Tuesday Night Radio Show: “Boris” on Mortgages

25 Feb

American Independence Hour hosted by Alfred Adask; 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM Central time, Tuesday nights, on and also on the KU band, free-to-air satellite link at Galaxy 19.  There’ll be call-ins at 1-800-596-8191

American Independence Hour--Internet Radio [courtesy Google Images]

American Independence Hour–Internet Radio
[courtesy Google Images]

Donna Lee was on my radio show about five months ago.  She talked in part about her experiences in fighting against government in general and foreclosure in particular.

Yesterday, we talked briefly and she seemed to have some new insights.  I asked if she wanted to be on the radio show again.  She declined but she recommended I interview a man who goes by the name of “Boris” and whom she described as a “genius”.  Donna told me that he’s had had some remarkable success in dealing with a mortgage and also in a couple of other legal issues.

I called “Boris” with a certain amounts of skepticism.  I know a lot of people who are highly recommended but can’t talk well enough to be on radio.  I presumed that “Boris” would fit into that status.

I now believe I was mistaken.  “Boris” (not his real name, and I don’t know what his real name is) is extremely articulate, intelligent and well-spoken.  In fact, he’s so “well-spoken” that I can’t keep up with about two-thirds of what he says.  His “legal theory” involves the law, spirituality, philosophy and even a kind of “mysticism” (that’s my description; not his) that’s based in part on clues he’s picked from a couple of motion pictures and even a Bugs Bunny cartoon.   His total theory is “eclectic”.  It relies on information from a wide and surprising variety of sources.

However, in general, he seems to be believe that the whole system is based on military law.  His theory focuses on elements of the Lieber Code, admirality, the 1907 Hague Convention, etc.

More, he uses a number of words that are largely unfamiliar to me such as “usufruct” and “usufructuary”—which I, for now, suppose to be roughly synonymous with “res” and “beneficiary” in trust law—but which he seems to think are far more powerful.

If I can’t follow two-thirds of “Boris’s” theory, I can still follow (pretty much) about one-third of his theory; that third is very similar to some of my own peculiar beliefs although we use different vocabularies to express similar ideas.

So, barring the unforeseen, I’ll be interviewing “Boris” (someone whom I can’t even identify) on my radio show tonight.  It should be interesting.  It may be odd.  It will possibly be difficult to understand.

However, so far as I can tell, “Boris” isn’t hustling for money. If you were intrigued by his radio interview tonight and wanted to reach him, I don’t know that you’ll be able to do so.  Therefore, while I recognize that the worker is worthy of his hire, it appears that “Boris” isn’t trying make a fast buck off his information.

While I might not understand or agree with a third of Boris’s opinions, it nevertheless appears that he’s stumbled onto some knowledge and he makes his information freely available on his website at and provides a free PDF file of the paperwork used in his one clear foreclosure victory at:  mortgage_discharged_Redacted.  Because his information is freely available, I don’t doubt his sincerity.

So far as I can tell, Boris isn’t hustling.  He’s intelligent and articulate.  And he knows something “special”—even if it’s hard to follow his eclectic line of reasoning.  That doesn’t mean that his knowledge is any more perfect than mine or yours.  It may be that, by the time tonight’s interview is over, I may be convinced that half of Boris’s knowledge is non-sense but the other half may be genius. And who knows—by the time the interview is over, I might come to believe that 90% of his knowledge is genius.

So, if you’re interested and intrigued, Boris is scheduled to be on my radio show tonight (Tuesday, February 25th).  I hope you’ll tune in.

P.S., because Boris uses a number of words in ways that strike me as “original,” I asked him to list and define some of those key words.  Here’s the list he provided:


BAIL transitive verb; to deliver (personal property) in trust to another for a special purpose and for a limited period

BERTH, n. [from the root of bear.]

1.A station in which a ship rides at anchor, comprehending the space in which she ranges. In more familiar usage, the word signifies any situation or place, where a vessel lies or can lie, whether at anchor or at a wharf.

2.A room or apartment in a ship, where a number of officers or men mess and reside.

3.The box or place for sleeping at the sides of a cabin; the place for a hammoc, or a repository for chests, &c.

To berth, in seamen’s language, is to allot to each man a place for his hammoc.

BAILOR “person who delivers personal property to another to be held in bailment- the one who places the thing in trust.” 27 S.E. 487, 488. The bailor need not be the owner of the property involved.

BAILMENT “delivery of personal property in trust,” 277 S.W. 2d 695, 698; “delivery of a thing in trust for some special object or purpose and upon a contract, express or implied, to conform with the object or purpose of the trust,” 75 S.W. 2d 761, 764; also, that relationship which arises where one delivers property to another to keep for hire, and control and possession of the property passes to the keeper or bailee. 108 A. 2d 168, 170. “An express agreement between the parties is not always necessary. The element of lawful possession, however created, and the duty to account for the article as the property of another is sufficient,” 351 P. 2d 840, 842; e.g., the finder of mislaid property becomes a bailee thereof.

Bailment is ended when its purpose has been achieved, when the parties agree that it is terminated, or when the bailed property is destroyed. A bailment created for an indefinite period is terminable at will by either party, as long as the other party receives due notice of the intended termination. Once a bailment ends, the bailee must return the property to the bailor or possibly be liable for conversion.

CHATTEL:  an item of tangible movable or immovable property except real estate and things (as buildings) connected with real property

Hence the NAME (ESTATE) is PLEDGED as BAIL and used as CHATTEL.



1a : a bailment of a chattel as security for a debt or other obligation without involving transfer of title

b : the chattel so delivered

c : the contract incidental to such a bailment

2a : the state of being held as a security or guaranty

b : something given as security for the performance of an act


SURRENDER, estates, conveyancing.

1.A yielding up of an estate for life or years to him who has an immediate estate in reversion or remainder, by which the lesser estate is merged in the greater by mutual agreement, Co. Litt. 337, b.

2.A surrender is of a nature directly opposite to a release; for, as the latter operates by the greater estate descending upon the less, the former is the falling of a less estate into a greater, by deed. A surrender immediately divests the estate of the surrenderer, aud vests it in the surrenderee, even without the assent (q. v.) of the latter. Touchs. 300, 301.

3.The technical and proper words of this conveyance are, surrender and yield up; but any form of words; by which the intention. of the parties is sufficiently manifested, will operate as a surrender, Perk. _607; 1 Term Rep. 441; Com. Dig. Surrender, A.

