This is a work in progress.

The posts below are complete (but with what I consider irrelevant posts
omitted) up until the day Bill signed off, with a few past that date. Please do look at posts made for
some time after Bill left; there are still some gems among them from folks in-the-know.

The topic headings below are most every topic Bill posted under, often more than once. These are
not every single post by Bill, as I didn’t include some that were meant to merely keep the group on
track.

These topic headings are in the order they were started. All but the first 2 links below take you to the
forum posting online. Below these are all relevant (once again, by my thinking) posts from all
members, numbered in sequence. The ‘re.’ with a number after some of the posts refers to the post
that post is in response to.

Description

THE WALL OF SILENCE IS CRACKING. A growing number of people HAVE SUCCESSFULLY

REDEEMED their birth certificate accounts and all the securities issued against it. Some have had
breakthroughs in redeeming liens and Case bonds predictably, closing cases, taking control of the trusts that are
created with the deposit of every charging instrument, and forcing judges to dismiss or return the court
securities. Many of us know people who have secured do-not-detain orders, black cards, DTC entry, warehouse
release and REPEATABLE setoffs. We’ve seen mortgages released by claiming our interest in the note AND
mortgage (didn’t WE issue it?) We’ve seen various ways to monetize instruments and deposit securities into
banks just like a Court deposits an indictment (we have the smoking gun). If this interests you, WELCOME TO
OUR GROUP.

Please note:
1. THE STRAWMAN CANNOT REDEEM ANYTHING. It’s chartered only as a debtor. This is why your
1099s and acceptances keep failing.

2. IRS CANNOT SERVICE LIVING MEN. The living have no standing among the walking dead.

3. IRS WILL NOT RECOGNIZE YOUR EXECUTOR. The way most people have been taught, the Executor
still lacks the one specific qualification IRS requires to act as your collection agency.

The IRS controls the portal to the Matrix.

The key to using IRS properly is to understand security futures (15 USC 77ccc) and the trust that’s created
when you hand them your signature and they falsely presume themselves to be the beneficiary.

Learn how to control those implied trusts,

restore ourselves as beneficiaries,
reclaim all of our securities through STRENGTH AND KNOWLEDGE,
And LEGALLY employ IRS as THE GRANTOR’S collection, setoff and refund agency.

#2 re. #1
Re: FORECLOSURE MESS
joshuasdad100

Hi Carl,

This may be shocking, but demanding to see the note is the exact opposite of what we want. When a bank
forecloses, it's ADMITTING that it possesses the note. That's where we want them because it's an admission
that THE BANK HAS THE OBLIGATION TO PERFORM, not you. By trying to foreclose, it's telling you
that it accepted a security, its RIGHTS OF RECOURSE ARE DISCHARGED under the UCC (3-311, 3-603
and 604), and therefore the bank owes YOU money, NOT the other way around.

Something else is even more important. Its admitting that YOU hold the security interest in the note. If you
think about that, you may see some remedies since security interests control all the world's property.

More importantly, YOU HOLD THE SECURITY INTEREST IN THE MORTGAGE TOO. Yes I know it
says you give them the interest. But under public policy, the words don't matter. Think of a promissory note.
Before 1933, it signified your debt to the bank. Now, the bank enters the promissory note as a debit to their
assets - meaning an increase in assets. IT'S THE PAPER WITH YOUR SIGNATURE THAT COUNTS. It's
a security. Read the definition under 15 USC 77ccc. YOU signed the mortgage. It's YOUR security. THEY
have the obligation to perform on the security by exchanging it for equal value (just like giving a check to the
bank in return for currency), namely the release of the mortgage. OR YOU CAN DECLARE YOUR CLAIM
OR RETURN OF YOUR SECURITIES. You would have to know how to collapse the trusts.

So YOU hold TWO security INTERESTS. THEY hold the securities. Who is supposed to perform???? By
having failed to return the securities or give you equal value such as a release of the mortgage, THEY
COMMITTED SECURITIES AND TAX FRAUD, and you can prove it easily. The bank knows that their
books will show that they NEVER PAID TAXES ON THE GAIN. We WANT the bank to be the holder. If you
demand to see the note, you're handing the attorney an easy win because you're admitting you abandoned it.

You might begin thinking about how you might demand THEY PERFORM on the note or use their failure to
perform against them. "Where is my value?" "Show me the tax forms that declared it at a taxable gain since
you've construed that I abandoned the property." And so forth.

Whoever holds a security has the OBLIGATION OF PERFORMANCE. They are required to exchange it for
equal value. That's the real message in HJR 192. If you don't know how to collapse the trusts, how can you use
subpoena, discovery, procedure, trusts and such to place them on the defensive? You might glance at Articles 8
and 9 of the UCC.

Unless you know how to reclaim your account and securities which is the only real winner. That can't be done
by the strawman, the living man or even the executor as most people have constructed it. You have to have the
very specific status IRS requires to process your forms when you foreclose on them. So unless you know how to
reclaim the original trust, you've got to process their performance obligation inside the box.

That's where the UCC comes in. UCC does not apply to the mortgage as a private trust, but IT SURE AS HECK
applies to the note and the mortgage as a security future. I would keep it short and simple. See 8-102, 3-305, 3-
306, and especially 3-105. "Excuse me, did you pay the taxes on the secondary issue when you issued the bank
certificates against my note, or did you construe that it was a tax-exempt original issue because you presumed I
had abandoned my security?"

#4 re. #2
Re: FORECLOSURE MESS
thebradleys2012

On Carl's foreclosure, he mentioned collapsing the trusts (plural) a couple of times. Carl, you may think he was
referring to the mortgage trust, but I'm sure he was referring to the trust that's created when you give them a
security. When someone accepts a security they're obligated to perform on it. Our big problem is that the trust is
implied, and so the judge presumes that the plaintiff and/or the court are the beneficiaries and we're the trustee.
You need to defeat that presumption IMMEDIATELY. I believe that’s what joshuasdad was implying. You do
that in a case and you can expect the judge to run from the room, call a recess or get very nervous. The trustee's
the one who is obligated to perform on the security. I hope this helps you out Carl. Sheila
#7 re. #5
Re: FORECLOSURE MESS-COLLAPSING THE TRUST
joshuasdad100

You are absolutely right Sheila! I was suggesting that Carl appoint the Court (the court is the judge's public
trust: JUDGE TIM TERRIBLE) as trustee of the trust created by the deposit of the bank's foreclosure complaint
security in the Court's books, and order the trustee to exchange the Complaint security for a dismissal order
security. When the trustee fails to perform, he's breached the trust and loses his appointment, so the trust loses
legal title and trusteeship reverts to Carl which means that he is now the sole trustee and beneficiary - which
collapses the trust under trust law AND under statutes, Sec 402(a)(1) of the UCT (Uniform Trust Code) if it's a
public trust. Bill

#8 re. #7
Re: FORECLOSURE MESS-COLLAPSING THE TRUST-you foreclose on them brother
asiaticmigra...

Good group-thanks for taking me. We’ve been doing this too. They do tremble when someone who knows how
to restructure the trust does it to them. They issued the bond before you got there so they’re on the hook as
surety if you don't accept the role of trustee by telling them you’re the strawman. Under that UTC the guy
mentioned, section 407 says you can do it orally right in court. you do it right back to the original date of the
indictment. Sec 416 lets you do that retroactively so now they’re stuck with being the trustee and you tell them
to exchange the security, like he said, the complaint or indictment, for the dismissal; it don’t matter. What
you’ve done is foreclosed on them brother. They foreclosed on you by presuming you breached the mortgage.
You foreclose on them by showing they breached on the trust when they deposited the security and didn’t
perform. Now they’re screwed because they have to perform by dismissing or returning all the securities to you
since they were issued against your credit, the estate. Hey judge, here's what you got to do. Dismiss or give me
back all them securities and all the money you’ve been making. This is a good group-tying it all together-
securities, trusts, estates.

#10 re. #8
Re: FORECLOSURE MESS
cnj_trustee

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU ALL!!! This is the first time anyone's said anything worth
listening to. I'm a broker who deals in trusts but I NEVER EVER thought about using that knowledge in court.
Would you be able to answer some questions please?.....
1. You said I can do it orally, what about a trust indenture? Can I issue one re the case or the directly to the
bank?
2. I don't see the complaint as being a security. Can you steer me to the law on this?
3. What do you mean I foreclose on them? Where's my standing to do that?
Carl

#11 re. #10

Re: FORECLOSURE- Expressing the trust / Foreclosing ON THE BANK
joshuasdad100

Carl, you can apply your trust experience to convert the implied Court trust into an express trust so you can
foreclose on them...

Q1. Yes. That's exactly what I do. They have an implied trust which is created when they deposit of the
Complaint into the Court's books. I convert it into AN EXPRESS TRUST, meaning a trust with exact written
directives which tells them the Grantor's specific intentions and directives to exchange the securities. THIS
ENDS ALL THEIR FAULTY PRESUMPTIONS (like they're the beneficiary, I'm the trustee, I have to
perform, etc). With your experience you may be able to dope this out in theory, but you need to include the
specific directives that require them to complete the tax forms on the transfer taxes and capital gains if they fail
to exchange the securities so that the IRS can collect the trust's property (the tax they withheld when they failed
to return your securities to you). On the other hand, your experience may be a deficit. Most people have to
unlearn much of what they were taught about securities, trusts, estates and the like. The patriot "crapola" as you
called it is often wrong. For instance, ZYA is backwards. The strawman can't possibly order a setoff. Many
well-intentioned gurus are still trying to do that but its from the dark ages. The reason I know is because I was
taught by a former agency employee years ago.

Q2. In this monetary system, just about everything with a signature is a security future. You might lookup the
definition of security in Title 15 (77ccc and 78(a)(1)), legal def of SF, and read the applicable ref in the
Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Isn't a complaint or indictment an assessment seeking someone
to perform in the future?

Q3. As to foreclosure: the bank is foreclosing on your strawman because it presumes that it breached the trust
by stealing the beneficiary's property when it failed to pay. Didn't the mortgage name the bank or its agent as
beneficiary? When you breach, the trust collapses as noted in Sec. 402 of the Uniform Trust Code as Sheila
pointed out and legal title to the trust property reverts back to the grantor. When legal and equitable title
(interest) merge, you have a foreclosure. It's better if we foreclose on them, don't you think?

We can do this because the trust created by the deposit of the security in their books precedes the trust created
within the mortgage. The mortgage IS FIRST A SECURITY. As someone mentioned (maybe it was me), the
words in the mortgage don't matter any more than the words matter in a promissory note. Banks treat them as
assets. That's important to remember.

Q3a. Standing. YES, THAT'S THE KEY. You can't claim your securities yourself. They presumed you
abandoned them at age 25. So you've got to use a proxy. THIS IS KEY. Otherwise the IRS won't accept your
returns. I think a lot of people wasted big bucks learning how to craft the executor, because the fact is the
executor also lacks that standing. This sudden slew of "mentors" either do not know or aren't telling their
"students." But it's actually fairly easy to get that status once you understand the principles of trusts, estates,
taxes and securities. Every minute spent on doing acceptances without proper status is time away from life. Bill

#15 re. #13

Re: Trial Hearing 8/2/12-The Bank needs to perform.
joshuasdad100

They're walking over you because you don't understand how admiralty court works.

If you ask and they fail to provide, you can compel with a hearing to show cause why they should not be held in
contempt.

Have you downloaded the Call Reports for the bank for the period when the loan began? Schedules RC-Balance
Sheet (Line 13) and RC-E-Deposit Liabilities (line 7) will prove that the amount the bank deposited from your
promissory note is equal to the amount they issued as a deposit liability owed to you. Now you start asking the
hard questions. Why they haven't paid you the liabilities they owe you? Where's the 1099-A or C in which they
claimed you abandoned your interest? Did they file a tax return reporting the capital gains when they failed to
return your security of the deposit liabilities???

But all of that's still fighting. It is better to claim the securities, but you first have to have proper status to do that
since they construed you abandoned them years ago.

In chambers, if you prove the deposits equal the deposit liabilities, then you can demand performance on YOUR
securities, namely the note and the mortgage itself. The mortgage is YOUR security. YOU signed it. The fact
that it says you're giving them an interest is irrelevant if you take control of the trust that was created when they
deposited it. At that exact moment, they became the debtor and the trustee on the deposit trust, and THEY owe
YOU performance. So that's when we demand they exchange the mortgage security for a notice of release
security OR return all securities to the Grantor (you) INCLUDING all of the profits.

Obviously you lack the knowledge to do this at this time, but here's the link to download the call reports:

https://cdr.ffiec.gov/public/

If it doesn't work, then just Google "call reports download" and look for the FDIC webpage then link over to
FFIEC. Good hunting. Bill

#14 re. #12

Re: FORECLOSURE- OVERVIEW
joshuasdad100

Now what? You establish your status properly so that IRS will process papers, you learn all you can, you take
control of the trust that was created when you deposited your securities with the bank (to clean up the
underlying issue) AND you take control of the court trust created when they deposited your securities (the
summons and complaint) into the courts books. Then you appoint them trustee and wait or them to breach.
When they do, it's foreclosure.

To answer your other questions, until you have the education, it's generally best to stick with what you know. In
my experience, paying someone almost never works. If I was the judge, I'd test you and you would fail the first
time UNLESS you've mastered the knowledge and established proper status.

