Torres

    June 15, 2009 at 2:16 PM

    Alfred, if you have a chance, can you please take a listen to these guys:


  3. Scott American

    September 15, 2009 at 9:55 AM

    Thank you for that article and your input on its entirety. 344 days of thinking got you out of the pokey. Congrats on that victory!
    All have to read again because you signed “at arms length ” on day one. It took you a minute not 344 days, I think?

    Anyhow, it seems that “actions of account” with “order to show cause and burden of proof” I would be able to open a finalized Trustee (non-judical) sale to fight for my 200k in equity back.

    The property went back to the Beneficiary who is a private lender from out of state.
    If i can find error in the way that they deliver Notices that got me to the Auction date then
    I can show iregularity in the conduct of the auction itself.

    I am in Orange County, Ca. and in need of a Attorney that persues wrongful foreclosure cases on contingincy.
    Today is day 14 after the sale and they are trying to get keys from me.
    It is not my primary residence right now but has been in the past and was about to be again.

    THANk you again and any Attorney referall will be appreciated.. 831-212-1317 not a local # to the O.C.

    • adask

      September 15, 2009 at 12:57 PM

      I’m not sure that I clearly understand your comment. You appear to admit the presence of a “trustee” in the foreclosure process. From what I’ve read, modern “actions of account” are either at law (which process is virtually impossible to implement) or in equity (which process is relatively easy but depends on the presence of a trustee/fiduciary). In most “actions of account,” I suspect that YOU are presumed to be the “fiduciary” that essentially opens the door for your adversary to implement a simple process in equity by means of which you may be quickly defeated. If so, then if you can challenge and defeat the presence of a fiduciary/trustee in the process, the “action of account” in equity could theoretically be squelched and forced to proceed at law–which is reportedly an almost impossible process. Implication: If you’re presumed to act as fiduciary and you defeat that presumption, you might be able to derail an action of account against you.
      However, if most mortgage transactions, there is a “deed of trust” or other device by means of which you authorize some third party to act as trustee/fiduciary. Unless you can persuade that 3rd-party fiduciary to abandon that role, it appears to me that a foreclosure based on an “action of account” could proceed smoothly against you in equity.
      It strikes me that the presence of the “deed of trust” and therefore “trustee” in most mortgage transactions might be intended to ensure that there’s always a fiduciary in the mortgage transaction and therefore that transaction can be subject to an action of account in equity.
      Assuming that speculation were true, it would be hard to prove that the trustee in the deed of trust was there as part of a conspiracy to subject the mortgagee to an action of account in equity and thereby strip the mortgagee of some of his procedural and substantive rights. But if such speculation could be proven, it might create a financial firestorm.
      As for referring an attorney, I know of none who might be able to assist in such matters. More, you’re not likely to find many, either. The modern foreclosure process is a very essential part of the “system” which licenses and enriches attorneys and even judges. Any attorney who threatened that “system” in a fundamental way (like showing that the system was largely a “racket”) would probably risk disbarment. I assume there are such attorneys, but they are not easily found and I don’t know of any who deal with foreclosure.
      Thanks for your email. Good luck and God bless.