4.The surrender may be express or implied. The latter is when an estate, incompatible with the existing estate, is accepted or the lessee takes a new lease of the same lands. 16 Johns. Rep. 28; 2 Wils. 26; 1 Barn. & A. 50; 2 Barn. & A. 119; 5 Taunt. 518, and see 6 East, R. 86; 9 Barn. & Cr. 288 7 Watts, R. 128. Vide, generally, Cruise, Dig. tit. 32, c. 7; Com. Dig. h. t.; Vin. Ab. h. t.; 4 Kent, Com. 102; Nels. Ab. h. t.; Rolle’s Ab. h. t. 11 East, R. 317, n.

5.The deed or instrument by which a surrender is made, is also called a surrender. For the law of presumption of surrenders, see Math. on Pres. ch. 13, p. 236; Addis. on Contr. 658-661.


The right of enjoying a thing, the property of which is vested in another, and to draw from the same all the profit, utility and advantage which it may produce, provided it be without altering the substance of the thing.


One who has the right and enjoyment of an usufruct.

The duties of the usufructuary are,

1. To make an inventory of the things subject to the usufruct, in the presence of those having an interest in them.(The certificate of live birth / birth certificate)

2. To give security for their restitution; when the usufruct shall be at an end. (Promise to pay: contract under seal = state as usufrucut)

3. To take good care of the things subject to the usufruct.

4. To pay all taxes, and claims which arise while the thing is in his possession, as a ground-rent.

5. To keep the thing in repair at his own expense.


1.The state of being a vassal or feudatory.

2.Political servitude; dependence; subjection; slavery. The Greeks were long held in vassalage by the Turks.


Posted by on February 25, 2014 in Foreclosure, Patriot, Radio


Tags: ,

72 responses to “Tuesday Night Radio Show: “Boris” on Mortgages

  1. J.M.

    February 25, 2014 at 11:42 AM

    @ > However, in general, he seems to be believe that the whole system is based on military law.

    Believe this is true.

    • UglyTruth

      February 27, 2014 at 4:57 PM

      A man without rank is not a person.

      A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. no. 137. A human being considered as capable of having rights and or being charged with duties, while a “thing” is the object over which rights may be exercised. (Black’s 2nd (1910))

      • J.M.

        February 28, 2014 at 1:21 PM

        @ > A man without rank is not a person.

        Thanks. I didn’t know that.

  2. Tony

    February 25, 2014 at 12:14 PM

    Certainly jives well with the idea we are under admiralty law.

    Would the underlying cause of being under such law be use of debt instruments?

    What got me to begin to think to really “see” the reason for something as outlandish as being under admiralty law is appreciation for such a law having to have some kind of contingency for when some guy sailed across the ocean with tons of goods and a prospective buyer only to find that the buyer lacked the money to buy his goods. Hence, debt currency which enabled the current to keep on flowing (the seller could continue his business, in a practical sense).


    • J.M.

      February 25, 2014 at 1:36 PM

      Hi Tony,
      @ > Certainly jives well with the idea we are under admiralty law.

      Whatever it is, I think it would tax the mentality of an Einstein as to what ALL of it is. Seems to me, it’s anything that can be brought under what is called military law to some degree or another. I vaguely recall being in the backseat of a police “cruiser” & the communication between the “dispatcher & the “peace officer” & there was something said about opening port gate & docking the cruiser. I did see a fence like structure opening, one side sliding back to the left & the other side to the right. Something was also said from the “peace officer” to the dispatcher that the “Subject” is secured. I think I was the Subject being referred to. This is just my belief tho.

    • UglyTruth

      February 28, 2014 at 4:23 PM

      > Would the underlying cause of being under such law be use of debt instruments?

      Fundamentally admiralty is a diabolical system. Diablos means slanderer, and a written slander is a libel. An action in admiralty is brought by a libellant. I believe that the form of the libel is the misrepresentation of a man as a person, since admiralty is a military jurisdiction and a man is only a person if he has a rank.

  3. John

    February 25, 2014 at 8:41 PM

    I have known Boris for several years and he is not in this for any money and has never asked nor charged anything for sharing his research. We are on the same page and people would be wise to listen to what he has to say. The solution is beyond simple once people are able to see the clear picture of everything.

  4. Donna Lee

    February 25, 2014 at 8:55 PM

    Boris truly is amazing and he’s definitely not in this for money. I have personally offered to donate to him on several occasions to assist with some of his filings and he’s declined, every single time.

    Please bear in mind, what Boris has to say is not just for mortgages, it’s for everything, but please go at your own pace and do nothing until you completely comprehend his message in its entirety. Boris has made it very simple for all by putting his ideology backed by Lieber code/International law, etc., on his site at

    • drip

      November 29, 2014 at 8:31 AM

      …funny, that doesn’t jive w/the last thing said by “Boris” in the New Mexico Seminar with Boris Day 2 part 3 –>

      I agree with: “…go at your own pace and do nothing until you completely comprehend his message in its entirety…”

      Does ANYONE Here know the Definition of COMMUNISM?
      a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
      (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
      (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist Party.

      Please, someone explain HOW what “Boris” is advocating sounds ANY different. To me, it sounds like a ‘cheap-out’ for ignorant/lazy people.
      In short ~ the “financiers” learned how to manipulate “currency” to their own benefit/gain and those who did not understand it, looked-on an b*tched that they are “crooks”. Yet “Boris” says “Who cares?” HIS remedy will get you what you want ~ w/OUT any of the intellectual analysis/education that THE “financiers” had to learn!
      So HOW is what “Boris” advocating ANY different than COMMUNISM? That’s what it is: plain and simple: the STATE “owns” everything! HEY! “ALL HAIL THE STATE” ~ your new “god”. So, what happens when the state changes their “policy”? True, the Rockefellers, etc. may all be utilizing such techniques, but they’ve been doing it for decades ~ and have a ton more economic resources than the peasants who are jumping on the band-wagon right now.

      • drip

        November 29, 2014 at 8:16 PM

        Still more, others agree that FDR was a communist –>

      • Donna Lee

        December 1, 2014 at 11:52 AM

        The system profiteers have long ago decreed, paraphrased: All property is vested in the State and we are mere users. IF we are in fact mere users of the thing (quiet enjoyment) then we pay for nothing because the State is administrator and usufructuary. Better yet, the profiteers get nothing since they’ve already been paid for it therefore cannot double/triple ad infinitum dip. This barring of takings is the opposite of a communism and evidences non-communistic ideology, a working within their own system using their own definitions and system against the very ravaging it perpetrates.
        In other words, we can’t be made to pay for anything because only the owner pays. The system wants to be the owner? GREAT. F Off then. Don’t send me the bills you (the self-proclaimed owner) is required to pay.

        As beloved Elvick would have said, “Why are you bringing a claim against me without providing the check to cover it”?

        I loathe the hive/communist/Borg collective ideology. I can assure you this is not a communistic approach.