I suggest using delaying tactics till you're up to speed. If you want, I'll send you my contact information by
private email. Bill

#26 re. #25

Re: Trial Hearing 8/2/12-The Bank needs to perform
asiaticmigra...

You need call reports for the issuing bank. the servicing co don’t matter none. They got them at the site he told
you. thrifts and credit unions got to file them but they at other sites. If its a credit union you got to check
national cu assoc. You got to do research. Wikipedia got good information. Not sure if status he refer to and
what I do the same, but it kind of like asking to show me how to overhaul an engine. status only one step if you
take this direction and claim your securities. you got to learn all about trusts and trust banking and securities and
the biggest thing is you got to know how to work with the agency. that took me a long time and I still learn as I
go do my things. One thing I learned a long time ago is to not use anything I haven't mastered. that
is trouble. I’d rather loose a house than do that. What state are you in? Where you at in foreclosure? How longs
it been on?

#27 re. #25

Re: Trial Hearing 8/2/12- One other thing...
asiaticmigra...
Any evidence you bring to trial you should authenticate at the SOS in your state. See his website for how they
do it there. Otherwise they do nothing with it. People learn that the hard way and still don’t correct it. like the
CUSIP’s. if you bringing them in, then you got to demand they perform on them or return them. if you doing all
this, you got to know something about being a creditor. but like the guy said, the strawman ain’t got no creditor
chops. you can assign the lien if you got one to someone else, but it cant be no strawman that IRS got trustee
right in. like I said, best to use what you know if you don’t know about something new. houses come an go. I
seen many of them over the years. peace of mind don’t come cheap.

#41
Status - what is it? [Bill says this post is right in every point.]
peterpapoulias

It's all about status. This is true. But what is status? Well for the answer we need to understand the way it's all
setup.

The system is dead. Meaning its all paper. Paper is dead. But raises a question. If we read the cestui-que vie act
of 1666 we find that your estate was probated (proven up) and placed in a cestui-que trust (your BC). Your BC
is the debtor as it is borrowing from your estate to acquire title to property (a legal interest). You sign as the
trustee of the BC trust granting the authority to ledger against it. The cestui-que vie act of 1666 says that you are
a decedent (presumed dead) and that the judge will act as the executor and instruct you as the trustee of the trust
to do some performance to settle with the adverse party who is claiming tendency on your farm (estate). They
are maintaining that they are entitled to the produce (labor, energy) that your farm produces. But the cestui-que
vie act says if you can prove you are alive then all tendency reverts back to you. How. do we prove we are alive
in a dead system?

In admiralty and equity we must show we have the highest claim. That makes us the entitlement holder (highest
creditor). Entitlement holder is the key.

But how do we do that? People have tried but they are missing some key elements to success. Know this,
establishing entitlement over the debtor is how we establish that we are alive in this dead system.

We want to follow Rockefellers advice. Own nothing and control everything. Redeeming your BC (not such
what means really) the way PTK describes IS NOT the way to do it. It's like taking your car out of the race. We
just want a new driver.

More on this next time. Do your research. You will find that the. cestui-que vie act has been codified in state
law for every state.

#48 re. #43

TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
joshuasdad100

TOPIC: THE TWO PARTS TO STATUS.............

When you sign that agency or bank coupon, which is the asset side of the presentment, you create a new
security. You OWN that one. This is NOT a good thing.

OWNERSHIP'S A LIABILIITY. They won't process any security from an owner. The owner's a debtor, a
trustee with the obligation to perform on the security (at least in their eyes).

THE SECURITY NEEDS TO BE PLACED INTO THE HANDS OF A QUALIFIED PARTY WHO HOLDS
THE SECURITY INTEREST, a holder in due course. Haven't security interests ruled society for centuries?
But you probably have a security interest in the strawman right? The problem is that yours, mine, all of ours
from 1999 through now, and most people still doing them, are fatally flawed because the living man doesn't
exist in the admiralty world of res. When you file that UCC, the secured party is AUTOMATICALLY
CONVERTED INTO A TRUST, and since a trust already exists with the same name, it reverts back to the
STRAWMAN trust in which the agency's a trustee. You're dead on arrival. Defect 1.

In order to process the security, you need a proxy who the agency will recognize as having a security interest in
admiralty, AND a second proxy who has all of their approvals and qualifications to collect on it. (Most do not.
Defect 2.)

Both of those proxies need to be constructed so the AGENCY DOES NOT HAVE RIGHTS AS A TRUSTEE
(defect 3 for many). The first must have a RECOGNIZABLE proper lien in the security. The other is the holder
in due course of the security interest AND has all the qualifications for the agency to do the processing. (Most
patriot liens are defective for a very simple procedural error-defect 4).

The trick is to thread the needle to acquire those bells and whistles without inadvertently allowing the agency to
get its hooks into them as a trustee. THAT'S WHERE WE'VE ALWAYS SCREWED UP (defect 5).

So there are really two stages in getting prepared:

S ecured
P arty
L ienor
A nd
S ecured
H older

S P L A S H (easy to remember).

A properly done process isn't complicated. It's a fraction of what people have been through if they've set up a
decedent estate paying by the hour. But it's the understanding that's critical to success. Ignorance IS FATAL. So
when the Ice Cream man comes calling, you can tell him exactly what to do on your behalf, and why. That's
when the do-not-detain orders start happening behind the scenes.

Check out the posting just before this one from a "Peter." He' right on target. If you've ever done an estate
process, then presumably you know that the estate's a trust also. EVERYTHING'S A TRUST. When you hand a
guy a piece of paper, you've created a trust relationship, and HE now has the obligation to perform (see my next
posting on this). This blog is about wisdom from people like Peter. We are blessed.

#49 re. #28 & #32

TOPIC: THE REVERSE MORTGAGE SECURITY TRUST RELATIONSHIP
joshuasdad100

First Mate & cseafreak, Yes, the trust relationship is created when you present the security. The recipient is the
trustee with the obligation to perform on the security. He has limited of legal title and you, the beneficiary, have
equitable title a/k/a equitable interest (as you said cseafreak, because you put the equity in). What they do is
turn it around and presume to be the beneficiary and that you're the trustee. THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST
VALUABLE NUGGETS OF KNOWLEDGE FOR ANY PATRIOT. Nice work. (Members can ref. posting
#28 and #32 for good information.)

MORTGAGE
Nowhere is this more clear than with a mortgage. It's worded to make the bank the beneficiary and give all of
the trustee's duties to the Grantor. This would be laughable if not so sick. But the beauty is…IT DOESN'T
MATTER WHAT THE DOCUMENT SAYS.

MORTGAGE NOTE
Don't they enter the note as an asset (actually as an increase in assets, a debit on the left side of a T chart)?

Prior to 1933, a promissory note was evidence of the issuer's liability. After 1933, it became an asset to the
bank. They offset the asset posting with a liability posting on the right side of the equation (an increase in
liabilities, meaning a credit on the right side of a T chart). Those are the liabilities that they owe you which they
ignore through accounting trickery, but that's another topic.

REVERSE MORTGAGE
Don't you just love Fred Thomson telling you he's honored to be selling this crap? But EVERY MORTGAGE
IS A REVERSE MORTGAGE if you understand that its not the words in the mortgage that matters.

It's the security, not the words in it. When we hand the bank attorney the mortgage, he and the bank become the
trustee ON THE TRUST CREATED BY THE TRANSFER OF THE SECURITY. And if you have a security
interest in that instrument, the mortgage is DEAD ON ARRIVAL if you know what you're doing.

But now it's years later. Too late, right? Wrong. It's about how the security is deposited and exchanged. You're
right, First Mate. The exchange is retroactive (nunc pro tunc) to the day the mortgage was issued. This is a huge
defect in most people's procedures.

You're also right in the third paragraph of your email. If they don't perform, they've breached, the trust
collapses, and they're obligated to return all of your securities, including the one's they traded through Fidelity.

Doesn't mean banks will rollover. You've got to have status and real understanding as demonstrated by "Peter"
and yourself. See the last posting about status. It's critical. Bill

#50 re. #43

Re: Status - what is it?
peterpapoulias

There are a few mechanics involved (paperwork). Most important to know is, this system was setup for the
benefit of the beneficiary. Question is which beneficiary? And beneficiary of what exactly? Once you
understand that and how the admiralty system operates you can setup your claim and control everything.
Peter

#52 re. #33

TOPIC: LOST IN ESTATE. DON'T KNOW WHERE TO GO.
joshuasdad100

TO ALL THOSE STUCK WITH DECEDENT ESTATES........

SAFER search under the word "Estate" at DOT shows hundreds have constructed decedent estates. I keep
hearing the same complaint about "mentors" who took "donations," blasted all those who came before them
(good people like Jack Smith), but operated like PTK never answering calls or emails unless you offered more
money. Here are some things to think about.

1. The Estate is actually the surety for all the securities you and the public have issued against your credit.

2. If you bank with special deposit you cannot claim a refund later because the funds are never commingled
with the banks. Not one person I've spoken with is aware of this.
3. The Executor's information reports are ignored the way most people have constructed the office due to
various defects (see posting #48).

4. You also canNOT use the second entity, the irrevocable trust many have created, whether under your own
name or pseudonym, because it lacks the credentials the agency requires to process forms (see #48).

5. Despite your procedures, the IRS will maintain the position that it's a trustee on the strawman trust. So
working around it won't work. You have to employ the agency to perform as trustee.

6. The most critical deficiency is the lack of a proper security interest and lien. Filing the UCC-1 as so many
have done it is defective as the security interest has not been developed.

7. From what I've seen, many people remain confused about the difference between the estate David Clarence
was talking about, and the Estate they've tried to file as a secured party, and the PUBLIC ESTATE the agency
returns in the CP 575.

8. In most cases, there's no credentialed holder in due course of the security interest. I wish I could say this was
due to a lack of knowledge, but I believe the info was withheld in many cases because I have located some of
the "mentors'" credentials through internet search.

Despite all of this, I DON'T BELIEVE THE ESTATE MOVEMENT WAS A FAILURE. It got many pointed
in a better direction. My people perish from a lack of knowledge. I am disappointed that no one I've spoken to
really understands the implications of their bank account, positive AND negative.

#66 re. #65

TOPIC: TREASURY PROCESS
joshuasdad100

The Treasury process you describe is dated. Here are some thoughts:

- You don't endorse the BC on the back. You convert it into a new security on the front.

- No affidavit, proof of life, notices or other patriot stuff. That will identify you as a poor candidate for an
admiralty remedy.

- No indemnity or discharge bond.

- There are two critical elements:

(1) you cannot annotate the BC yourself, you don't exist in the admiralty. The Strawman can't do it, it's a pre-
programmed debtor. You need a proxy – [Authorized Representative for Grantor]. See posting #48. Probably 80
or 90 percent of previous filings are defective or this reason alone. This is an almost imperceptible change in the
indorsement . BUT IT'S A KEY FLAW THAT HAS SEPARATED THOUSANDS OF PATRIOTS FROM
THEIR SETOFFS.

(2) Your lien must be perfected in advance. The proof of claim IS your proof of status.

- You cannot be the holder in due course. You're the Grantor, maker, depositor, beneficiary, bailor, and a partial
trustee. But NOT the holder in due course. You need a second proxy for that. Again, see posting #48.

#69 re. #67

TOPIC: HOW YOU TAKE CONTROL OR CASH OUT.
joshuasdad100

PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY. First, your premise is incorrect: No black card. No do-not-detain order.
The Treasury process is only one step in such goals. It sets up an intermediary account for things one might
want to do later.

THE FIRST UNDERSTANDING...

98 PERCENT OF THE PROCESS IS UNDERSTANDING.

That's not hype. You can have a 300 page manual, template documents, a study group, a note from your mother
- IT DOESN'T MATTER. They will NOT comply unless you demonstrate you're ready by your knowledge.

IF YOU USE TEMPLATES - they will discard your papers.

IF YOU APPEAR SCRIPTED - they will toss your documents.
IF YOU SEEK THE CASH AND NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY - they will know AND will blow you off.

#73 re. #61

Re: TOPIC: LOST IN ESTATE. DON'T KNOW WHERE TO GO.
joshuasdad100

Special Deposit IS THE CRITICAL ELEMENT in rebuffing the Courts, offsetting liens, and such, Bill

In short:
In their system, everything's a security future; everything's a trust ( all demonstrated in their law), and special
deposit is how the trust property is handled. Bill

Special Deposit- You retain title to the deposit and the funds are segregated.
General Deposit- The title is transferred to the bank and the funds are commingled.

#75 re. #54

Re: Status - what is it?
peterpapoulias

You see this is the problem. THE PUBLIC SYSTEM IS DEAD/ONLY PAPER

The only way to show you’re "alive" is to show you hold the highest claim. That is what this is all about. UCC-
8, UCC-2 and UCC-9 spell it all out for you.

you are not being taken into court, the cestui-que trust is. But the trust is not yours. Only the estate within it is.
So think people. What do we need to do to TAKE CONTROL.

All this sovereignty stuff (although true) DOES NOT APPLY HERE as the system is DEFACTO not de jure.
So here we have someone claiming that the statutes don’t apply to the sovereign yet they quote state to support
the sovereign position.

The only thing that matters is the estate, the claim on the estate, trespass, and entitlement. ALL ADMIRALTY.

Now if you are the plaintiff you can convene whatever kind of court you want. But these threads deal with
foreclosure, etc...

First of all we don’t want to take over sole control. We don’t want to collapse anything.
Remember anything they can do we can do as well. Their power comes from us so if they claim a power then
we must have it as they claim we delegated it to them.