      • given-cynthia

        January 28, 2012 at 8:09 PM

        For additional consideration, it is rare that the “lawful” given-name is either used or referenced for the living man or man with womb (not woman which is man with wo – depression or sadness or stress), but rather the all caps “strawman” or STATE created fiction presumed out of fraud to be either ‘government employee’ or ‘corporate\commercial fiction’. When one does not “appear” but rather “attends” always solidly upon-the-land, verbally or in writing refuting at any time being upon-the-sea or ship (maritime\admiralty fraud), and “at arms length” as one with soul, spirit, heart, sound mind, and body with elements water, air, fire, and earth\metal – and demand proof otherwise, i.e. clearly in no capacity engaged in commerce or commercial, “they” will have no ability to continue the case except entirely based on fraud and corruption. You refuse to accept the STATE created “name” as “legal” and only give consent to the proper “lawful” name which is composed only of the Given or “first” name. This is because the “middle” is technically either an Honorary to a clan member or “christian” name, and the “last” is technically not “ours” because it in most cases either describes a trade\profession (commerce) which one is only in rare instances actually practicing, or it describes a physical location or form of geography. Also, the “given” name in most cases is either “religious” (look upon the etymology – origins) or “of babylon” i.e. not The Creator but rather another “pagan” god or goddess, though some instances is “Christ” in nature. However, in ALL cases, technically, one’s “name” in “hearsay” and only relative few truly Choose their own Given Lawful Name – after much self-reflection. So – to compliment your focus on the Private FRN, I put to you – being that “we” freemen and Common Man only use Private FRNs out of “necessity” out of Fraud and cultural retail “entrapment” as it is a RARE vendor that will accept gold\silver, much less the cost of obtaining it, Would it not be reasonable to declare one’s self as in no fashion “part nor party to” any form of “debt” but rather a True Self Creditor based on the U.S. Inc. TRUST created by the conjecture that literally BOTH SIDES of the CIVIL WAR were funded by the English King in collusion with the rich aristocracy to intentionally ensnare “us” unto said false “debt” when “we” had nothing to do with their Secret Dealings? Should this be true, and based on FACT that each “bill” has both Treasure AND Federal Reserve Bank, can we not by our own “notice” or “declaration” make a Claim to only be using “lawful tender” by the Treasury and in no capacity “legal” nor “debt” based?

  4. Lee

    November 22, 2009 at 4:55 AM


    Your point, I believe, is valid that the courts assume one is a fiduciary over some type of fiction account, SS, D/L, etc.

    I mailed a 153 page document to an agency, regarding an alleged tax debt, DENYING I was ever a valid fiduciary over a govt SS account. I included a Conditional Offer to Pay. After a 30 day no-reply, I sent a Cease & Desist for failure to respond timely. The agency has been mute now 8 months.

    Resignation of Compelled SS Trustee, document at:, Click on Forms/Pubs, then click on the left section 1.6, Avoiding Govt Franchises, then see ebook #6.002.

    Also see section on left #1.2, Affidavits, then ebook #2.004, Affidavit of Corporate Denial, which I also signed and mailed.

    I followed other recommended steps to apparently “win” my case to date as outlined here:, Click on Liberty University, read ebook: Path to Freedom.

    Tremedous dissertation of yours here, Al, on Actions of Account and denial of fiduciary function/duty. I will be forwarding it to 20 patriots

    Thank you!


    • adask

      November 22, 2009 at 2:14 PM

      Thank YOU!

      After I write many of my articles, I typically wonder if anyone is going to understand or if the info is too complex or too poorly written to be understood. So, it’s always a pleasure to see that somebody “gets it”. More, it’s a pleasure to see that someone (you) not only “gets” what I’m writing about, but also has information (your “Resignation of Compelled SS Trustee) that I expect will teach me a great deal.

      That’s why I write this blog. Not simply to teach, but also to learn.

      Thanks again.


  5. Tom

    January 4, 2011 at 12:36 AM

    Review this factual document, it explains the hows and whys to deny “Consent” to TSA,
    then pass it on.
    Take care Tom and Friends
    by simply denying your consent
    TSA TRUTHS.doc

    We could use anyone who can help preparing a case against TSA

  6. SunInSagittarius

    January 19, 2011 at 1:47 AM

    Hi Alfred. It seems to me that if we can create the records to prove a trust relationship instead of a debtor/creditor relationship with gov-co or “banks” by defeating the presumption that we are fiduciaries, it seems theoretically possible to permanently extinguish a public debt with a private asset instead of just discharging (again the great duality persists). +1(asset) + -1(debt) = 0 represents a merger in trust whereas a discharge in debtor/creditor looks like: -1(debt) + -1(debt) = -2(more debt). According to some really old, dusty and lonely trust law books, it is possible to extinguish a public debt with a private asset (trust res) by merging legal and equitable title into one trustee (say the US Treasury or JP Morgan) in a carefully drafted trust indenture containing the necessary elements of a trust along with a valid method of trust formation such as delivery. The question remains: how does one properly invoke a court of equity to enforce a private, active express trust once it’s been formed and the beneficial rights arising from the legal duties are well-established by the intent of the grantor? There are no modern books that I’m aware of that cover modern suits in equity. Books on equity jurisprudence “coincidentally” disappear from publication around 1933…hmmm. Pomeroy, Story, Daniell, Lewin and Gibson have written great treatises on the subject but there is no modern point of reference. I have no idea what a bill in equity recognizable by a modern equity court would even look like. Do they still have stating parts, charging parts, confederating parts, etc? Clerks in today’s courts of law have no idea what equity is and will reject anything that does not conform to their day to day at-law legal filings. To make matters more difficult, private, non-statutory equity is administered in chambers. In order to get into equity, Dorothy had to bring the the wicked witch’s broomstick to the Wizard of Oz. Could the broomstick represent a trust, the device by which gov-co takes, fines, penalizes and imprisons under the assumption that they are the beneficiaries and we are trustees in breach? A contract and a trust can look exactly alike but unlike a contract, no one needs to know that a trust has been formed for it to be enforceable in a court of equity. Since courts of law and equity have been merged, it’s easy for the at-law side of the court to deny the existence of equity and therefore block the door into chambers. Anyway, if you have any ideas on getting into non-statutory private equity courts with an original bill to enforce a trust, I’d love to hear them. Thanks.