        This is merely a provisional, temporary government right now and the answer lies right within the Reconstruction Acts. Please read the 12 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 182 (1867) at

  5. J.M.

    February 25, 2014 at 11:06 PM

    Isn’t there still fraud involved in this complex situation that Boris talked about ? I don’t know, but if there is, I remember a case, U.S. v. Throckmorton saying what to do & what can be done about fraudulent activities. Finding the “court” that would honor that case tho, is another problem.

  6. Beach

    February 26, 2014 at 4:18 PM

    I have been a close friend of Boris for years now and I can tell you he walks the walk and talks the talk. He is no patriot for profit. We have all known for some time that the Birth Certificate and ALL-CAPS NAME is not ours, and certainly not for personal identification, but what it is and what to do about it has not been clear until recently. Understanding that the Lieber Code is still in full force and effect, that the several states are under military occupation by a foreign corporation known as UNITED STATES, really helps us see that document as an indemnification receipt under Lieber Code Art. 31 and 38. The terms of the “peace treaty” are spelled out in 12 US Code 95a (2), and when done properly as reflected on the UCC and with the filing of a Fictitious Name statement showing the UNITED STATES as “owner”, only then is there full acquittance and discharge. Cases disappear, mortgages go away…. the results speak for themselves. Thanks to Boris, and others on our team diligently sharing our research and testing our theories in courtrooms and with agencies, we are beginning to see that the path off their commercial battlefield is a path of peace. We are not here to fight the law, but to fulfill it…..

  7. FigyrSk8r

    February 26, 2014 at 4:22 PM

    I know Boris on a personal level, and very much involved on this path with him. Our small group has been trying various solutions Boris has come up with, some with great success. He has been available for me to “pick his brain”, attend court sessions as moral support, helped me with paperwork filings – even pick me up or take me to the airport – all out of the goodness of his heart. He has never once asked for any monetary compensation. As a matter of fact, that’s part of his agenda – to be the bearer of the truth for the goodness of humankind. He freely shares what he has and knows, and wants nothing in return.

    I agree with Donna; this path is for everything. It’s about giving up the “ego” and “ownership”; you never truly “own” anything. We are all just passin’ thru on this planet. This path is about using things, and passing on to the next person for their quiet enjoyment. We strive to leave a legacy to our children and grandchildren – one of peace and love, not greed and the lust for money. If you were to take “money” out of your daily existence, wouldn’t you live a much happier, fulfilled life?? I know I would and this path is what this is all about. Using the “system” the way it was originally intended and the flowing of positive energy.

    • azzending

      February 27, 2014 at 2:40 AM

      Well put FS8R , also the system Boris speaks of is a perfect system and we just need to learn how to manifest in this perfect system coming from the peaceful side of the equation as indicated, the guy is quite intelligent I applaud he insight and wisdom,
      and here is a like minded interpretation

      This is how (GOD andor Goddess) the creator lets us know that heshe does love us, through as many outlets as possible to relate to us all on a ONE level ( spirit) To generate the desire to follow through and the intuition to know that we are apart of the Soulution (heart) and how manifestation comes to life in this dimension (manifests) itself through ones thoughts and actions Spirit heart mind body priceless

      • J.M.

        March 3, 2014 at 9:47 AM

        Message of/on >February 27, 2014 at 2:40 AM

        Shalom azzending.

        Think I overall understand what you are saying, IF I am, I agree with you e.g. > “Spirit heart mind body priceless”
        I am at a total loss to know anything about this > Goddess/she She?Goddess & the creator lets us know that heshe does love us,………..”

        This is new to me. I don’t really understand this “Goddess/she aspect. In fact I am at a total loss as to what you are saying. PLEASE !! I am not saying you are wrong. I am trying to say, this is brand new to me.Will you be so kind as to give more information about who this She/Goddess Is? Shalom

      • azzending

        March 14, 2014 at 9:50 PM

        I put that in there because someone was dogging me for putting God in the masculine so I shared the role

      • J.M.

        March 8, 2014 at 5:36 PM


        Thanks a lot. Really appreciate your help in explaining the she/he goddess.

      • J.M.

        April 16, 2014 at 9:50 PM

        @ > I put that in there because someone was dogging me for putting God in the masculine so I shared the role.

        Thank you. You are a straight shooter. I am not notified of any new comments. So, I apologize for answering so late. I am notified of new posts, but not of any new comments.

  8. Donna Lee

    February 26, 2014 at 5:02 PM

    I just wanted to simplify and clarify a couple of points Boris spoke about.
    The biggest problem people seem to have regarding Boris ideology and method, is the ownership aspect. I too, had a major problem with that. Until I sat down and thought about it. Here are my thoughts on it:
    At the closing table, the Title company representative kept loudly proclaiming that I was now a homeowner, on and on like a mantra. But when I sat down and looked at my paperwork, the word owner or homeowner never appears:
    1. I looked at my note and nowhere on it does it state I am an owner, it only refers to me as a ‘borrower’.
    2. I looked at my mortgage and nowhere on it does it state I am an owner, it only refers to me as the ‘mortgagor’.
    3. I looked at the Warranty deed recorded in the public record. Nowhere does it state I am an owner, it refers to me as the grantee and Tenant.
    4. In foreclosure cases, we are referred to as ‘Defendant’.

    Where is it in any writing anywhere, that we own the property or any property? Is it possible that we latch onto a concept of ownership and believe it so strongly, that we’ll fight over it? And could it be the actual fighting over the ownership that creates the controversy that forces the court to give the property to a FICTION?
    And how can we possibly ‘own’ anything, considering even when it’s so-called paid off, considering if we miss paying a property tax bill, they can foreclose on that as well and take it from us? That’s not ownership, people! We’ve been sold a concept, believing it meant substance when it was only form!
    Furthermore, who is required to pay? The owner is required to pay!
    Why are we fighting over ownership when we don’t own it and we have right of POSSESSION and don’t have to pay anything at all?
    Here is a well-known quote from the elite “Own nothing control everything.”
    Is that what they’re doing? What do they know that we don’t? Could it be that they know that whoever claims to be the owner/usufructuary, is required to:
    1. put up a security [indemnification]
    2. make inventory of the “thing” subject to the usufruct [survey]
    3. pay any taxes that arise
    4. settle ALL claims arising against the subject
    5. keep thing in repair at its own expense

    So why are we tilting at windmills claiming to be a thing that we never were, a thing that is not on paper anywhere that would back up the thing, knowing that if we really were the thing, then #1 – #5 would kick in.