Think about this.

THE PUBLIC DEBT

1 Who is it owed to?

2 Where is it ledgered?
3 How can we adjust the books?
4 How are they stealing our exemption?

Look you can setup any system you want. But since everything is voluntary none is required to participate in it.
There is a system in place. Read invisible contracts. This will help you understand.

#95 re. #90 & #86

TOPIC: SPLASH: FINAL WORD ON STATUS, STUDIES, CONSENSUS---for this Group
joshuasdad100

TO ALL MEMBERS, Robyn & California Girl in particular.........I understand your frustration. You're
confused. You're floundering. You don't know what's right or where to turn. One person says this, another says
that. I suggest re-reading the introduction on the Group's home page.: "THE CURTAIN IS CRACKING." If
you open your eyes and ears, you may find that those who know how to unravel the Matrix are among us.

Patriots have long believed they could learn rocket science at a two day seminar. It takes 7 years past high
school to become a lawyer. 13 to become a brain surgeon. Those regimens have structured education, classes,
homework, and apprenticeships.

And yet we presume we can take on the Courts, the IRS, the banks, the world, and gain status as beneficiaries of
the public trust, after a weekend seminar. Somehow we see salvation in a handful of paper templates. We rely
on emails and advice from strangers at blogs. Is it possible that these outlandish preconceptions have
contributed to our problems?

At THIS Group, the word "status" does NOT mean sovereignty, common law, postmaster, kingdom of heaven,
Turtle Island, or living on the county. Those may be fine concepts , but THEY HAVE NOT RELEVANCE TO
THE DESIRE TO RULE ADMIRALTY AND COMMERCIAL, rather than fight them. I'm eliminating all such
postings to keep the information concise and streamlined, and avoid confusing beginners even more. No offense
intended to the members who posted them.

For our purposes, the concept of status means the prestige to control the admiralty:
- standing developed using the public's own rules and regulations,
- qualifications to cash out entirely if you so choose (yes, it's been done), and
- mandatory credentials required by the agency to recognize our priority claim and process our setoffs,
acceptances, refunds, recoupments, directives, exchanges, dispositions, special deposits, claims, acquisitions,
foreclosures and revestitures.

THAT LITTLE LIST OF TRANSACTIONS IS A FORMIDABLE ARSENAL It's all one needs to function in
society, control property, and repel trespassers. If you understand the requirements and processes for making
them happen, then you don't need to be reading this.

But if you do not, then the significance of these transactions will remain elusive until you do.
THIS IS WHY I SAY THAT UNDERSTANDING IS 98 PERCENT OF THE REMEDY. It's really that simple.
You do not become Neo on templates and emails. With mastery of your securities and the trusts they create, it
doesn't matter if you are dragged into Court in irons, slapped with a summons, foreclosed, liened, or visited by
CID. Each one of those events is another opportunity to teach the public that the price is too high to mess with
you. Because, you're in charge and they will know it seconds after you open your mouth. It's the knowledge, the
confidence, the look in the eye, the ability to enforce on the fly.

WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING, you are likely to fold your cards at the first challenge when your heart seizes
in your chest.

It's the difference between Bruce Lee and everyone else.

As to consensus, I know a handful of people (at most) qualified to teach these things. It easily takes about 20 -
40 hours of discussion to gain a handle depending on intellect and experience, and another 40 - 80 hours of
home study and confirmation for reasonable understanding, or substantially more if you intend to read the
actual laws in their entirety and the many fine books on admiralty, trust, banking, estate, tax, and contract law.
It all depends on one's threshold for mastery. Do you want to master any Court situation? Get annual refunds?
Exploit the banking advantages? Master it all? You get out what you put it, until one day the memories of
floundering are too weak to recall.

What I've given you is a truthful roadmap to freedom and peace. It may seem like a lot of effort to control a
system that belongs to us. But I see it as a tiny sacrifice compared to ten years of higher education or the
decades some of us have spent chasing our tails.

For me, the one thing that was most tangible when I finally "got it" was the sense that I was no longer spinning
my wheels. At that point, TRUTH BECAME SELF-EVIDENT. And you no longer need a "mentor" to steer
you straight. This was the Lord's doing by having blessed me with a wonderful teacher who, for some reason,
decided to pull back the curtain he/she had spent years protecting.

See Posting #69 for a bit of insight into the attributes which support the desire to learn.

P.S.....
So, Status without understanding will be as useless to you as all the previous attempts when you filed the Turner
documents.

BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE FILING. It's what you do with the claim – what you know how to do with it – after
the fact.

Just remember, that most of the filings are defective (see previous postings) because neither the strawman nor
living man have standing to pose a lien in admiralty. Bill

#100 repeated, but important

TOPIC: SPLASH: FINAL WORD ON STATUS, STUDIES, CONSENSUS---for this Group
joshuasdad100

TO ALL MEMBERS,
At THIS Group, the word "status" does NOT mean sovereignty, common law, postmaster, kingdom of heaven,
Turtle Island, or living on the county. Those may be fine concepts , but THEY HAVE NOT RELEVANCE TO
THE DESIRE TO RULE ADMIRALTY AND COMMERCIAL, rather than fight them. For our purposes, the
concept of status means the prestige to control the admiralty:
- standing developed using the public's own rules and regulations,
- qualifications to cash out entirely if you so choose (yes, it's been done),
and
- mandatory credentials required by the agency to recognize our priority claim and process our setoffs,
acceptances, refunds, recoupments, directives, exchanges, dispositions, special deposits, claims, acquisitions,
foreclosures and revestitures.

THAT LITTLE LIST OF TRANSACTIONS IS A FORMIDABLE ARSENAL It's all one needs to function in
society, control property, and repel trespassers. If you understand the requirements and processes for making
them happen, then you don't need to be reading this.

But if you do not, then the significance of these transactions will remain elusive until you do.

THIS IS WHY I SAY THAT UNDERSTANDING IS 98 PERCENT OF THE REMEDY. It's really that simple.
You do not become Neo on templates and emails. With mastery of your securities and the trusts they create, it
doesn't matter if you are dragged into Court in iron, slapped with a summons, foreclosed, liened, or visited by
CID. Each one of those events is another opportunity to teach the public that the price is too high to mess with
you. Because, you're in charge and they will know it seconds after you open your mouth. It's the knowledge, the
confidence, the look in the eye, the ability to enforce on the fly.

As to consensus, I know a handful of people (at most) qualified to teach these things. It easily takes about 20 -
40 hours of discussion to gain a handle depending on intellect and experience, and another 40 - 80 hours of
home study and confirmation for reasonable understanding, or substantially more if you intend to read the
actual laws in their entirety and the many fine books on admiralty, trust, banking, estate, tax, and contract law.
It all depends on one's threshold for mastery. Do you want to master any Court situation? Get annual refunds?
Exploit the banking advantages? Master it all? You get out what you put it, until one day the memories of
floundering are too weak to recall.

What I've given you is a truthful roadmap to freedom and peace. It may seem like a lot of effort to control a
system that belongs to us. But I see it as a tiny sacrifice compared to ten years of higher education or the
decades some of us have spent chasing our tails.

For me, the one thing that was most tangible when I finally "got it" was the sense that I was no longer spinning
my wheels. At that point, TRUTH BECAME SELF-EVIDENT. And you no longer need a "mentor" to steer
you straight. This was the Lord's doing by having blessed me with a wonderful teacher who, for some reason,
decided to pull back the curtain he/she had spent years protecting.

See Posting #69 for a bit of insight into the attributes which support the desire to learn. Bill

#115 re. #108

TOPIC: CRITICAL LESSONS- PLEASE CIRCULATE FAR & WIDE
joshuasdad100

THANKS FOR POSTING Bob. Please accept my comments in the spirit of learning.............

The major problem is that you didn't have a process at all, or rudimentary understanding of the arena or the
remedy. The Court sees that you are operating on a few scant threads of information. You see, the trust wasn't
created by your notice. Notice is a trust directive from the beneficiary. The trust was created by the deposit of
the complaint into the Court's books. That's when they issued the Case bond to Fidelity. As I've posted before,
the complaint is the initiating security future. You didn't understand how to control that deposit, how to convert
the trust from implied to express, how to exchange securities, and how to advise them on the tax reporting. You
didn't defeat the presumptions that they are the beneficiary and you are the trustee. There are no proxies in place
to enforce. And if you're the Grantor, why would you ask them to appoint a fiduciary? Without knowing it, you
turned any possible remedy on its ear by doing that. And so on and so on. A knowledgeable Grantor would have
set all of this right at the beginning and demonstrated the dire consequences if they trespass on the beneficiary's
funds (it's not pretty, and they now it).

From their perspective, you're a trustee gone bad, seeking to horde funds that belong to the beneficiary. They
also know they can walk all over you. Bill

#121 re. below

TOPIC: TRUTH ABOUT COUPONS & BILLS aka SECURITIES & TRUSTS
joshuasdad100

THE COUPON IS THE ASSET THAT BALANCES THE LIABILITY represented by the bill itself, keeping
the net worth equation balanced on the vendor's books. The bill is a trust indenture containing the terms of the
trust being established by the delivery of the coupon security to you (15 USC 77ccc). People have been skirting
around this information for years, without truly understanding it because they had no knowledge that it was a
security future OR that a trust relationship was being created.

Like any security asset, the coupon is just waiting to be guaranteed by a banker's acceptance, which then
becomes the new security future which transfers the obligation to perform to the drawee.

Keep in mind, sending these things to the CEO as recommended by PTK is a joke. Little chance they will
process them other than the occasional fluke. The problem is the flukes lead everyone else to false conclusions.
What you seek is DEPENDABLE setoff, unit for unit.

The strawman isn't a banker, and neither are you in their eyes no matter what you've been led to believe. To be a
banker in their system, you'd have to be a fiction. But we can certainly engage proxies to serve that role.
Bill
Re: Response from Credit Card Bank to A4V
Kim Switzer <switzerk51@...>

Coupon
The contractual interest obligation a bond or debenture issuer covenants to pay to its debt holders.
Coupon
The interest paid on a bond. That is, the coupon is the amount that the issuer must pay to the holder of
each bond in exchange for investing in that bond. Coupons usually are paid every six months. They are
called coupons because formerly they were represented by physical coupons on the bond certificate that
had to be clipped and returned to the issuer to receive the interest payment. With the advent of
computers, this has become much less common.
Coupon
1. The annual interest paid on a debt security. A coupon is usually stated in terms of the rate paid on a
bond's face value. For example, a 9% coupon, $1,000 principal amount bond would pay its owner $90 in
interest annually. A coupon is set at the time a security is issued and, for most bonds, stays the same
until maturity.
2. The detachable part of a coupon bond that must be presented for payment every six months in order to
receive interest. See also clip, coupon clipping. Wall Street Words: An A to Z Guide to Investment
Terms for Today's Investor by David L. Scott.

#122 re. below

TOPIC: WHICH IS G-D'S WAY...DO WE TAKE OR DO WE EXCHANGE?
joshuasdad100
Under public policy (PL 73-10), EVERYTHING is supposed to be an even exchange of securities. (HJR 192 is
not about insurance or other patriot beliefs.) When we exchange securities evenly with no gain, the exchange is
tax exempt and we all sleep better.

If the exchange is uneven, then someone owes taxes. Now why do you think people have problems with the
agency and the banks? Uneven exchanges CAUSE OUR OWN BOOKS TO GO OUT OF BALANCE. THIS is
why WE owe the tax most of the time.

I've heard many patriots say "It's all about taxes." In most cases they're simply quoting Jean Keating. I've heard
very few patriots articulate why. WE OWE TAXES BECAUSE OUR BOOKS ARE OUT OF BALANCE DUE
TO AN IMBALANCE IN THE EXCHANGE. For instance, the Court gives you nothing in exchange for using
your credit to issue the Court bond. Then it acquires the bond on a 1099. We no longer have an asset n our
books. Presto-instant unbalance.........UNLESS WE CORRECT IT.

I suggest it would be to your advantage to examine your commitment to a one-sided exchange on the premise
that the Lord created a system wherein his blessing to one is somehow a blessing to all. If He wanted everyone
to understand 1099s, don't you think he would have made that information plentiful like the stars in the sky?Bill

#124 re. #123

Re: TOPIC: CRITICAL LESSONS- PLEASE CIRCULATE FAR & WIDE
joshuasdad100

Asking them to appoint a fiduciary is the hammer. APPOINTING THEM as a trustee would be a wrench, and a
good start.

One thing I see all the time. When they give me a bill for $100K, I look at it as 100 units to be offset from one
ledger to another. The word "dollar" is an emotional trigger. For all of PTK's faults, he had a good courtroom
demeanor: "I'm here to collect the bond." Strictly business. Bill

#125 re. #114 (below)

Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
joshuasdad100

We keep the executor out of things mostly because it takes the message off track. Technically, an executor is a
trustee - he holds legal title - he has the obligation of performance - which means he's screwed most of the time.

But if you're clever, a grantor, the entity that gives the orders to Luca Brasi, can do all the magic tricks you
might wish to attribute to the executor AND it holds EQUITABLE INTEREST, if he is also the beneficiary.
And as all those folks who lost their houses to MERS can tell you, a security interest trumps ownership any day
of the week.

Notice, I did NOT say that we were the Grantor. Here's a riddle: We are. And we are not. (authorized
representative of the Grantor) Oh what a tangled web... Bill

#131 re. #129

Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
asiaticmigra...