  7. Eileen

    January 4, 2012 at 8:01 PM

    You are likely correct in the assumption they are presuming the living man to be the fiduciary for the Trust entity they have created. However, as government agents, THEY are the trustees and fiduciaries, so make it clear to them that you are the beneficiary, and they are the trustees, and they are attempting to breach their fiduciary duties. For government to benefit in any way, as fiduciaries, and trustees of the public trust, is a breach of fiduciary duty. Government cannot take anything from us without just compensation, so all their schemes to take our property, be it FRNs or substance, is a breach of fiduciary duty. It has been suggested that when summons to court, ask the court “Does the beneficiary have standing in this court to speak? Is the Prosecutor the trustee, or do we need to have a hearing to appoint a trustee?” You bring it up, and you rebut the presumption you are the trustee/fiduciary. Do not know that it will stop them, but definitely needs to be done.

  8. Dillon

    February 16, 2013 at 9:28 AM

    in the judicial act of 1789 it states in:
    SEC. 16. And be it further enacted, That suits in equity shall not be sustained in either of the courts of the United States, in any case where plain, adequate and complete remedy may be had at law.

    so one can’t be forced into a court of equity.

    • Adask

      February 16, 2013 at 10:04 AM

      Not exactly. If there’s any reason why a “plain, adequate and COMPLETE remedy” cannot be had at law, then you CAN be forced into equity. Trying to get into a court of LAW strikes me as somewhere between difficult and nearly impossible in modern courts. What constitutes a “plain, adequate and COMPLETE remedy” at law–especially if the man “Alfred Adask” is deemed to represent a fictional defendant like “ALFRED N ADASK”?

  9. Petar

    March 27, 2013 at 1:53 PM

    Hi Alfred,

    Can you elaborate on “at arm’s length” , how do you sign it. Do you put it before your signature or after?.

    • Adask

      March 27, 2013 at 2:40 PM

      I sign my name as follows:

      at arm’s length

      Alfred Adask

      true name “Alfred Adask” a/k/a “ALFRED N ADASK”

  10. Petar

    April 1, 2013 at 2:49 PM

    Hi Alfred,

    Please take a look at this?, it is from Texas:


    Office of the Attorney General – State of Texas
    John Cornyn
    spacer shim

    December 8, 1999
    The Honorable Senfronia Thompson
    Chair, Committee on Judicial Affairs
    Texas House of Representatives
    P.O. Box 2910
    Austin, Texas 78768-2910 Opinion No. JC-0153

    Re: Effect of certain protest words written beneath a person’s signature on a state document (RQ-0090-JC)

    Dear Representative Thompson:

    You ask about the effect of certain protest words written beneath a person’s signature on a state document. Your letter indicates that you are inquiring on behalf of a constituent, whose interest in this issue arises from his attempts to submit an “Offer in Compromise” form to the United States Internal Revenue Service with words such as “forced to sign under threat, duress and coercion” and “non assumpsit to the contents of this document” written alongside his signature. Letter from Honorable Senfronia Thompson, Chair, Comm. on Judicial Affairs, Texas House of Representa-tives, to Honorable John Cornyn, Attorney General (July 21, 1999) (on file with Opinion Committee). He asks about the effect of such words written on a state document, although he does not ask about any particular state document. Thus, we consider generally whether a binding agreement with the state is created if a person writes beneath his signature on a document the words “forced to sign under threat, duress and coercion” or “non assumpsit to the contents of this document.”