    Think about it this way. When we are in court for a foreclosure and we’re arguing about ownership, then we are openly saying that we are required to do #1-#5. But we’re not doing #1-#5. Therefore we are admitting that we ‘owe’ and admitting that we are defaulting on our duties to pay everything as is required by the owner/usufructuary. The attorneys LOVE this when they get us to argue ownership because it lines their wallets. The courts LOVE when we argue ownership because it increases its bottom line. The fake judges LOVE this when we argue ownership because it justifies their non-essential jobs and puts more monies/credits into their retirement accounts.

    The only ones that lose, is us.

    P.S. to J.M. Yes, it is fraud, technically. The pledge was secured when we were infants therefore the necessity to assign everything derogatory to our interests, such as the reversionary, usufructuary and remainderman back to the entities and live as to our true nature v. character.

    Boris mentioned a case last night, called Commissioner v. Estate of Field, here’s the pertinent part of it:

    2. Since the corpus of the trust did not shed the possibility of reversion until the decedent’s death, the value of the entire corpus on the date of death was taxable under § 302(c). P. 324 U. S. 116.

    • J.M.

      February 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM

      Donna Lee
      @ >And how can we possibly ‘own’ anything, considering even when it’s so-called paid off, considering if we miss paying a property tax bill, they can foreclose on that as well and take it from us? That’s not ownership, people …………..”

      Boris had the ring of sincerity & honesty in his voice. I don’t think there is any question about this in anyone’s mind. But, Donna, per your statement above, I’m taking what you are saying, to mean, you do not pay what is called, “property tax” & yet STILL live in a home & will not sooner or later be evicted for “failure to pay” this “property tax. ” Am I understanding this correctly? A short as possible answer will be much appreciated. And I mean MUCH appreciated. I have a HARD time getting answers from most people to my questions, so once again, whatever your answer is, if any, will be appreciated.

    • J.M.

      February 26, 2014 at 6:48 PM

      Donna Lee,

      HEY WOW !!!! NOW I see where you responded & I didn’t even ask you too WOW !!!

      Thanks !!!! I sure hope whoever Boris has helped will “remember” him. WE ALL need help & WE ALL should help each other.. I come across mostly TAKERS that TAKE & when you cannot give anymore, they just “vanish.” Thank you Donna Lee for your help.

    • FigyrSk8r

      February 26, 2014 at 7:23 PM

      Donna, while I’ve never met you, we are connected (first by a young couple I met a few months back who live in Colorado, and now thru Boris).

      I totally agree with the “ownership” quandary. It has taken a lot of training to quit using words like “mine”, “my” and “I own” this or that. Do you refer to that chunk of plastic you keep in the wallet you carry as “MY driver license” . . . . or “THE driver license”? Bet I know the answer to that question. But look at the top – it says “property of the state of . . . . . ” and you must surrender it when asked. We will go to court to “fight” for the right to keep that chunk of plastic, even tho it enslaves and does not belong to us – it belongs to the STATE-owned “name”. And we PAY huge fines, using attorneys that just LOVE “defending” us.

      I believe we all have been duped into a “concept” of ownership. We cling to stuff – we spend $$ we don’t have to buy MORE of it, then need a bigger house to store all this stuff we don’t need (George Carlin says it best!!). We do a LOT of shopping – especially during Christmas. I don’t think it’s any accident that New Year’s comes directly after Christmas, either – to give us hope for a “new year” perhaps? We have been programmed to think and behave a certain way (Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars) – unlike that elite quote “own nothing, control everything”.

      Finding myself on this subject has been truly eye-opening. And there are a LOT of young people who are waking up to this mentality; they know there is something wrong and if nothing is done, what will they have??

      EVERYONE should read the Boris stuff, do the research and see if any of it “sticks”.

    • colleendd

      March 3, 2014 at 10:11 AM

      Oh Donna, been reading and surrounding myself and my sweetie with folks who too feel the need to know our truths. What an experience it’s been where we stated from day one it’s 100% spiritual! So what is it we need to learn from this? Being so grateful for my BEST friend AND PARTNER LEARNING THIS TOGETHER I can now say I GOT IT!

      After listening to Boris back in Oct. of 2012, I had written to Al about Boris as it started a chain of events of what he learned….(this was Al’s posting……

      Posted by Adask on October 25, 2012 in Identification, Income Tax, IRS

      An “Infant” is a “Decedent”?

      I received the following info by email from Colleen. I haven’t verified any of the info, but if the info is valid, it could be (as Colleen says) BIG.

      “Well, someone FINALLY did it. They found in the IRS manual the “proof” of when we “claimed” life. I write this in past tense sense when we got a social security number (a lot of us when we applied for a drivers license) is when we were NOT CONSIDERED decedents. Here’s the wordage

      “IRS manual – An infant is the decedent of an estate or grantor, owner or trustor of a trust, guardianship, receivership or custodianship that has yet to receive an SSN.

      Maybe Al doesn’t remember, but we wanted to visit him (when I wrote him), but THAT was the weekend he was moving from Texas! BUMMER!-

      Al had done an incredible write-up on the subject with almost 500 blogs from his post!
      Had you read it? To me? Was the start of- with sometimes words not finding a useful kind of reality needed to “live it” until now….

      Another friend that I had told about Boris to was also pretty impressed so I let him know he was going to be on Al;s radio show the other night AND continued to like what he heard so then called and asked a question on the show-
      We had a lot of fun the other night sky-ping and listening and having a lot of respect for his wisdom too to the point that he writes to me that….. (I am studying ‘Boris’…

      I have found some wonderful insights into the way things “are”. Even though they really piss-me-off. LOL)

      That too GOT ME to thinking; what are we feeling? Maybe our fear of losing what we worked to accumulate? And what’s happening? We’re losing it anyways….


      I think those questions ARE what Boris ANSWERS! And After rereading Boris message,
      ( )

      I FOUND A reality we could AND should implement because of Boris’ insight!

      Now, I have to let you know in loving my husband SO much I’ve often told him that it wouldn’t matter if we lived on a dirt floor as long as we’re together as I’m very grateful to have him in my life. That said and fortunate to have the beautiful surroundings I’m lucky enough to wake up to everyday, we have taken some risks THAT we could AND should have lost what we created and thrilled to say haven’t in the last 5 years! (to me a sign-OK, we’ll wait till they “get” it-ha)

      So,I found this……. a “practicality” of acting on it, as Boris calls it is this-……..

      Pay to the order of the United States of America. Without recourse. By Assignor: your restricted autograph here. For NAME ESTATE, Estate Identification Number: xx-xxxxxxx. (the SSN or an EIN if you have it)

      [cf]USDA Title 7 CFR 1901.508(5)(I)(ii) and

      redeemed in lawful money…[cf] Title 12 USC 411 and

      held on Trust Special Deposit.