This joshuasdad pretty clever. The real man don't figure in at all like you said down below. If he did, why
would you need some proxy? IRS ain’t no proxy ever except when you appoint them to do something specific.
They a trustee on all social accounts which is how they garnish and levy. That’s the reason you need proxies in
the first place so they got no trusteeship in the grantor and holder. Don’t that make perfect sense? gg, down
below you is right about some of what you say. We use the strawman as the trustee for some of this. but its not
the trustee for the trust the court's been construing against you. We appoint the Court - THE JUDGE TRUST -
to do that. Sound confusing but it really ain’t. Like the guy say, if they don’t perform then they put themselves
in foreclosure and we get the case bond back. But the part where you say the name is the grantor, that’s ain’t
right. The living man got no business in admiralty. See Rule 17 with your eyes open. It ain’t about bringing in
the real man it talks about allowing its attorney executor to re-present it.

You guys better be listening to what's going on here cause this guy may not be on planet earth long for what he
been telling you. You would be making BIG mistake if you read some of these posts and start doing sh--. I see
posts that would take weeks to diagram and explain so you know what you doing and how to get the right
enforcement. That would be a bad idea brother.

#143 re. below

Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
bobjohnsrepa...

(7) "Entitlement holder" means a person identified in the records of a securities intermediary as the
person having a security entitlement against the securities intermediary. If a person acquires a security
entitlement by virtue of Section 8-501(b)(2) or (3), that person is the entitlement holder.

§ 8-501 (b)(2) or (3)

(b) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (d) and (e), a person acquires a security entitlement if a
securities intermediary:
(3) becomes obligated under other law, regulation, or rule to credit a financial asset to the person's
securities account.

(17) "Security entitlement" means the rights and property interest of an entitlement holder with respect
to a financial asset specified in Part 5.

(14) "Securities intermediary" means:

(i) a clearing corporation; or

(ii) a person, including a bank or broker, that in the ordinary course of its business maintains securities
accounts for others and is acting in that capacity.

(5) "Clearing corporation" means:

(i) a person that is registered as a "clearing agency" under the federal securities laws;

(ii) a federal reserve bank; or

(iii) any other person that provides clearance or settlement services with respect to financial assets that
would require it to register as a clearing agency under the federal securities laws but for an exclusion or
exemption from the registration requirement, if its activities as a clearing corporation, including
promulgation of rules, are subject to regulation by a federal or state governmental authority.

#146 re. below

TOPIC: COURT, SECURITIES, CASE BOND & TRUSTS --THE INSIDE STORY
joshuasdad100

WHAT REALLY HAPPENS IN A COURT CASE AND WHY YOU can WIN…………….
Joel, every security the public issues to you IS SURELY YOUR security regardless of who issued them. Only
you can provide the labor (equity) and credit. Do public corporations have credit or equity to post a bond
without authorization from an Estate?.............Here's what really happens:

The prosecutor presents an indictment security to the Court (U.S. trust JUDGE TIM TERRIBLE) which
deposits it "generally" in the Court's books and issues a case number which creates the case trust with the
United States as the presumed beneficiary and the Court as depository institution.

That indictment is actually an assessment, an option dealing with specific performance in the future, a security
future defined under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (15 USC 78c), a bet against future performance. The
question is, who's going to underwrite (perform on) the bond?

First, they need a trustee. So they go fishing but they don't cast a line or bait a hook. They issue a summons or a
warrant – more futures - more bets against future performance.

Who do they intend to hijack as trustee? Your strawman naturally. Because like any vessel, it comes with a
surety, a guarantor………your Estate. That's what they're really targeting as surety for the case bond. Until you
appear and declare your name, they can't issue the case bond and start making dividends, right?

WRONG!!! They issued the bond when they issued the case number! So until you enter the Court and grant
them the presumption of jurisdiction, THEY are on the hook because they voluntarily committed securities
fraud by issuing worthless securities without an underwriter, and they also engaged in conspiracy to obstruct US
tax laws because they're liable for the taxes (until you consent) and they have no intention of reporting the gain
(the OID value of the bond). How do we know? They don't report any of the case bonds because they consider
them to be original issues, which are NON-taxable under the Securities Act of 1933.

The public can NOT claim your securities or else they would suffer a hellish capital gains tax liability. So they
seek to CONTROL your securities by presuming that they're the beneficiary and you're the trustee. Once you
sign that appearance bond, they have an underwriter (the Estate trust through the Strawman cestui que trust) so
they're off the hook for securities fraud, and they have a trustee (the strawman) who's responsible for paying the
taxes, so they're off the hook for tax fraud. THIS IS WHY THEY'LL DO ANYTHING TO GET YOUR
SIGNATURE ON THE APPEARANCE BOND AS A DEFENDANT TRUSTEE.

If you do not consent, they have an enormous problem. The case bond becomes a RE-issue, a secondary
offering of the original issue (your Estate bond, the birth bond issued by Treasury and traded for currency with
the Fed upon your birth). A secondary offering falls under the securities Exchange Act of 1934 AND IS NOT
TAX-EXEMPT, so the entire Fidelity fund where they sold the case bond is in jeopardy. This is a catastrophe
for the Court. DO you think this knowledge could mean power? KNOWLEDGE IS POWER when dealing with
these people, as the Father told us.

People have trouble seeing that everything the public issues with our name on it is a security future based on the
presumption that our Estate will pay in the future. They think that unless WE issue the paper, it's not ours. They
don't fully appreciate the difference between ownership and security interest. This is understandable. We
weren't born knowledgeable. The Warburg’s intended that we remain in darkness. An owner holds legal title,
meaning he's liable for taxes, insurance, upkeep, etc. In other words, he's responsible for performance, for all
the grunt work, which means he's the trustee by definition. But he doesn't see this because he doesn't really
understand trust law, and after all, "He's the owner!" He's living the American Dream. Think about that. We've
been conned into dreaming about ownership – the obligation to perform. The Rockefellers must be laughing all
the way to the bank.

In contrast, the beneficiary has a security interest, meaning he gets paid or else. He enjoys the distribution of the
trust property or he fires the trustee and all title and parties merge in him which is a foreclosure. That's how he
takes the property. The Courts exist to enforce security interests. That's what admiralty's about. That's why
patriots lose in Court. Read the special maritime rules regarding "in rem" procedures.

So if you continue to believe that they are not YOUR securities because you didn't issue them, then you're
destined for problems. Here's an analogy that may help. It's like when a husband takes control of his wife's
money. He doles out $100 so she can buy him beer. When she returns, he asks her for the change. It's HER
money, but HE'S pulling the strings and making the rules, the trust directives (just like the Dept of the
Treasury).

Then one day he comes home and finds the locks changed and the cops waiting for him. The wife is still buying
the household goods, but now she's back in control of the trust funds because the beneficiary (the wife) decided
she would fire the trustee.

In other words, one way or the other the Estate's paying the bills. But either the public controls the funds using
coercion, presumption and trickery to get you to consent, or you agree to pay up front and take them out of the
loop. This is why it's better to get dragged in and have the burden of proof on them, rather than to show up and
volunteer (unless you're completely confident in your knowledge of the information in this email).

Check the DTC operating arrangements. DTC (through dba Cede & Co) is the registered owner of most
securities. YOU'RE the beneficial owner. THEY have to follow the terms of the trust indenture. One way or the
other, your Public Estate is paying for the indictment security future.

The Public Estate is NOT the holder of a security interest……

The Public Estate is the Birth Certificate trust.

The Public Estate is the surety for the strawman's debts.
The Public Estate is the debtor on your security agreement in most (not all) cases.

When you take control of the Public Estate, you also take control of all trusts derived from it such as the
Strawman cestui que trust. A cestui que trust is simply the beneficiary of an estate that's held in trust. Your
strawman is the beneficiary of the public trust that has been presumed to be a trustee instead.

So whether you issue the securities or they issue them for you, they are YOUR securities because they're
derived from and underwritten by the Estate. (Subrogation)

UNDERSTANDING IS 98 PERCENT OF THE REMEDY.

TRUE KNOWLEDGE IS EMPOWERING. They hand you a bill, it's a setoff-in-waiting, an accounting
transaction, not a slap in the face. They drag you into Court, it's an opportunity to express your trust, appoint
your trustee, claim your bonds if they don't perform, capture the case bond, and demonstrate why they should
never ever mess with you again.

Understanding securities, estates and trusts is practical not theoretical. When the Court is returned back to the
role of Trustee, then ALL THE STATUTES AND CODES WHICH COMPRISE THE TRUST INDENTURE
FOR THE PUBLIC TRUST APPLY TO IT instead of the strawman, including the tax implications. Their
ability to ignore their own rules goes out the window and they revert to ministerial rather than discretionary
duty. Imagine a JUDGE TRUST that must follow the rules.

Re: status and setoff re. below

William Robert joshuasdad100@... Monday, July 16, 2012 7:56 PM
 You have no security interest in the BC (until you process a lien against it). The strawman is a
trustee on it and has the obligation to perform.

#178
CESTUI QUE VIE = BENEFICIARY
ladyfairfax3...

Hi everyone,

I'm new and I just want to throw this out here and see what response it gets. It seems to me all the uproar about
"1666 Cestui Que Vie Act" is just smoke and mirrors. In my research, it isn't really a bad thing that was done on
the face of it. What was bad is the lack of disclosure to the general population that it affects. The term Cuestui
simply means beneficiary. Sure they legally declare dead the beneficiary and don't bother telling us we are
supposed to claim something, but they are managing the assets for us. Here are a couple of examples to take the
emotional charge from the term. I just found this one... http://www.ielaws.com/modelInsuUSA.pdf and have
been reading this one for about 2 weeks now.
http://books.google.com/books/about/Handbook_of_the_Law_of_Trusts.html?id=9lvEAA\AAIAAJ

Anyone who has followed Clint Richardson's work "Corporation Nation," will have heard of the CAFR funds
held by all the counties and municipalities. Those are the unclaimed estates. We just have to figure out how to
re-express the trust and claim our proper role in the management of the assets. We keep being made the
negligent trustee. Sure that's what we act like, but no one told us the rules. It's not so hocus pocus and esoteric
once you are aware of who you are and they are notified to correct their presumptions.

#193 re. #187

TOPIC: GETTING RID OF DEBT COLLECTORS....PERMANENTLY.
joshuasdad100

the one sovereign sentient is correct. Getting rid of debt collectors is easy. ASK THEM TO VERIFY THE
DEBT by exhibiting Schedules RC-Balance Sheet, RC-E--Deposit Liabilities, RC-C--Loans & Leases, RC-L--
Derivatives and off-balance sheet items, RC-S--Servicing, securitization, and asset sale activities. Those are part
of the quarterly call reports required under 12 U.S.C. 1817(a)(1) (Federal Deposit Insurance Act). You can
actually download them yourself for the period of the loan origination at https://cdr.ffiec.gov/public/

Analyze the information if you understand double-entry bookkeeping, and ask them to disprove this, that and
the other thing.

You can also ask them for the tax reports on the capital gains when they re-issued your securities, an unaltered
copy of the original security, the cash receipt required under UCC 3-501(b)(2)(iii) and FASB Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards Number 95 disproving that the bank enjoyed accord and satisfaction of its
claim(s) thereby discharging all of its rights of recourse pursuant to N.Y.U.C.C. 3-311, and so on and so on.

THEY WILL IMMEDIATELY BACK-OFF BUT SOMEONE ELSE WILL BE BACK. THE ONLY WAY TO
ELIMINATE THE DEBT IS TO HAVE THEM FULFILL THEIR TRUSTEE OBLIGATION TO EXECUTE
A PROPER SETOFF AND RETURN THE RELEASE TO YOU, OR RETURN ALL OF YOUR SECURITIES
INCLUDING THE BANK NOTES ISSUED AGAINST YOUR ORIGINAL SECURITY AND THE
DERIVED PROFITS. IF THEY REFUSE, THEN THEY NEED TO EXHIBIT THE TAX DOCUMENTS ON
THE CAPITAL GAINS AND OTHER TAXES, OR WE ARE HAPPY TO DO IT FOR THEM. Bill

#198 re. #77

TOPIC: COLLAPSING A TRUST
joshuasdad100

We are not seeking to collapse anything (in most cases). The closest most will get to a collapse is in foreclosure,
a bank against you, or when a Court defaults on its obligations after being appointed Trustee, and the trust
collapses from the merger off all titles and roles back in the grantor (your proxy). Bill

#199
ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
joshuasdad100

DOES ANYONE KNOW WHY WE MARK THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE: "CHARGE THE SAME TO JOHN
HENRY DOE # 123-45-6789?" I have yet to meet anyone who understands the process of filing the BC and BC
Bond at Treasury.

The BC and BC Bond accomplish completely different tasks. The banker's acceptance noted on the BC
effectively says: "I never abandoned my claim. I realize I'm a bit late, but here's my acceptance signed by a
bona fide admiralty proxy. And to prove my claim, I've attached copies of UCC-1's demonstrating my lien
against the strawman trust and the assignment to another admiralty proxy."

We can express our claim this way because the public only presumed, but never expressed, a claim against our
securities. It can never make such a claim without filing papers with the agency that confesses a capital gains
tax liability for the gain. You take my securities; you pay the tax.

Did you know that the banker's acceptance SHOULD IDEALLY BE BACK-DATED to your 18th birthday? If
you did not, then the BC security was not claimed timely, and you cannot venture retroactively to settle liens,
loans and the like. (And you wonder why your acceptances fail?) If you accept it as of today, then you are
stuck with any bills which pre-date today. Does that make sense?