    In this opinion, we set out the general principles that would apply to a situation such as the one you describe. Other rules might apply to a particular situation, and whether or not an agreement is made might depend upon the particular facts of the situation. Thus, we do not determine whether these words written on a document will create an enforceable agreement in every single case.

    In order to form a binding agreement, there must be a “meeting of the minds” of the parties to the agreement. In other words, all of the parties to the contract must agree on all of the same things; there must be mutual assent. See Solis v. Evins, 951 S.W.2d 44, 49 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1997, no writ). “There can be no agreement when one party has the intention to make it, but the other has not.” Id. As a general rule, if there is not a meeting of the minds on all of the material terms of the contract, there is no contract.

    The meeting of the minds necessary to form a contract springs from an “offer” and an “acceptance.” A contract is not formed until there has been an offer of contract terms from one party, and an acceptance of those terms by the other party. See Smith v. Renz, 840 S.W.2d 702, 704 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1992, writ denied).

    An offer must be certain and unambiguous. See Morrow v. De Vitt, 160 S.W.2d 977, 983 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1942, writ ref’d w.o.m.). Certainty is required so that the person receiving the offer can know exactly what he is being asked to agree to. See id. If a person writes something such as “forced to sign under duress” or “non assumpsit to the contents of this document” beneath his signature on a document that is supposed to be an offer, the offeror appears to be saying that he does not agree to the terms of his own offer. In such a case, it could be said that the offer is uncertain and ambiguous, and cannot form the basis of an agreement. Thus, these words written beneath a signature on a document may make the document invalid as an offer.

    In the event a valid offer is made by one party, it must be accepted by the other party in order for an agreement to be formed. An acceptance must not change or qualify the material terms of the offer. If it does, the offer is considered to have been rejected and a counteroffer made, and there is no enforceable agreement unless the counteroffer is accepted. See United Concrete Pipe Corp. v. Spin-Line Co., 430 S.W.2d 360, 364 (Tex. 1968).

    The person to whom an offer is made must communicate his acceptance of the offer. Often, when an agreement is offered in writing, a person’s signature on the agreement is required to communicate that person’s acceptance of the terms of the agreement. See Scaife v. Associated Air Ctr. Inc., 100 F.3d 406, 410 (5th Cir. 1996). If a person writes something such as “forced to sign under duress” or “non assumpsit to the contents of this document” beneath his signature on a document offered to him, it could be argued that the person qualified the terms of the offer and thus indicated that he did not accept it. In such a case, there is no meeting of the minds on all of the terms of the agreement, and thus there is no agreement.

    For example, in a federal case from Kansas, a college professor was offered a renewal of his employment contract with a reassignment of duties. See Hullman v. Board of Trustees of Pratt Community College, 725 F. Supp. 1536 (D. Kan. 1989), aff’d, 950 F.2d 665 (10th Cir. 1991). One of the terms of the offer was that the professor contest any employment issues by following established grievance procedures. Id. at 1543. The professor signed the contract, but attached to it a memorandum stating that “I have signed this contract under protest” and that his signature “should not be construed as a waiver of any rights I might have to retain the former position or to contest the reassignment.” Id. The court held that the protest words, coupled with the professor’s expressed intention to contest the reassignment by any means, instead of by the established grievance procedure, materially altered the terms of the college’s offer. Id. 1551-52. The professor had rejected the offer and there was no agreement. Id. Thus, in some cases, certain words written on a document beneath a signature can make the signature void as an acceptance.

    In other cases, however, it can be argued that where acceptance of an offer is indicated by a signature, words such as “forced to sign under duress” or “non assumpsit to the contents of this document” written beneath the signature are merely words of protest that do not qualify or alter the terms of the offer. This type of “grumbling acceptance,” as it is called, has been found by courts to be sufficient to form a contract. “An expression of acceptance is not prevented from being exact and unconditional by the fact that it is ‘grumbling,’ . . . ; but it must appear that the ‘grumble’ does not go so far as to make it doubtful that the expression is really one of assent . . . .” Arthur L. Corbin, 1 Corbin on Contracts § 3.30, at 472-75 (rev. ed. 1993).