      To me it means, when you “give” it to the “United States”, you don’t actually “lose” it (like a car or home)
      your acknowledging this- (what Boris puts in his site),

      This conquest can only be completed when the rightful owner comes to reign in the kingdom and will do so through the people via their actions [the redeemers and peacekeepers will inherit the earth: you will be known by your fruits]. When that event takes place, both these provisional governments are to cease [with respect to individual status] [12 U.S. Op Atty. Gen. 182].

      And since the public debts of the United States can not be questioned, the United States and the States will pay any and all debts in fulfillment of indemnification of the redeemer of a “certificate of title / certificate of live birth / birth certificate” (receipt) from any claims arising against the object of the receipt providing the holder did not engage in insurrection or rebellion. (ie: claim of ownership, which is slavery.) [I didn’t come to destroy the law, I came to fulfill it.]

      So, seeing NOW how this wisdom and how it can be used in practice, to help and spreading the wisdom (we’ve had lots of meeting in our home) NOW, I can say I do get it! THANK YOU BORIS!

  9. Beach

    February 26, 2014 at 8:38 PM

    JM, all of us that study with Boris deeply appreciate his generosity and eagerly reciprocate whenever possible. He is not alone in this matter; has a large number of friends around the globe who are engaged in this ongoing “conversation,” and as we go out and test our legal hypotheses we come back to him to report the results. He is quite a “puzzle master,” putting our pieces together so we may refine our processes and better understand the meaning of our results. He then disseminates the knowledge back out to our network of friends around the globe. This knowledge has been the fruit of a huge global group effort and continues to be fine tuned as we apply it. Thanks to Boris and all the other generous participants in our global study group of Peaceful Inhabitants….

    • J.M.

      February 27, 2014 at 12:59 AM

      @ >Thanks to Boris and all the other generous participants in our global study group of Peaceful Inhabitants….

      Wonderful. Do you by chance know Donna Lee above?

  10. Beach

    February 27, 2014 at 9:15 AM

    JM, I do not know Donna Lee personally (yet), but like Figyrsk8r I’ve heard about her once before through a CO couple who was selling their hovercraft, and then later her foreclosure case came up in conversation with Boris. Figyrsk8r is, of course, in our local “core” study group and I see her daily. I understand Donna Lee is local to us here and almost made it to our gathering on Superbowl Sunday… she is cordially invited to come join us in person at one of our next study group gatherings!

    • J.M.

      February 28, 2014 at 12:29 AM

      Shalom, Beach,
      Do you live in Colorado? Also, I asked Donna Lee the following: > , Donna, per your statement above, I’m taking what you are saying, to mean, you do not pay what is called, “property tax” & yet STILL live in a home & will not sooner or later be evicted for “failure to pay” this “property tax. ” Am I understanding this correctly? A short as possible answer will be much appreciated. And I mean MUCH appreciated. I have a HARD time getting answers from most people to my questions, so once again, whatever your answer is, if any, will be appreciated.”

      Well Beach, as you can see, I have not received any response from Donna Lee in regards to the above. IF you, Beach, “see” what I am trying to understand, will you be so kind as to answer my above request? OR, is there an answer as of yet? Thanks. Does Boris have a radio program that is accessible via the internet? Thanks again. Beach, palani, just posted a message. palani is a DEEP DEEP thinker. As for me, I do not have enough sense to sometimes know what palani is really saying. By saying this I do not mean to be putting palani down. palani is an extremely valuable asset to & for DEEP thinkers, like in the Einstein type group. palani & Boris I believe, can communicate. I have followed palani’s comments for about 3 months.

      • Beach

        February 28, 2014 at 12:57 AM

        JM, L’heim. Well, if the reversionary interest in the NAME(estate) is assigned to the account of the UNITED STATES without recourse, in fulfillment of 12USC95a(2), wouldn’t that complete the usufruct so that the state becomes recognized as the intended beneficiary of that NAME(estate)? It is a maxim of law that “he who enjoys the benefit bears the burden of liability”…. so if the UNITED STATES is recognized as the Owner (Secured Party) of that NAME, and the property tax bills are to be paid by that NAME, then whose responsibility is it to pay that property tax?

    • J.M.

      February 28, 2014 at 2:19 AM

      @ > Your message of/on February 28, 2014 at 12:57 AM

      Wow, thanks. ok, I think I am understanding what you are saying. I see that I need to do a lot of homework. Just get me started by telling me where to start. All of this is brand new to me & second nature to you. I’ll be out of your hair & off your back, as I think there are some mountains I need to climb. Hopefully Alfred will have Boris back on the air. Thanks from my heart Beach.

      • Beach

        March 1, 2014 at 4:50 PM

        Try here:

        This is a good place to start….

      • Beach

        March 1, 2014 at 4:55 PM

        Oh, JM, and my heart says “You’re welcome!” <3

    • J.M.

      March 3, 2014 at 10:13 AM

      Shalom, Beach, Thank you again for your responses. Sorry I am late in answering.

      @ > then whose responsibility is it to pay that property tax?

      Remember now, this is second nature to you & NEW to me. My response is, I don’t know, YET, anyway. I “called” it an annual “rental” cost. At least renting an apartment did not demand an annual property tax payment although the monthly rental cost was undoubtedly adjusted to include that.
      Thanks for the link.

      @ > Oh, JM, and my heart says “You’re welcome!” <3 means tho.

      • J.M.

        March 3, 2014 at 10:19 AM

        Beach, I do not know what happened but all of my message did not post. I said, and my heart says bless your heart.
        I do not know what < 3 < means tho.

    • J.M.

      March 3, 2014 at 10:32 AM

      What, JM… you were expecting to lead a boring life? LOL
      No, and it has not been boring either. It has & still is a mental WAR,& not boring whatsoever but VERY TAXING. but not in the I R epresent S atan type tax.

      Everything happens for a purpose.

  11. dougstehling

    February 27, 2014 at 7:31 PM

    The above link is my application of Boris’s technology as I comprehend it.

    The Full-Discharge-Instrument folder link therein will contain this document that Boris may want to comment on:

    Full Discharge via Lawful Money Reversionary Interest Transfer Instrument per 12 USC 411 & 95a(2)

    • J.M.

      February 28, 2014 at 11:52 AM


      Bless your heart dougstehling for providing the link.

      • dougstehling

        February 28, 2014 at 5:11 PM

        You’re welcome!

    • J.M.

      March 1, 2014 at 12:34 AM

      It seems All of you are good people !!! It’s a wonderful blessing to have “good people” for friends. I have had a lot of “friends” in my life the good time fair weather type. I think you know what I mean. Most of, if not all of you have been hurt pretty bad except there was nothing pretty about it. I know this. AND, If I had not been hurt, I would probably think all of you were just a bunch of wackos. I am now glad I was hurt. Some of us NEED to learn the HARD WAY, Right? Right, I heard you.