The reason we mark the acceptance "CHARGE THE SAME TO JOHN HENRY DOE # 123-45-6789" is
simple. WE ARE NOT PAYING ANYTHING AT THIS TIME. Read your B.C. Bond. It does two things, and
neither involves paying the accumulated debts of the strawman in the Individual Master File. (For all the people
who malign Winston and the other gurus, can you see that Winston knew exactly what he was doing?)

First, the BC Bond directs the Secretary to open an account for the purpose of offsetting future bills. Basically,
you're opening an account to leverage future securities.

HEY, ISN'T THAT WHAT THEY DO IN COURT as I explained in posting # 146 (Court, Securities, Case
Bond & Trusts--The Inside Story). They file the complaint or indictment and open a Court account to leverage
securities. The first security issued is the summons (civil) or an arrest warrant (criminal) - both of which
comprise an arrest of the vessel in admiralty. (Like everything else in the public, the term "criminal" is merely a
delusion to stimulate fear.) In both cases, they arrest the vessel to entice an owner, banker or creditor to appear
and post bond. THEY ARREST THE VESSEL TO GET TO THE SURETY. And who's the surety? THE
ESTATE, of course. That's the Admiralty Game.

AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE DO WITH THE B.C. BOND AND OUR BANKER'S ACCEPTANCE.
If you read the BC Bond you will see that it is "funding" this new leveraging account in the amount of 100
billion dollars........

Who's the surety for the funding?......THE ESTATE, of course. We are accessing the Estate through the
strawman, just like they do in court.
And where do the funds come from?........OUR LIEN AGAINST THE ESTATE, duh. That's why we include
copies of the UCC-1's.

So now you know that the UCC-1 notices of lien are serious business (IF you did them correctly which almost
no one does).

And now you know why we "CHARGE THE SAME TO THE JOHN HENRY SMITH # 123-45-6789."
We do it to access the Estate just like the Court's do. We charge the strawman account through the maritime lien
to access our funds in the Estate to fund the BC Bond account to pay future bills. Simple. One, two three.

One more thing. WHY ARE YOU MARKING YOUR SETOFF ACCEPTANCES "CHARGE THE SAME
TO....???" When you pay a bill by setting it off against a pre-paid account (the one you established with the BC
Bond), shouldn't you note the acceptance: "FOR CREDIT TO ACCOUNT # 123-45-6789?"

After all, the amount has already been charged against the account for taxes, electricity, debt service and such,
which is why they're sending you a bill.

Which means that thousands of patriots are DOING IT ALL WRONG. They are sending in a security to pay the
strawman's bill (banker's acceptance), and instead of telling the vendor or Treasury to credit the strawman's
account, they're telling them to charge the strawman again. Is it any wonder Treasury thinks we're all crazy?

Even worse, the blogs and groups are filled with people giving terrible advice. I have watched entire reputations
being built on bad advice. NOT BAD INTENTIONS, just your basic guesswork blossoming over the
anonymous internet into a culture of error upon error. No wonder commerce has a bad name among advocates
of sovereignty.

So if you accepted your BC as the living man, your Treasury process is defective.

If you charged instead of credited any bills, they're dead on arrival.

If you did Tim Turner's process you have no standing to make a claim (Treasury views it as nonsensical), so be
very careful about trying anything.

If your acceptances were signed by the living man, the odds of success are very small.

If you did ZYA, you did things backwards (among other problems).

How do I know? The same way I knew about the Treasury process. I've paid my dues...I've listened to the right
people...it's in my heart.

So tell me again how success lies in the paperwork rather than the understanding?

I'LL SAY IT AGAIN.......WHAT YOU NEED IS BASIC COMMON SENSE FOUNDATIONAL

UNDERSTANDING LIKE THIS, AND THEN YOU WILL KNOW IN YOUR HEART IF YOU ARE DOING
THE RIGHT THING. That's when you can tell Agent Anderson to take a hike.- Bill

#206 re. #205

Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
Peterpapoulias
The public is bankrupt so it can only set-off and discharge. So in the public we only have paper (that is why its
dead). When you get a paycheck its just a piece of paper with ink on it. It holds no value, it represents a DEBT
borrowed from the estate paid to the BENEFICIARY (SSN) of the BC.

So our labor stays in the private (just like our house and car) NO VALUE CAN COME INTO THE PUBLIC
only evidence of value and debt. So TITLE is evidence of an interest in a thing - like your car or house.

So when evidence of debt comes into the public from the private (the living side) the debt must be ledgered.
The commercial banks take the evidence of our labor and monetize it (suppose to be 9 times but they have been
doing it over 10-12 times). This new money is public debt. So now the public owes more to the living (private
side).

One mistake mentioned below. We DO NOT CHARGE THE SAME TO THE STRAWMAN.

Look its all admiralty. So think..

In maritime law in order to identify a vessel we need to give things a name and a number.

So look at the paper you hold

SSN
BC
DL

those 3 things may all have the same name BUT different numbers – separate vessels

ALL VESSELS ARE TRUSTS!!!

And in trust law one trust may be a party to another trust

You have been given the BC trust (Debtor as it borrows from the estate) the evidence of value and debt come
through the beneficiary (SSN) so we charge the same to the beneficiary because ALL PUBLIC debt is ledgered
against the Beneficiary of the BC.

How do we know this? Well next time you receive (assignment, transfer) paycheck there will be a name and
number identifying who is getting the title to that debt (title of the debt is the paycheck). I guarantee the vessel
identified is the SSN.

So the SSN account at the fed is holding your portion of the public debt. Think of it as a prepaid credit card.
Anytime evidence of value is brought into the public from your estate through the BC it is ledgered in the SSN
account at the fed. So we charge debt against the debt owed to us.

So think of it this way...

Anytime you get a bill in the mail it is evidence of a debt owed to the estate and we can use the SSN account to
do the setoff. So the BC bond is a charge against the debt owed to the estate. We do this to access the SSN
account and BLOCK the funds so we can use them.

In the public ITS ALL IN THE LEDGERING.

#207 re. #170

Re: Re. help getting started.........CULTIVATING THE "BEGINNER'S MIND"
Peterpapoulias

The cestui-que vie act of 1666 has been codified in US statutes for ALL states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_in_absentia

here it is in Georgia -

http://statutes.laws.com/georgia/title-44/chapter-12/article-5/44-12-211

But remember the public is dead so we need to look at debtor/creditor instead . We need to be the highest
creditor so we can hold ENTILEMENT

#217 re. below

Re: Funds in treasury come from a conversion, NOT liens upon estates.
joshuasdad100

1. As you know, even commercial banks can deposit all kinds of securities. From personal experience I know
that you can deposit receipts. They must be annotated as securities, same way the Court deposits an indictment.
And of course, so can other departments at Treas.

2. Cash collateral only exists if they have a Federal claim of course. You can request the assessment by phone to
see if the account was credited. The 1040-v acts as an inter-bank draw, however the strawman has no status to
authorize any draw from the private side of the ledger (setoff), being a lowly bottom dweller debtor. The
assessment should show if you got a setoff. There's a tendency to equate a pause with progress, but I hope you
did.

3. In a twisted way, the state IS the beneficiary. The strawman is the beneficiary of the Estate. That' why it's
listed on the face of the B.C. The Estate is it's surety, the one they wish to assess when you appear. Which
agrees with what you observed that the state is the beneficiary because the strawman is really nothing more than
a U.S. employee under IRC 3401.

But no matter how it's sliced and diced in admiralty, ultimately the public trust serves people, the heirs to the
original grantors and beneficiaries, and we are mere servants of the Father. A public corporation can never be a
beneficiary, other than in a capacity as holder for the real man beneficiary, who is also holder for the Divine
beneficiary, the Father.

4. YOU ARE SO RIGHT ABOUT NOT LIENING OUR BROTHER. But UCC 9-311(a)(3) makes it clear that
the holder of a certificate enjoys the presumption of a perfected lien. The BC is the evidence of our lien against
the strawman. It exists whether we claim it or not. It was born by our actions. The BC treasury process just
makes the lien digestible in the public. We're not liening our neighbor; we're expressing the pre-existing lien
against our own assets, beginning with our own body which is the surety they really want to capture, our
movable land, as advocates for the Father. If we do not express it, then we abandon our divine inheritance (our
estate), the Father's property, to Lucifer. I really think it's that important to give public notice that I am not
public property; I am not your bondservant; that my allegiance is to the Father, that I serve Yehoshua, my
Savior and surety who has pre-paid my debts with his blood -Bill

"motla68" <motla68@...> wrote:

Based upon my research of the Internal Revenue Manual and Treasury finance policy, technically
speaking, when we deposit equity receipts, those are then converted to what is called Cash Collateral, it
is this which is held in treasury to pay the bills.
 I did a test for a couple people including myself, for year(s) there were current claims on by I R S , I sent
in copies of cash receipts and copies of CC and debit statements, totaled them up and put that total on
1040-V, followed the instructions of where to send it because that form is a return. This past week is the
third or fourth letter received so far over the course of the past year from I R S stating that " no further
actions was necessary " to which it was never heard of again that there was a problem for those years.

You all might want to check out " Cesti Que Use " being that you have been studying Cesti Que Trust
law. It is in my opinion that the state is the beneficiary not a living man.

This UCC was created by attorney's / lawyers and biblically speaking " woe unto you lawyers ", do you
really want to be like them ?

#254 re. #221

Re: Funds in treasury come from a conversion, NOT liens upon estates
joshuasdad100

YES AND NO. Not the order itself, but the security written on it, which is what people have been doing with
money orders and bankers acceptances all along but in the wrong person and with the wrong paperwork. The
key is in understanding securities and their baseline purpose, and the use of trusts. Bill
#221 re. #217
Re: Funds in treasury come from a conversion, NOT liens upon estates
trooper753

So could a person deposit an original court to the IRS to get rid of IRS debt? Court order against
them.....? Its a commercial document. A receipt though and you have interest in the contents. Just
thinking out loud I guess.

#219 re. #206

Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
joshuasdad100

Peter - Excellent stuff. People should pause to understand that the strawman (SSN) is a pre-programmed debtor.
It exists for no reason other than to transmit (or as you said "hold") our portion of the public debt. that's all that
happened in '33 when our great-grandparents walked into the Fed and gave up their gold. Here's my asset to pay
the public debt. Basically the public debt was charged to us through the straw accounts. Everyone should read
your posting........

As to what we're charging with the BC Bond, I think we said the same thing. You said, "So the BC bond is a
charge against the debt owed to the estate," and I say that the SSN is nothing more than a manifestation of that
debt. It IS debt, nothing more. If you remove debt, it's an empty account. When I visualize the strawman, I don't
see paper or even book-entries anymore. I see an amazing sight, a shimmering ball of debt energy - the
reflection of my commercial energy - just waiting to be reclaimed. Perhaps there's a subtle difference in what
we said, but not much. - Bill

#265 re. #248

IF IT'S LEGAL, IT AIN’T TAX FRAUD, is it?
joshuasdad100

GOOD QUESTIONS RANDY. NO, taxing bodies do not have to verify. there's a presumption of accuracy. The
prevailing doctrine of admiralty is Guilty until proven innocent. How can that exist in a republic? Presumption
of regularity. If no one protests after three times, then it's presumed to be normal business practice.
Ditto for the rest. But yes, if they receive without giving equal value, it's an uneven exchange, a DEEMED
DISPOSITION, and capital gains applies. But regularity overcomes tax fraud because no one asked the
collector for his Gift Tax Return.

VERY ASTUTE OF YOU. YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO SEE THE OBVIOUS. Bill

#268 re. #253

TREASURY PROCESS - WHERE DO I BEGIN? - Right here
joshuasdad100

The Treasury paperwork is easy, streamlined and simple-minded. Four pieces of paper.

#270 re. #222

Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--BONDS AT TREASURY
joshuasdad100

Most of the bonds that have been "placed" with the Sec of the Treasury are defective. In most cases it's a
question of the proper (or improper) person. The ones promoted by Tim Turner in particular are pretty bad
across the board. To have Treasury honor them requires that the issuer is a recognized admiralty entity. Bill

#295
The Number of the Name.
motla68

FYI, to settle any controversies whether the SSN is the number of the name or not.

Florida statutes
382.0135 Social security numbers; enumeration-at-birth program.—The department shall make arrangements
with the United States Social Security Administration to participate in the voluntary enumeration-at-birth
program. The State Registrar is authorized to take any actions necessary to administer the program in this state,
including modifying the procedures and forms used in the birth registration process.