    For example, in a case from Oklahoma, a college professor was offered an employment contract that could be accepted by affixing his signature beneath the words “I accept the responsibilities of the appointment under the terms outlined above.” Price v. Oklahoma College of Osteopathic Med. & Surgery, 733 P.2d 1357, 1362 (Okla. Ct. App. 1986). The professor signed the offer, but wrote beneath his signature that he was doing so “under protest” because he objected to the salary. Id. at 1358. The court held that the professor’s signature on the contract was a clear acceptance of the offer, even with the added protest words. Id. at 1361-62. “The notation amounted to no more than saying I don’t like your offer, I don’t think it’s right or fair, but I accept it.” Id. at 1362. Under these circumstances, the court found that the offer was accepted and a binding contract was formed.

    A person’s conduct might also indicate acceptance of an offer, even if the person’s written words suggest otherwise. Acceptance of an offer may be shown by performance and acceptance of benefits by the person to whom the offer was made. See United Concrete Pipe Corp., 430 S.W.2d at 364; McCarty v. Langdeau, 337 S.W.2d 407, 412 (Tex. Civ. App.-Austin 1960, writ ref’d n.r.e.). For example, in a Massachusetts case, a borrower sought an extension of a loan commitment from the state housing finance agency. See Massachusetts Hous. Fin. Agency v. Whitney Hous. Assocs., 638 N.E.2d 1378, 1380-82 (Mass. App. Ct. 1994, review denied). The borrower signed the agreement for the extension but, because he objected to one of the lender’s conditions, attached a letter saying that his acceptance of the extension was “signed by me under protest.” Id. at 1380. When the lender sought to enforce the agreement, the borrower argued that his protest words constituted a rejection of the condition. Id. at 1380-81. Because the borrower had accepted the benefits of the agreement, the court held that he could not then disavow the condition:

    The “accepted with prejudice,” communicated no more, i.e., that Whitney did not like the arbitrage condition, expected to talk more about it, but, grudgingly accepted it in preference to having the MHFA commitment expire. For its part, Whitney accepted the benefit of the extension documents, namely, the extension of the permanent loan commitment, without which the project would have been in dire jeopardy. . . . . It lies ill in Whitney’s mouth, after obtaining what it needed, to disavow the arbitrage condition.

    Id. at 1382.

    As these cases illustrate, whether certain words written beneath a signature in response to an offer is an acceptance or a rejection of the offer depends upon the factual circumstances surrounding the proposed agreement. In some cases the words may stand in the way of an agreement; in other cases they may not. Consequently, we are unable to say what the effect of the words “forced to sign under threat, duress, and coercion” or “non assumpsit to the contents of this document” will be in every case. As a general rule, however, these words may indicate that the person signing has not agreed to the terms of the document, and consequently that there has been no “meeting of the minds” that is necessary to form a binding agreement.

    S U M M A R Y

    The words “forced to sign under threat, duress and coercion” or “non assumpsit to the contents of this document” written under a person’s signature on a state document may indicate that the person signing has not agreed to the terms of the document, and consequently that there has been no “meeting of the minds” that is necessary to form a binding agreement.

    Yours very truly,
    Cornyn signature

    Attorney General of Texas

    First Assistant Attorney General

    Deputy Attorney General – General Counsel

    Chair, Opinion Committee

    Barbara Griffin
    Assistant Attorney General – Opinion Committee

    Again, As Always,

    Best regards,

  11. Adask

    April 1, 2013 at 2:57 PM

    Very nice. Very helpful. Thanks for that comment.

    The Attorney General’s opinion and explanation are useful as is. But also note that his opinion only applies to those words written BENEATH a signature. The legal effect of words written ABOVE a signature may be different and perhaps even more powerful.

    • seanshaggerty

      May 12, 2016 at 3:42 AM

      Equitable Title trumps Legal Title: All (equitable) Title is vested in the State to prevent the Posterity beneficiaries from being divested of their birth right.

      Using FRNs put an implied lien on anything purchased in the interest of the IMF/UN.

      Registration put equitable title and an implied power of attorney in the Registrar. This includes Registering to Vote. Registering to Vote is the Mandate presidents speak of. The Democracy needs 50% majority to continue, so Registering and never casting a vote does not change the mandate.

  12. dog-move

    February 13, 2017 at 10:08 AM

    Al, thank-you for this website, I downloaded this large piece of info. Most of it is very big to me, but I skim and hunt through it to find subject matter that is understandable to me.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s