      • Beach

        March 1, 2014 at 4:53 PM

        What, JM… you were expecting to lead a boring life? LOL Everything happens for a purpose, and it has all lead you right here, right now. What you do with it from here is your choice…. ;)

  12. palani

    February 27, 2014 at 10:10 PM

    I read this a month or so ago and forgot which book it came out of. They were discussing the remnants of Alexander the Greats army after his death. They turned into nomads and some found their way to what is not Germany. These veterans had a treaty with the local Germanic tribes but they had no land .. moved frequently from place to place. Until one of their leaders in full gold battle dress approached a native and offered to trade all his gold for a handful of dirt. The deal was struck, the native and his buddies got a good laugh out of it and the followers of this guy didn’t think too highly of it either. So he took his handful of dirt and sprinkled it sparely around a large amount of territories and then instructed his men to occupy their new land. Ended up there were a few battles with the natives who viewed this as a treaty violation until a parley was called, the leaders of the natives came in on a truce and were slaughtered (the penalty of dishonor I suppose). This practice is now called livery of seisin in English law .. the seller brings in a clod of dirt and the buyer lays out his coat on the floor and the dirt is cast on it … purchase made.

  13. Rog

    March 1, 2014 at 6:21 PM

    I have had only a cursory look at this stuff. From what I gather, we are under military occupation. That is, conquered by other men. Lovely! These men who claim to have conquered us also claim “ownership” in trust of everything and everybody unless their claim is refuted. Sounds a lot like slavery by deceit. They do this in order to preserve the prevailing order, in other words, the SYSTEM. How very lovely!!
    What if I don’t agree with this arrangement? Do I have to conquer them? Who died and made them God? Everything is commerce. What if I disagree? Who says I have to jump through their hoops? The system is perfect? Sounds like servitude to power hungry men to me.
    Honor schmonor, these men Know nothing of honor.

    • J.M.

      March 1, 2014 at 7:57 PM

      Hi Rog,

      My belief is, The so called “Civil War” WAS & IS what made the DIFFERENCE. The FED troops WON THE WAR.I got lotsuhh FACTS about the CHANGES that this brought on. Everything SEEMED to stay the SAME for a while. THEN one subtle undetected change repeated itself, like the frog in the water story, remember??

      “As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air – however slight – lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.” – Justice of the Supreme Court, William O. Douglas

      NOW LOOK AT WHAT WE GOT ON OUR HANDS. AND, the best, excuse me, the WORST is yet to come. HANG ON YOU AIN”T SEEN NUTHIN YET !!!

    • UglyTruth

      March 2, 2014 at 2:49 AM

      Rog, if you don’t agree with it then the logical position is not to support it ( eg with taxes and obedience). You don’t have to conquer them. For some insight into the nature of the conquest, I’d suggest taking a look at the situation re William the Conqueror. His conquest established the symbol of the tower and the city in England, this was the defining symbol of Babylon. There are other parallels in language and finance. Not everything is commerce, natural law exists independently of commerce.

      • J.M.

        March 3, 2014 at 10:40 AM

        UGLY TRUTH
        Where is YOUR, THE rabbit HOLE you exist in located??? I already know that. You don’t need to tell me again. I know it’s none of my business

    • Lex Mercatoria

      March 2, 2014 at 7:41 AM

      @>, These men who claim to have conquered us also claim “ownership” in trust of everything and everybody unless their claim is refuted.

      I don’t think we can truly substantiate real claims of ownership to most things, though the Matrix folks are happy to let us do so–for a price. If I remember & comprehend correctly, per their Lieber Code they say *titles* (and by extension the fictional monetary values therefor, both as assets and liabilities) are to be surrendered to the military or Treasury. However, they don’t claim the physical houses, cars, boats, etc., (trees) which are the sources of said titles (fruits), are theirs. People retain the use & enjoyment of the things of the world while they, in their Matrix agent roles, rule the imaginary world of things on paper.

      As the saying goes, “you can’t take it with you” and ownership really is an illusion. If you had unfettered use and enjoyment of the things of the world why would you care about the paper world, e.g., who/what has title to the house or automobile (ownership), property values, the prices of groceries, etc.? Better yet, should you concern yourself with such matters in that situation?

      In a sense we are trust fund kiddies who, being ignorant of our standing as beneficiaries, unwittingly consent to assume the trustees’ liabilities–a state of affairs the real trustees seem all too happy to promote.

      • Rog

        March 2, 2014 at 12:03 PM

        Interesting comments. As to “everything is commerce,” I make no such claim, that’s the UCC folks making that claim. This Boris guy makes the claim that we are under Martial law and that the military, in order to keep the peace acts as administrator of property seized in conquest and doles it out in usufruct for the use of the “noncombatants.” The engineers of the system have made provisions to keep the peasants in a state of near normalcy so that we might go about our business and never be pissed off enough to make waves. He then “makes peace with them” and all is well.

        I make no claims as to the correctness of all this. Perhaps Boris has found a chink in the armor and managed to catch a glimpse into the secret chamber. He then uses that info to his advantage.

        But the more I look into these schemes to use the system to our advantage so that we might reclaim our freedom the more I’m convinced we have been punked. From the great white north with Dean Clifford and his everything is in trust approach (He’s in jail now) and Rob Menard’s Freeman on the land stuff to the “sovereigns” Hit ’em with paper work, to the Admiralty law folks to the Winston Shroud/Marc Stevens fan boys who use the system’s statutes against them, there is a central theme that emerges from all. That is, If we can just find the key to the book of secrets then we can emancipate ourselves from their evil clutches. We can fill out the right form, make the right declarations, refute whatever claims have been made by whomever against our divine sovereignty, appoint trustees, claim beneficiary status, point to the yellow fringe and declare “I am a freeman. dammit,” do a little dance, make a little love and perform the German drunk test to the satisfaction of the attending officer, get down tonight. All of this and they simply change the rules!

        What’s wrong with this picture? I’ll tell you. When you dance with the devil don’t be surprised when he takes the lead.

        What’s the solution? I really don’t know. The older I get the more I suspect most people do not want freedom. They WANT rules and regulations, they WANT paperwork to fill out, they WANT the comfort of armed guards on every corner, they WANT to be ruled. It’s pathetic, really.

        As to ownership, it’s really just a matter of definition, semantics. Ownership can be defined as a claim to the exclusive use of a thing. The paperwork that goes along with that, in a more perfect world, would stand as a declaration to other men that I have claimed ownership, just to be clear, and nothing else. Without ownership there can be no freedom. You can’t act autonomously on rented property. You can’t take it with you is true, but while I’m here I say this is my stuff and I will defend my claim to it. Remember, someone will claim ownership, a king, a government, whatever, no matter what, it might as well be you.