#317 re. #303

TOPIC: OWNERSHIP - LEGAL TITLE
joshuasdad100

VERY GOOD IAMSOMEDUDE. TRANSLATION: OWNERSHIP IS LEGAL TITLE. THE OWNER IS

LIABLE FOR TAXES, INSURANCE, UPKEEP AND PERFORMANCE. It means exactly the opposite of
what society believes. The owner is a tenant beholding to the bank that holds the security interest (equitable
title), the secured party. Now you know why you lose your foreclosures. Bill

THE ABILITY TO ANTICIPATE THE PUBLIC RESPONSE TO A PROCESS IS AN INVALUABLE

STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE TO OUTCOMES AND CONFIDENCE GOING IN. Bill

#381 re. #323

Re: Status of Limitation Question
joshuasdad100

Most of the postings here concern how we can claim the note nunc pro tunc so the bank is obligated to us
instead of the other way around. Bill
#386 re. #385
DEFINITION OF INCOMPETENCE
joshuasdad100

See 31 CFR 363.6 if you wish to understand the very simple criteria the public uses to presume you're
incompetent: YOU HAVEN'T CLAIMED YOUR SECURITIES. Why do you think I named this group
Reclaim Your Securities? Bill

#419
TOPICS: SETOFF PROTOCOL; UCC’s, ESTATES; MARITIME LIENS
joshuasdad100

1. WHICH ESTATE? Simple, the Birth Certificate trust. The BC trust includes all of your assets and liabilities
in the public trust known as the United States. It was created specifically to be the surety for all of the liabilities
attributed to the strawman trust. The strawman represents debt, period. All actions in admiralty begin by issuing
an arrest security (a warrant criminally, or a summons civilly) for the vessel (the strawman) to entice a surety,
an underwriter, to appear and post bond. They seek your permission to tap the mother lode, the Estate. They
presume you will provide your consent to access the surety by appearing and signing a bond.

That Estate is distinct from the private estate, which is your Divine inheritance from YHWH. The Divine estate
is not cognizable in the public trust. G-d is truth, and truth is a contempt in the admiralty world of fictions. This
is why the so-called Executor letters usually fail. I get a chill when I read the words of Yehoshua: You cannot
serve both G-d and Mammon." Amen brother.

HERE'S A TIP: Most of my letters derive from the Grantor or Beneficiary, and occasionally from the strawman
acting as Trustee when it's to the Beneficiary's (my) advantage.

2. I WILL SKIP THE CREDENTIALS QUESTION as it concerns an entity we don't utilize.

3. HOW DO YOU "COMMAND" THE AGENCY TO EXECUTE YOUR SETOFFS? Establish recognizable
status and submit the correct paperwork. The paperwork depends on the task a hand: a mortgage, credit card,
tax lien, property tax, recouping certain bank funds, a disposition, a deemed disposition, a partial exchange, a
general deposit, a special deposit, within the past 3 years, older than 3 years……you get the picture. It may
involve a single sheet of paper or as many as 30 – 40 documents. Even when you think you understand, a new
situations arises.

4. WHAT DO UCC FILINGS ACCOMPLISH? Properly done, the UCC's perfect a maritime lien. UCC 9-311
(a)(3) demonstrates that the BC is your proof of a perfected lien in the estate. But we seek a maritime lien in the
Estate, and the UCC’s are part of the perfection. They also allow public officials to see our standing.

5. CAN YOU ACHIEVE STANDING WITHOUT THEM? Not in admiralty. Keep in mind, that behind every
perfected lien is a correct Security Agreement. The SSN is NOT the debtor in the SA. The real man is NOT the
creditor. We use an admiralty-ready proxy that is not beholding to the agency.

6. WHAT IS CP 575? It's the letter the agency returns after dispensing an EIN.

#422 re. #415

TOPIC: ALL ABOUT TRUSTEES
joshuasdad100

IN A COURT TRUST, WE APPOINT A PUBLIC TRUST (e.g. JUDGE JOHN SMITH) AS THE TRUSTEE
to counter their presumption that we're the trustee. Now they have to exchange the securities as I described (a
tax-free event since it would be an even exchange), or THEY are liable for the taxes on the gain when they keep
my securities (taxable termination - see 26 USC 2603, 2611 and 2612). If they do not exchange or show me my
copies of the tax reports of the gain, then the trust collapses and they have to return all of my securities or else
they've got big problems with securities and tax fraud. You can't RE-sell unregistered securities and not declare
the gain and pay the tax. But somehow that's exactly what these champions of the law do every day.

Let me dispel some confusions: THERE ARE 2 DIFFERENT TRUSTEE SITUATIONS INVOLVING THE
STRAWMAN:
1. When a trust is created by the deposit of one of my Estate's securities (like a Court trust created by the
deposit of an indictment or arrest warrant), they are trustee on that deposit, even though they immediately
presume that the strawman is the trustee (until they get your paperwork or you show up and give them a kick in
the pants).

2. When we create a trust to benefit ourselves, we usually appoint the strawman SSN as the trustee. It may have
an SSN, but as long as the Grantor does not, the trust is not beholding to the agency.

#434 re. below

Re: TOPIC: ALL ABOUT TRUSTEES-INSTANT CHANGE IN THE COURTROOM
joshuasdad100

TO EPONYMOUS680.....HOW DO WE APPOINT THEM AS TRUSTEE?...WE APPEAR in writing (without

showing up) AS THE GRANTOR AND BENEFICIARY OF THE TRUST CREATED BY THE DEPOSIT OF
THE SECURITY (be it indictment, summons, complaint, warrant, case bond). We appear (without showing up)
as the depositor. ONLY WE CAN RECLAIM OUR SECURITIES. Only we can make the appointments. They
went fishing by issuing securities without an underwriter, but they presumed incorrectly. However, if they want
to keep the securities: "fine, then show me the tax reports of the gain and the receipts for the capital gains. If
not, I will file them for you and it will be a bloodbath." They KNOW they've committed securities and tax
fraud.

The law of trusts is like the laws of gravity and momentum. There's no getting around it, and they know it.

The non-commercial method that's being discussed in the last few postings is excellent, and we've been
involved in a few, but even then, the straw that sent the judges literally running from the room was the patriot's
command of commerce. Once they know that you know how to foreclose on their public trust (JUDGE JOHN
SMITH), you can literally feeeel the roles reverse.

As to UCC, we have a security interest which defines the debtor estate and the grantor.

eponymous_680 embury111@... wrote: re. #422

Question, how do we have any sort of standing to appoint judge trustee - we're considered trustee de son
tort, until we've switched the nature of the usufruct, yes? Same applies to filing the UCC - how do we
have any capacity to fill 'their' forms out, even if we are doing it through a corporate 'proxy'?

#449 re. #433

Re: TOPICS: SETOFF PROTOCOL; UCC’s, ESTATES; MARITIME LIENS-CLARIFICATION
joshuasdad100

I CAN SEE HOW THIS COULD BE CONFUSING. I was referring to which trust we're claiming with the SA,
BC bond, UCC’s, lien and Treasury process. Most of us go after the Estate (the BC trust) which covers
everything since the SS trust and all of our securities are derived from the BC trust/Estate.
But there are reasons someone might choose to capture the SS trust instead, or even a lesser trust. Same process,
only specifying a different debtor. In that case, you would only be able to claim securities issued from that
lesser trust and all lesser trusts derived from it.

WHY IS THE ESTATE A DEBTOR? It is surety for all of the strawman's trusts. It's the portal to our
credit/labor/equity controlled by the Fed through Treasury on the private side.

#485 re. below

TOPIC: COURT CASES & MAXIM #1
joshuasdad100

1. MAXIM 1. FACT: IF YOU MENTION THE TRUST IN COURT WITHOUT PROPER STATUS AND
UNDERSTANDING TO ACCESS ENFORCEMENT, YOU WILL BE TARGETED FOR SPECIAL
PUNISHMENT FOR ATTACKING THEIR REVENUE STREAM. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.**

2. A trustee can be appointed orally or in writing.

3. I choose to appear privately as Grantor and Beneficiary of the trust created by the deposit of the charging
SECURITY (not "instrument") in the Court's books. I choose to appear through my paperwork, the nature of
which depends on the individual situation (and understanding their internal policy to disregard templated
paperwork). By definition, whoever accepts a security has a fiduciary obligation to perform a/k/a he's the
trustee. If he does not, he's got problems due to securities and tax fraud, the same as if you accepted my check
and failed to provide the service.

4. If forced to appear physically, I can play possum, creditor, banker, claimant, or just general pain in the butt. I
can even play trustee if it would benefit the Beneficiary (me).

5. The Court does not create the trust (see above). This is a common misunderstanding. Very
important.Knowing how the trust was created is critical because your response is NOT to create a trust but to
clarify the existing one per the Grantor's intent.

6. I don't give them my name. Why would I allow them to play the name game and confuse me with a trust? I
would rather begin by terminating the false presumptions or recapturing my property. They can comply or face
the consequences, which will vary depending on the crimes and the status of the case.

7. Why would I sign an appearance bond? But if I did, it's MY security, not theirs, a security future to be
deposited like anything else, a bet against future performance. They will try to interpret it according to the
words on the page, but I will treat it like a security and hold them to performance.

8. The Court is not the beneficiary of my securities. That's the first presumption that goes out the window.

9. As to ownership, the securities are "placed in trust" with the Trustee. That is one of three ways to create a
trust (Sec 401, Uniform Trust Code). The beneficiary has beneficial interest in the property (a security interest).
Isn't that what we want?

younglady1975
Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:39 pm

When we appoint a public trust (judge) as trustee is this done verbally, if so, what would one say? Or is
it done by putting documentation on the record before we show up or would we even need to show up?
What would that documentation be?
 Okay, so if I do everything wrong and show up and give them my name and sign the appearance bond,
there would be no tax owed because it's an original issue security?

Also, if the court is the beneficiary, how are they able to act as a trustee and invest/deposit the security
or do they do it in your name? So are they creating the trust on our behalf where we are the grantor and
the trustee? If they are using our SSN when filing with the IRS and/or the treasury then we would have
to be the grantor, no?

So, after reading a little more about trusts, if a beneficiary or creator/grantor of a trust hires/appoints a
trustee to manage the trust for the benefit of the beneficiary/self, is the trust itself the owner or is the
beneficiary the owner? The trustee can only be the owner if he's actually a beneficiary/grantor who
failed to hire/appoint a trustee?

At any rate, what I would be doing is entering into a trust between the public trust and myself/my estate
where my estate is put up on the table to pay for any restitution in the case that I am found to owe them.
Ideally, the judge/public trust would be named trustee rather than beneficiary so that I would be able to
pay restitution myself through my estate, rather than having the public trust paid directly from my
estate? Is this the jist of it or where might I need clarification?

#486 re. below

Re: Trustee in DSS case?
joshuasdad100

CHAR - WHY WOULD THERE BE ANY DIFFERENCE IN ANY COURT? ITS ALL COMMERCE. "There
is only one form of action, a civil action" (Rule 2, Fed. Rules of Civil Proc). If you know how to appoint a
trustee in one, you know how to appoint a trustee anywhere.

But let me clarify something. THEY ARE ALREADY THE TRUSTEE. It's really a matter of correcting the
false presumption.

You cannot transfer a BC. You only have a copy. The original is in the State files at the birth County seat.
However, a grandparent can certainly perfect a claim against the minor's securities if the parent defers. The
question is, does the grandparent have the understanding to act and enforce? Bill

trooper753

I heard some interesting terms in the DSS court - baby snatchers court for those who don’t know - that
were very commercial- one of which is a term used in EFT process. Let me digress for a moment and
explain. My daughter went through an ugly custody battle and ended up being charged with kidnapping.
The charges were dismissed, but upon arresting her, the other child was taken by DSS while she was in
jail.
I am extremely familiar with appointing the judge as trustee in criminal cases, but cannot quite wrap my
head around doing it in a DSS case.
My other thought is this- could you transfer a child’s BC to another person - grandparent to stop the
DSS case? Any thoughts?

#489 re. #434

INSIGHT FROM A GROUP MEMBER INTO THE COURT TRUST......
joshuasdad100

Knowing how the trust was created is critical because your response is NOT to create a trust but to clarify the
existing one per the Grantor's intent.
The trust does not have a name. Many trusts do not. JUDGE JIM JUDAS is the name of the public trust that's
acting as the bank.

Your second paragraph is a perfect summary of the circumstances, especially the part about expressing the true
trust:
"All of this is done - publicly - with the USA being the construed (implied) beneficiary, and we're the
trustee/ surety? If we don't express, what I call, the true trust, that we are the true
grantor/beneficiary/depositor/donor, then we will be liable for future performance on that security that
was deposited into trust....? And, no matter what the paper says, it's a security?”
- Bill

#490 re. #489

Re: INSIGHT FROM A GROUP MEMBER INTO THE COURT TRUST......
ladyfairfax3...

1951 Powers of Appointment Act.

~Allows us to specifically express the terms and change our role in the power structure of the constructive trust
already in place.~. Lady Fairfax

FLA. STAT. ANN. § 737.402(4)(a) (West 1994):

(4)(a) Due to the inherent conflict of interest that exists between a trustee who is a beneficiary and other
beneficiaries of the trust, unless the terms of a trust refer specifically to this subsection and provide expressly to
the contrary, any power conferred upon a trustee (other than the settlor of a revocable or amendable trust or a
decedent's or settlor's spouse who is the trustee of a testamentary or an inter vivos trust for which a marital
deduction has been allowed):

1.To make discretionary distributions of either principal or income to or for the benefit of such trustee, except to
provide for that trustee's health, education, maintenance, or support as described under Internal Revenue Code
ss. 2041 and 2514;... cannot be exercised by such trustee.

#495 re. #491

Re: Trustee in DSS case?
joshuasdad100

You can assign your claim in the BC trust, but you are not the holder of the BC and cannot transfer it. Your
friend used a certified copy of the BC under UCC 9-311 to express his claim and the affidavit of status to
establish beneficiary status. But I promise you, the BC is still located in the vault in the records vault in his
home state. Bill

#497 re. #494

Re: BILL?? QUESTIONS REGARDING >>>> TOPIC: COURT CASES & MAXIM #1
joshuasdad100

Visiting a Court with a laundry list of possible strategies is a death sentence. Either you have mastered one
approach, or not. It's not the particular method that gives success or failure. IT'S YOU. When you strategize an
approach as your fall back position, you can expect to be falling back during the hearing. If you create energy of
indecision, weakness and failure, you can expect indecision, weakness and failure. Those who win are the ones
who have no doubt that they will. That's just the way the universe works. The strategies you cite are weak
because they rely upon discretion. When you understand the matrix of securities and trusts, all the discretion
reverts to you.
Keep in mind, IF YOU WAIT TO ESTABLISH YOUR STATUS AS BENEFICIARY, THEY WILL
PERCEIVE YOUR LACK OF BELIEF AND WALK ALL OVER YOU. Don't do it, Sharon. Do NOT EVEN
CONSIDER talking about estates, trusts, securities, grantors and beneficiaries until you have mastered this
knowledge AND COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND how to enforce it. You'll get clobbered.

#508 re. #505

CORRECTION:....THE COURT IS THE JUDGE. THE CLERK IS NOT.
joshuasdad100

PLEASE EXCUSE THIS CORRECTION. THE NOTION THAT THE CLERK IS THE COURT IS A
FALLACY.
First of all, by definition, both courts (of record) and incorporated Courts CONSIST OF JUDGES. Just read the
Statutes...

Corporate Courts:
28 USC Sec. 1 Number of justices; quorum
The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate
justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum.

Pennsylvania Revised Statutes

Title 42, Sec. 501. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania shall consist of the Chief Justice of Pennsylvania and six associate justices.

courts of record
28 USC 132
b) Each district court shall consist of the district judge or judges for the district in regular active service.

"SHALL CONSIST OF" pretty much ends the argument regardless of how committed we are to our own logic.

THIRDLY, we may have forgotten that when a Judge gives an instruction to a Clerk, the clerk will almost
always obey.

LASTLY, the reality is that when a Court withholds our setoffs, the JUDGE TRUST is the party against whose
account the taxable termination must be assessed if we are to have satisfaction.

#510 re. #509

TOPIC: JUDGE'S OATH
joshuasdad100

Not exactly sure what you mean, BUT AN OATH IS NOT WHAT YOU HAVE EVER BEEN TOLD. IT'S A
TRUSTEE'S FORMAL ACCEPTANCE OF HIS APPOINTMENT AND THE TRUST DIRECTIVES, a
fanciful version of the acceptance that appears at the end of a trust agreement. (In the public trust, the directives
are all of the statutes, case law and regulations.) It's his confession of his true status and his agreement to
perform.

As you have seen it can be used in many ways. Some have tried to use it to solidify the general contract into a
specific contract. Most people cite the oath out of desperation before going down in flames.

A simple acceptance on an AUTHENTICATED copy of an oath converts the judge from administrative to
ministerial duty. That can be helpful if you understand the significance. The last time I did that, I was a plaintiff
and the judge was replaced overnight. (Then I made a tactical error based upon faulty research and blew the
case. That's how we learn.)
As a trustee's acceptance, an oath has potential benefit when expressing the true trust or converting it into a
security. In that case, I would actually refer to it "as your acceptance of trusteeship" or words to that effect.

As long as the Court presumes to be the beneficiary, the Judge can, and likely will, ignore the statues and rules
and his oath. Bill

#512
TOPIC: pleading guilty to the facts
Victordmann

Couple of years ago I came across this on one of the forums:

He treats everything (he's an ex-banker) as a CREDITOR and loves to use commercial law as much as you guys
love to use common law.

He used his philosophy successfully in California for not having a license plate. Appeared with no lawyer, not
famous, just himself. This is his key:

YOUR HONOR, I plead GUILTY to the FACTS, not the controversy, and would like to effect payment
immediately.

Judge: CASE DISMISSED, You May Go!

This is essentially a demurrer to the charge without the affidavit.

It works because there are no facts, and the entire process is defective on it's face.
There is something in commercial law called "acceptance for honor"

That is right, and even if the judge said, the facts, you would say yes, the facts. He most likely would say, what
facts. Your response would be, CORRECT SIR (I NEVER, call a judge your honor), I have not been presented
nor been served with any facts in this case.

I respectfully ask you all to think about your LEVERAGE (both in how you handle matters and in credit). I
sincerely believe that we can win these matters much more often with a CREDITOR viewpoint instead of a
debtor one.

#515 re. #512

TOPIC: HOW TO ADDRESS JUDGE
joshuasdad100

Welcome to the Group victor. Good information. One item though. We would never want to call a Judge
"sir" which is derived from "sire." Rather than a term of respect, "sir" a higher officer. And of course
"sire" is associated with a father or king.

It is acceptable to call it "JUDGE," as you are really addressing "Judge Tim Terrible, TTEE" who is
"acting" on behalf of the JUDGE TIM TERRIBLE trust. That's why they call them actors. In this way,
it's clear who is liable. "Well then, Judge, I will instruct my fiduciary to charge the liability to your
public trust."

Of course, once they see you're in command, it doesn't matter what you call them. Bill

#531 re. #515

 Re: TOPIC: HOW TO ADDRESS JUDGE
fdmfghr

Interesting comments, except that in some domains, the black robe and associates will still go
ahead despite using the format of 'guilty as to facts and not the charges' because the prosecutor's
response will be or can, "such are going to be presented/established, etc." Some line like this by
those who are already vested in process would not quite accomplish what is claimed below, as
one's time and energies would still be wasted on useless appearance and endurances of a
kangaroo 'trial', etc. Also, asking for statement of account does not quite work in all domains for
similar reasons....they may or may not give you such in early stages because they believe they
may be getting you to cave in and capitulate.

#625 re. #623

TOPIC - PLEADING GUILTY TO THE FACTS.
joshuasdad100

THOSE POSTINGS WERE NOT MINE SO PLEASE DON'T INTERPRET THIS RESPONSE
AS RECOMMENDING THAT APPROACH. What has never been explained to you is that
pleading guilty to the facts acknowledges the Corporate jurisdiction and your authority over it.
What are the facts? That it's an admiralty Court, that the Defendant is a U.S. employee, that they
have a right to charge the Social Security account (Defendant) for any and all statutory
infractions, that the Defendant is a trustee bound to obey the statutes, that the Court officers are
presumed to be telling the truth as they understand it, and that you retain the
authority to order them to charge the Estate to credit the Strawman and then charge the strawman
to credit the Court account in its name (another way of saying this is "for credit to the account of
the Defendant"). Again, I'm not advocating this approach, If 20 patriots come forward and say
that they've done this successfully in the last 6 months, then I would concur on its PRESENT
viability. The public is constantly adapting to our lawful remedies (with the except they cannot
get around returning my securities or paying the taxes without losing their standing as a public
employee). Bill

#525
PERRY MASON AND THE MINISTERIAL JUDGE
joshuasdad100

Here's something simple: You can tell the judge respectfully that you would like him to act in ministerial
capacity for the rest of the case, and to hear your evidence. Then show him what you've got, hopefully including
a copy of the bank's ledgers showing they enter the note as an asset. Then we get the bank officer on the stand
and ask HIM if the banks records will show they performed by giving you credit to the full value of the note?

If you know the issues, you can establish all the evidence you need by questioning the bank's officers. Let them
build the case for you. You start with simple questions to get them to stick their foot in it ("So the bank gave
consideration on the note?"), and once THEY open the door, you move in over plaintiff's attorney's objections.
Bill

#527 re. below

TOPIC: PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROCESS?
joshuasdad100

YOU ARE CORRECT TO BE CONCERNED Sharon. Filing truth into a public case is a contempt. I have a
friend who filed an affidavit explaining such truth in a lowly credit card case and he was immediately arrested
by a small brigade. Think of it this way. How do criminals and politicians (yes, I know) react when confronted
with the possibility of being exposed? Ask Jimmy Hoffa. WHY WOULD WE THINK A JUDGE IS ANY
DIFFERENT? Do you think they want securities and tax fraud placed into the record?

Conclusion: we address their trustee obligations and breaches privately. Yes it can be helpful to have the
CUSIP’s on hand. But it's not essential if we can say:

"These are your choices, and if you don't perform, then I will retain all title to the securities and this guy here
with all the right credentials is going to file everything on your behalf as an assessment against your bond."

One error patriots have been making for years is trying to introduce evidence of fraud into a case instead of
holding the trustees of record liable for their failures to perform. The first problem is obvious: THEY
ALREADY KNOW THEY'RE SCREWING YOU. It's what they do. It's what they enjoy. They've long ago
rationalized the shame. It's why they fight to the teeth to hold office.

Secondly, the evidence has not been made admissible per Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 44 and 28 USC 1739.

The difference is this: enraging them by filing evidence of their own misdeeds in the public case, or scaring
them senseless by serving evidence privately of your ability to collect for the misdeeds you know they commit?

BY THE WAY, IF YOU DON'T HAVE THAT ABILITY AND KNOWLEDGE, THEN YOU SHOULDN'T
EVEN GET NEAR THE WORDS TRUST, SECURITIES AND ESTATE. THEY WILL FRY YOU.

These sorts of issues go straight to the heart of HOW and WHY we do things, rather than individual situations.
This basic lack of perception as to how the other side thinks explains why patriots keep getting clobbered for
speaking truth. Bill

Am I am trouble now?
"Sawasinc@..." Sawasinc@...

If I had a securitization exam done and it shows from the SEC website the CUSIP numbers (12) and that
there's no Cumulative Realized losses .. AND I showed that the Servicer who has me in foreclosure does
not have standing because it's the mother company that is the securitizer... and I filed this into the case
will I be in trouble?? it's the PSA/PROSPECTUS

#532 re. #529

TOPIC: PLAYING THE TRUSTEE WHEN IT SUITS YOU.
joshuasdad100

WHEN THEY'VE STOLEN THE CHILDREN AND ARE USING THEM AS LEVERAGE, IT'S OKAY TO
PLAY THE TRUSTEE.

There are many times we sit back and bide our time playing the trustee: signing a check, accepting a traffic
ticket, playing the Defendant in a Court case.

When do we play the Trustee? WHEN IT'S TO THE BENEFIT OF THE BENEFICIARY, AND WE'RE
CONTROLLING THE BENEFICIARY.

Translation: when it's to OUR benefit.

If they have the kids? We can choose to jump through the hoops until they're returned.

Once they're back, it's time to reclaim our securities and give them their orders.
Someone who's really skilled might meet with the Judge in chambers and set him straight. When Judges see that
you know who you are, you know what to do, and you're operating on conviction and not just belief, they have
been known to comply and move on. Bill

#543 re. #541

Re: TOPIC: AUTHENTICATING EVIDENCE
joshuasdad100

People see the BC as being straightforward. Depending on what you're trying to do, it may or may not need to
be authenticated. We don't for T process, but I think the original question was about using it as evidence in
Court - that's a different ball game. The significance of the BC is not the document, but its value as evidence of
your priority claim. Bill

P.S. they don't authenticate seals. They authenticate signatures.

The county is not necessary to develop a maritime lien, in fact, it can destroy it. But once you progress to the T
process, it can be helpful if you want certified copies for some reason. You can also use a triple-sig process to
have the probate court certify it. Bill

#553 re. #525

Re: PERRY MASON AND THE MINISTERIAL JUDGE
Dstehling

Also, if you can, get the "Call Reports" from the quarter in which they processed your loan, so that you can
expose that it is the Lender's policy [not an inadvertent mistake for just your loan) to not disclose to borrowers
the "Accounts Payable" Credit entry that offsets the "Cash" Debit entry that constituted your complete loan
"transaction", in accordance with GAAP.. The Call Report will show that the Lender's Assets increased by
approximately the amount of the Loans granted during that period. This should not occur if the Lender lent their
own assets. See GAAS auditing standards for more reports to request from the Lender.

#583
TOPIC: LIVE SUI JURIS OR LIKE ROCKEFELLER?
joshuasdad100

It can be lonely living on the land as a one man nation/estate. Once you understand trusts, securities and the
beauty of tax law when commanded from the proper station, then freedom becomes redefined from a constant
battle to prove we're not an "owner" / tenant / debtor, to simply operating the mechanisms already in place by
paying and seeking recoupment for certain securities annually (mechanisms like Public Law 73-10).

But let me observe that there's not much one can do sui juris when acting as a tenant with respect to a landlord.
A tenant is a trustee on the trust indenture known as the rental agreement or lease. He has most of the obligation
to perform. THE BEAUTY OF OPERATING IN COMMERCE KNOWLEDGEABLY is that you can operate
as trustee or beneficiary at will. It is to your benefit to play the trustee when you sign a check, pay the rent, or
even sign a traffic ticket, because you control the beneficiary (yourself) and will enjoy the benefits of those
actions, and can have satisfaction later upon recoupment. Those who eventually know this and understand how
to accomplish it tend to quickly lose their taste for sovereignty in favor of living life to the fullest while the
Father is so inclined

#591
TOPIC: Do you REALLY understand the system? MOST DO NOT
joshuasdad100
WHAT I'M ABOUT TO DISCLOSE IS AT THE CORE OF OUR VARIOUS REMEDIES AND WHY SO
MANY PATRIOT PROCESSES FAIL.....HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE HJR 192? Did HJR 192
replace payment with discharge, give us a credit economy, and outlaw repayment in lawful money? Of course.

But the people who keep the books and enforce the laws think otherwise. And THEY ARE RIGHT, at least
where it counts in the public institutions that can provide our remedy.