        I’m convinced “do no harm, do as you say” is the whole of the law and it is our duty to walk away from the laws of men to whatever extent we can. But climbing into the bear’s den to fluff up his bedding so that he might have mercy on us is NOT the way.

      • azzending

        March 14, 2014 at 10:40 PM

        Well put Lex and as I have stated before agreeing with B that the system is a prefect system and once we are of the mind, Giving it all to the people of the USoA we are ONE with Good and anything you want you can manifest, Thank You God

    • J.M.

      March 3, 2014 at 11:02 AM

      @ What’s wrong with this picture? I’ll tell you. When you dance with the devil don’t be surprised when he takes the lead.

      That’s right.

    • J.M.

      March 4, 2014 at 12:46 PM

      @ >From what I gather, we are under military occupation.

      50 years ago or it might even be a lot less, < I once knew, anyway, these military flags in the court rooms NOW, WERE NOT in the court rooms just a few years ago. The courts were STILL proceeding under some degree of "martial law" which also has different degrees. Everything has been done a little piece at a time so as not to be detected. I KNOW THIS, but what difference does it make just "knowing" something? The flags in the court rooms ARE military flags and as far as "courtrooms" go, they are ONLY for military courts. < Statute authorizing same available upon request. Got it from this blog too. Don't recall what thread tho. In case there is any misunder-standing, someone was kind enough to cut & paste the STATUTE from THE LAW BOOK it was in, & posted it on this blog.

  14. Lex Mercatoria

    March 2, 2014 at 8:47 PM


    One doesn’t escape their clutches; one merely doesn’t enter into their clutches to begin with. We are always outside of the Matrix. It is they who attempt to secure our consent/recognition to the contrary.

    We are ultimately in the dominant position though they work overtime to trick us into believing the opposite by making that which is simple appear complex. It all boils down to consent.

    I never stated “everything is commerce” though I do think all human interaction, specifically human mental interaction, is commercial. Commerce need not entail goods and services being exchanged for filthy lucre.

    BTW, what do you think is the property the military supposedly doles out in usufruct for the use of noncombatants?

    • Rog

      March 2, 2014 at 9:54 PM


      “BTW, what do you think is the property the military supposedly doles out in usufruct for the use of noncombatants?” I would have to say the all caps name. In other words, the fruits of our own labor which they claim to have bought with the banking act and impose through the military law of conquest.
      What I’m trying to get at is this system has been imposed on us and, according to Boris, one only need file a few pieces of paper-the UCC1 etc.- and BOOM, we’re out. He may be right but, frankly, I don’t see why I should be the one to have to address this-I NEVER AGREED TO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE! Boris says, oh yes you did! You agreed to be on this planet, in the material world before you got here. Well, I don’t remember that! And if the goal is, as Boris says, to get the me who remembers the deal to get together with the me that doesn’t remember the deal so that we may become whole, I’d say the rules of the game are far too obtuse for most of us otherwise more of us would have figured it out by now. Nobody said it would be easy but, jeesh, throw me a bone here!

      As far as never entering into their evil clutches in the first place, sorry, they grabbed me by force and kept me through deception and complexity. I’ve never been a game player or puzzle solver-that sort of thing bores me to tears-so trying to figure out what has happened is difficult for me and, honestly, I’m sick to death of this game.

      • J.M.

        March 3, 2014 at 11:11 AM

        @ throw me a bone here!

        NO !!

      • J.M.

        March 4, 2014 at 1:28 PM

        @ > Interesting comments. As to “everything is commerce,” I make no such claim, that’s the UCC folks making that claim. This Boris guy makes the claim that we are under Martial law and that the military, in order to keep the peace acts as administrator of property seized in conquest and doles it out in usufruct for the use of the “noncombatants.

        @ I make no claims as to the correctness of all this.

        You’re not?? What am I or maybe some others not understanding about this, i.e. what you are saying, as showing above & the remainder of your message of & on March 2, 2014 at 12:03 PM; &

        Are you the same Rog that said on another thread that you relied on yourself to resolve everything for yourself? Your no response will be understood to say, Yes I am the one & only one that can resolve these problems, in that I rely only on myself.

      • EarlatOregon

        March 4, 2014 at 6:10 PM

        RE: This Boris guy makes the claim that we are under Martial law
        and that the military, in order to keep the peace
        acts as administrator of property seized in conquest
        and doles it out in usufruct for the use of the “noncombatants.

        Earl: Read “The :Law of Land Warfare”
        It is a US Gov Pub,
        widely available and cheap.

      • Rog

        March 4, 2014 at 6:31 PM

        @Are you the same Rog that said on another thread that you relied on yourself to resolve everything for yourself?
        Must have been another Rog. I’m not even sure what that means.

        “You’re not?? What am I or maybe some others not understanding about this, i.e. what you are saying, as showing above & the remainder of your message of & on March 2, 2014 at 12:03 PM; &”


        J.M. take a deep breath.

      • J.M.

        March 5, 2014 at 11:50 AM

        @ > J.M. take a deep breath.

        Tell me once more about these termites you talked about earlier on “that other thread.” When you, Rog, say you go to Rog, what do you mean by this? What am I misunderstanding about Rog goes to Rog, Remember saying this? I do, I remember.

      • J.M.

        March 5, 2014 at 9:34 PM

        Too many termites. If left to their own devices they destroy the house. If we toss a match, the house is destroyed. Either way, no house. As drudge said, “Have an exit plan.”


        February 11, 2014 at 5:21 PM

        @“Have an exit plan.”
        To where?


        February 11, 2014 at 8:59 PM

        Not to where, to what.


        February 11, 2014 at 9:00 PM



        February 11, 2014 at 9:03 PM

        Not to where,to what.


        February 11, 2014 at 9:09 PM

        @ > to what.
        To what ??? What does what mean?? Now don’t have a baby but What does what mean? OR is it a secret?


        February 11, 2014 at 11:50 PM

        @ > Too many termites.
        It’s good that the 1st letter in your name is R instead L.

  15. J.M.

    March 3, 2014 at 10:53 AM

    @ > As the saying goes, “you can’t take it with you”

    Then I ain’t going

    @ One doesn’t escape their clutches; one merely doesn’t enter into their clutches to begin with.

    Most of us, unlike you, were born into their clutches from the gitgo. We were not blessed enough as you were, apparently were, & taught by our parents all the knowledge they taught you. Your Parents had enough knowledge to REFUSE to accept a birth certificate for & in YOUR behalf. . Yes, I know.

  16. J.M.

    March 3, 2014 at 10:58 AM

    @ > noncombatants?

    Most of us ARE combatants in SOME way. We don’t live on welfare or gumunt handouts or are gumunt agents in any manner.

    • J.M.

      March 3, 2014 at 6:42 PM


      • UglyTruth

        March 4, 2014 at 1:27 AM

        They must have got raptured or something. ;)

      • christopher

        March 4, 2014 at 10:01 AM


  17. J.M.

    March 4, 2014 at 12:17 PM

    @ >They must have got raptured or something. ;)

    I think at least one ofumm got captured. We live & learn. Something is lost but there is also something gained. I don’t have to remember what I say. Some people forget what they said, previously, to their own demise, later. Most people don’t understand anything I just said.

  18. dougstehling

    March 9, 2014 at 12:24 PM

    Indorsed Bill Remedy – links

    Hi Alfred,

    This is FYI… if you want to be updated on this remedy that incorporates Boris’s and my research, and the feedback on same from these two groups.


    P.S. You may forward this to Boris… to start a discussion among us if you like.

  19. ccgreyseal1

    March 24, 2014 at 11:58 AM

    This guy’s lawsuit, a bit convoluted, is right on!
    part 38 of the Lieber Code
    “The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.”
    CHATTEL: an item of tangible movable or immovable property except real estate and things (as buildings) connected with real property

    The foreclosure laws in Florida are for “Chattel mortgages”.

    2012 Florida Statutes

    (comment) all the following sections are procedures, the procedures have to have a law, known as a “Statute”, in section 702.03,’certain foreclosure validated” the statute is listed as section 3845 RGS, section 3845 deals with ‘Chattel Mortgages”, personal property, or land grants known as “possessory title to federal or state land”. The “lands’, are administered through the former, ‘Internal Improvement Agency’, the forerunner of the Department of Interior, AKA, the Commodity Credit Corporation, Department of Agriculture.
    702.01 Equity.—All mortgages shall be foreclosed in equity. In a mortgage foreclosure action, the court shall sever for separate trial all counterclaims against the foreclosing mortgagee. The foreclosure claim shall, if tried, be tried to the court without a jury.
    History.—RS 1987; GS 2501; RGS 3844; CGL 5747; s. 7, ch. 22858, 1945; s. 2, ch. 87-217.
    (comment) The court of Equity is the replacement for the court of Chancery, if you read the following links, all proceedings are to be in a court of chancery. A court of chancery was established to litigate matters concerning property owned by the KING. Furthermore, a court of equity exists,(no jury) because there is no remedy in a court of common law. This is why Florida courts are ignoring the common law.
    702.03 Certain foreclosures validated.—All mortgage foreclosures heretofore made, or now pending, wherein there has been annexed to the bill of complaint in such cause, an uncertified copy of the mortgage, as provided by chapter 12095, Acts of 1927, entitled: “An act to amend section 3845 RGS relating to complaint in foreclosure of mortgages” are hereby validated and confirmed insofar as they relate to the copy of the mortgage attached to such complaint, to the same extent and effect as if section 3117, RGS, had been expressly repealed by chapter 12095, 1927, entitled: “An act to amend section 3845 RGS relating to complaint in foreclosure of mortgages.” History.—s. 1, ch. 13642, 1929; CGL 1936 Supp. 5748(1).

    Ch. 683.01 – Florida State University College of Law…/FlaStat1967v2_OCR_Part33.pdf‎

    687.09 Persons accepting chattel mortgage as security for loans under one hundred …… act to amend section 3845 RGS relating to complaint in foreclosure of …

    1. [PDF]
    Florida Statutes 1961, Volume 2 – Florida State University College of ……/FlaStat1961v2_OCR_Part27.pdf‎
    o Cached
    o Share

    Persons accepting chattel mortgage as security for loans under one … section shall not apply to sales of bonds in RGS 4852; CGL 6939. excess of one hundred

    1. Florida Statutes Volume Florida State University College of – Docstoc…/Florida-Statutes-Volume-Florida-State-University-C…‎
    o Cached
    o Share

    Oct 20, 2012 – No chattel mortgage shall upon him, and in such case , the publication ….. acts of 1927, entitled: “An act to amend section 3845 RGS relating to …

    This procedure is based on ‘Marketable Title Act”

    Almost all states have adopted the UNIFORM MARKETABLE TITLE ACT, (the definition of ‘real property” is a leasehold) (mineral lands), other states have the “Torren land Title”(Colorado), both are based on the ‘presumption” the state has leased the land to the occupant. When a person secures a loan to purchase property, the property is listed under the system, property taxes are assessed on the recordings, and “bank foreclosures are based on the recordings, a form of eminent domain.

    4. “Real estate.” The definition provides that real estate is the legal relationship
    (interest) a person has against the world with respect to the land. It includes both the common law estate and easements and other incorporeal hereditaments. The term is also used, if the context warrants, to refer to the physical object (the land) in which the interest exists.
    *Leaseholds are defined as real estate for the purposes of this Act. However, the treatment of leaseholds as “real estate” is only for the purposes of this Act and is not intended to change other law, such as the law on decedents’ estates, under which leaseholds may be treated as personal property. (chattel)

  20. Bobby

    April 8, 2014 at 1:13 AM

    Hello all. Does anyone know where one can download Boris’ interview with Alfred? I can’t seem to find a link to it anywhere.

    Thanks in advance.

    • Adask

      April 8, 2014 at 9:58 AM

      I have no copy. I don’t think Frank (the producer) saved a copy. Perhaps someone else made their own copy and might respond to your request.

    • Bobby

      April 8, 2014 at 1:04 PM

      Hopefully so. Thanks for your reply.

  21. truman

    September 4, 2014 at 7:06 PM

    hi Al, it would be nice to listen to archived shows of yours.Ive been searching for more material on this surrender remedy by Boris and that lead me to your site again. I end up here from time to time like that.

    so now that you and others have had more time to digest Boris’s ideas, could you share your thoughts on it Al & others? I find it very compelling.

    havnt found a discussion forum where Boris and his group converse about this. anyone ?


    • Adask

      September 4, 2014 at 7:51 PM

      Hi Truman. Here’s the problem. I get so much information that I can’t read it all, nor can I even remember most of whatever I’ve read. Boris may be at the forefront of your consciousness, but he’s been lost in the river of data that’s flowing through and around my mind. Thus, I can’t comment on Boris’ strategies because I don’t remember what they are. Perhaps others recall Boris more clearly and can respond to your questions. I cannot.

  22. Sylvie

    February 7, 2015 at 2:41 PM

    My dream retirement just includes that I’m able bodied enough to enjoy it. I suppose I’d just like to live by water.


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