PL 73-10 (Public Law 73-10 aka HJR 192 aka 48 Stat. 112) installed barter and EVEN-exchange as the official
economic system in the United States Federal corporation. If you give me something, I have to give you
something of equal value. And vice versa.

In this society, that something is NOT the house, the car or the groceries. That something is a cash receipt
issued under the Financial Accounting Standards Board, Standard 95 (see file section to download) and
generally accepted accounting principles. The receipt is exchanged for a security in the form of a check, a
Federal Reserve Note, or a credit card receipt.

The same is true in Court. It's all about exchanging securities. When they "charge" the Defendant as a presumed
trustee that failed to uphold the public trust (statutes and codes), it is automatically liable since it must give
them a security of equal value in return. THEY ARE LEVYING THE ESTATE UNDER PL 73-10. PL 73-10
gives them the statutory "right" to assess the Estate as surety for the Social Security strawman account that was
created from it. The Strawman is Lucifer's version of Adam being charged for its sins for buying and selling as
described in Chapter 13 of Revelation.

Like the Indictment, a warrant or summons is also an assessment, a security identifying the payee (them), the
payer (the Strawman), the term (maximum prison time), the amount (penal sum), and the date. Doesn't that
make perfect sense?

Once we make it known that WE hold the priority security interest in all the securities (indictment, warrant,
appearance bond, summons, complaint, etc.) everything changes in our favor. Since they are assessing the
Strawman (our Debtor) to charge the bill to the Estate account (our primary Debtor), then THEY revert to being
the trustee by definition since THEY received the deposit of the securities in the Court's records when they
opened the case account and issued a case # and case bond.

Nonetheless, we still owe them a security under PL 73-10 (and you thought it was about the gold). So when we
appear PRIVATELY in the court of record (without which their corporate court cannot exist) as the Grantor and
Beneficiary of the trust THEY created when they deposited OUR indictment security in their books, when we
appear as the actual Depositor of record and give them a payment instrument PROPERLY drawn by the
PROPER parties and a directive to process, now THEY have the obligation to perform as Trustee under PL 73-
10.

AND IF THEY DO NOT, then THEY, not us, are in breach of trust and subject to foreclosure, and in violation
of PL 73-10 by having failed to execute the mandatory EVEN exchange, and having failed to REDUCE THE
PUBLIC DEBT upon demand. This means that THEY owe the taxes on the gain, and transfer taxes under IRC
2611 and 12 for having terminated our interest in our security, and taxes on the sale of the case bond.

Once you understand HJR 192, then you also understand the accounting philosophy by which the bookkeeping
agency operates the accounts. - Bill

#592 re. #588

Re: 30 day time for appeal-NOT IF ITS A COURT OF RECORD
joshuasdad100
Let me just say that a ruling from a Court can be appealed AT ANY TIME to a court of record. This is one
sentence in what could be weeks of study to understand courts of record and the like unless you have a study
group member who is well versed in the court of record, for instance the Supreme Court ruling that states IN
PLAIN LANGUAGE that even it must obey the ruling of a court of record.

An appeal to a court of no record (i.e. a Court aka an incorporated Court aka a court of inferior jurisdiction
(meaning statutes)), is governed by the inferior law, namely statues. Bill

#594 re. #590

TOPIC: THE BIBLE, COMMERCE, JESUS, LUCIFER, AND YOU
joshuasdad100

Eponymous: I'm familiar with Winston's source on that. ALL versions of the Bible warned us about the
moneychangers, mammon, and disagreeing with thine enemies. That's a pretty good roadmap.

I view the world as a giant laboratory where the Father permitted Lucifer to roam to allow His children to
exercise AND NURTURE their powers of free will and choice. Reading a single instructional booklet for an
IRS form tells us how far most people have strayed from Faith and cognitive reasoning. Where is, "I'm
supposed to do all of that instead of play with my kids????" The Father gave us His spirit in His Son intending
that He volunteer to be butchered to provide us a clean slate and pathway home. And still, very few accept the
invitation. - Bill

#604 re. #576

CRITICAL TOPIC: WHAT IS YOUR ESTATE? NO MORE CONFUSION
joshuasdad100

SO MUCH CONFUSION ABOUT THE ESTATE - SO EASY TO RECTIFY.......

There are two estates, the public and private estates.

The private estate consists of your inheritance from the Creator. Period. The body He bequeathed to your care,
the air it requires to sustain, the earth beneath your feet, the food it bears, your reproductive abilities, and your
possessions and holdings.

As you have seen your whole life, the corporation has used the misnomer (mis-naming) scam to constitute a
mirror image of everything in your private estate. They created religious corporations to supplant your
churches, incorporated Courts to replace the de jure courts of record, dimes and quarters to replace the "dismes"
and "quarter dollar" coins defined by the National Coinage Act of 1792, the United States to supplant the United
States of America, and even fictional "persons" - strawmen - to supplant men and women. Similarly, they
created a public estate to supplant the private estate.

A public estate is devised from three events: the imprinting of an infants footprint on a hospital notice that the
infant was born at that location, which is presumed to be a pledge of the infant's future labor.

The second event is the certification of the infant's pledge for the purpose of issuing securities. This results in a
long form Certificate of Birth which is executed by the Registrar of the incorporated County, and serves to
transmit the pledge into the public domain by way of a process known as certification.

Sound familiar? Isn't certification the process used by Bank of America to securitize your credit card application
- your pledge - by transferring it to FIA Card Services, which transfers it to BA MASTER CREDIT CARD
TRUST II, which issues certificates backed by the application (the pledge) so that BA CREDIT
CARD TRUST can issue BA Series Notes to investors? See the flowchart in the Group's file section in which
BOA graphs these transactions from its SEC 424(b)(5) prospectus.

The third event is the creation of an account on the books of the Department of the Treasury to accommodate
the deposit of the Certificate of Birth into the account. The sole purpose of the account is to leverage (issue)
securities backed by the infant's future labor, the same way BOA issues BA Series Notes.

This is the series of events that creates the mirror image public estate. Whereas the private estate is your Divine
inheritance, the public estate consists of all accounts and securities (including currency) which are used to
leverage your future labor by issuing securities against the Treasury birth account. IS IT ANY WONDER THIS
GROUP IS CALLED RECLAIM YOUR SECURITIES?

The first such derivative security is the birth bond which is represented (noticed) in the public by the SHORT
FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE and exchanged with the Fed for currency. This exchange of securities (bonds
for Federal Reserve Note securities), whether at birth or during the so-called bailout of 2008, is how currency is
placed in circulation.

Another derivative of the BC trust estate is The Social Security account which is also used to leverage
securities, namely the Social Security bonds that are represented by the routing and bond numbers listed on the
back of your Social Security cards.

IN SUMMARY, THE PUBLIC ESTATE IS COMPRISED OF THE BC TRUST / ACCOUNT and all accounts
and securities derived thereby, everything in the public which has been derived from the infant's pledge.

As with all the other misnomered corporate substitutes, the public estate is a mirror image of the private estate.
With that knowledge, can you guess from whom it's derived? If the Father is the source of the private estate, can
the public estate arise from anyone other than Lucifer? Now you know why the public estate contains all of
life's sinful TEMPTATIONS amalgamated into a Matrix of liability, idolization and demonic accounting
(double entry bookkeeping) where everything adds up to zero every day.

How do you know that anything I've said is true? Once you understand securities and trusts, is it not self-
evident? If an entire day's transactions totals zero on the books of every financial institution in the Country, do
you need any more proof that HJR 192 installed a system of EVEN-exchange barter as I disclosed in my last
posting? And that the problem is that you're not getting the even exchange to which you are entitled?

How do I know that the deposit of the infant's pledge into the public books is diabolical? Because the same
demonic scheme of false presumptions is used by every U.S. Court to presume they can deposit our pledge into
their books to issue for-profit case bonds BEFORE we appear in the building.

Because every U.S. bank uses the scheme to hijack our credit for the issuance of for-profit notes to investors
without ever disclosing the theft of our credit.

Because Papa Bush had the audacity to lecture Enron about the evils of securitization when he was CEO of the
largest securitizing entity in the history of world.

Who else but Lucifer could have designed such a system? Is it any wonder that the Christ overturned the
moneychangers' tables?

By the way, though I am proud to be nothing more than a child of the Creator, the private estate is useless for
dealing with the public securities and trusts which are derived from the BC "pledge." THIS IS WHY YOUR
ESTATE LETTERS FAILED.
#616
TOPIC: USING THE BC
joshuasdad100

It is the claim against the certificate, properly perfected, that moves the public to follow your directives. Bill

#622 re. below

TOPIC - ACCOUNTING 101. HIGHWAY ROBBERY.
joshuasdad100

Understanding the accounting is key to understanding the public scam and the remedy to it. It's in the
accounting that your securities get robbed. I'd rather hold them accountable for the exchange, taxes or return.
Bill

#636 re. #627

TOPIC - How to win.....How NOT to lose. CAUTION...
joshuasdad100

If you pick and choose the facts you wish to agree with, you are now arguing the facts. Translation, you've lost
before you begin. This is Jack Smith 101. The only reason this method might work in the first place is because
from THEIR perspective (if the Judge is sufficiently informed), they want for a trustee through which they can
tap the Estate to pay for the Case bond. The effect of arguing the facts is that you are really stating, "I care about
the facts sufficiently to argue them with you, so I must therefore be subject to statutes, and therefore the
Trustee."

If Target sent you a summons, would you appear and argue the facts? It's our ACTIONS that tell them who we
are.

This is why I CAUTION ALL MEMBERS AGAINST acting on threads of discussion which can never take the
place of intensive education.

I wouldn't use ANY technology that I hadn't mastered and where I did not know the results BEFORE I ACTED.
Bill

#637 re. #633

TOPIC: DON'T TELL THEM WHAT THEY KNOW. EXPRESS YOUR CLAIM
joshuasdad100

JOHN, THIS IS THE CLASSIC REASONING THAT HAS LANDED SO MANY IN PRISON.

First, the public already knows it's bankrupt. Don't you know you're alive? The entire admiralty system is a
transmitting utility for debt. They don't need to be convinced.

Secondly, truth is an automatic contempt in the corporate Court.

Thirdly, if you argue anything, you are in the jurisdiction, a Trustee/Defendant/Debtor deep pockets
transmitting utility that leads right to the Estate.

Why not say, "Hey, this is the trust, I'm the beneficiary, I'm directing that you exchange the securities or pay the
taxes or return all of my property?" (And if you do not, I'm going to acquire your bond, the Case bond, the
profits, the interest, and then some.) HERE'S MY LIEN." When in Rome.......They want to play commerce?
Fine. I've got the security interest. - Bill
JOHN, IN RE-READING YOUR POSTING AND MY RESPONSE, I THINK I NEED TO CLARIFY. I'm
not sure you perfected a lien (probably not), but placing a lien in trust is a good direction for a multitude of
reasons. However, using it to remind them of insolvency is a waste of time (in my opinion for what it's worth)
because all parties to the action are presumed to be insolvent anyway, so insolvency is not a defense. But
stealing my securities is. I imagine that arguing insolvency, from their perspective, is one of those "patriot
mental case arguments" that never make it past their need to ridicule their "subjects." And any argument is
a consent to jurisdiction anyway. Bill

#653 re. #648

TOPIC: CREATING A TRUST RELATIONSHIP
joshuasdad100

GOOD QUESTION. SEC. 401 OF THE UNIFORM TRUST CODE TELLS YOU THAT A TRUST IS
CREATED when you declare it, appoint a trustee or deliver property (see below). So we're not pulling this one
out of a hat. This is the derivation of the cliché: "Everything's a trust," but in this case it has substance.

Every patriot who's been arguing trusts and did not know the above needs to return to the drawing board and get
their sea legs before taking on any controversies. Remember what the sergeant said: "Let's be careful out there."

But regarding Court, we don't have to cite a thing. They're in fiduciary breach by engaging in unjust enrichment,
securities fraud and conspiracy to obstruct the tax laws of the United States (or Canada or wherever). If they are
denied access to the Estate because we won't volunteer the Strawman as trustee or convey legal title by a
general deposit, then they are in serious trouble when we express our right to special deposit and to claim our
securities.

I REPEAT MY CAUTION FROM A PREVIOUS EMAIL. IF YOU TRY THIS WITHOUT A SOLID
FOUNDATION, THEY WILL MAKE AN EXAMPLE OUT OF YOU FOR ATTACKING THEIR
LIVELIHOOD.

Are you PREPARED to go to the mattresses? Bill

SECTION 401. METHODS OF CREATING TRUST. A trust may be created by:

(1) transfer of property to another person as trustee during the settlor's lifetime or by will or other disposition
taking effect upon the settlor's death;
(2) declaration by the owner of property that the owner holds identifiable property as trustee; or
(3) exercise of a power of appointment in favor of a trustee.

#704 re. #670

Re: BC TRUST IS THE SURETY FOR THE DEBTOR WHICH = DEBTOR
[Point is, since the estate/BC trust/account is the surety for the strawman debtor, it is a debtor by definition.
#720. Meaning that if you're the surety for my Debtor, then YOU are my Debtor. THE ESTATE IS THE
MOTHER OF ALL DEBTORS #727]
joshuasdad100

JOHN, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS WHICH DEMONSTRATES THE VALUE OF

CONCEPTIONAL UNDERSTANDING. We've established that the BC trust/account/estate is the surety for all
debts attributed to the strawman. The public seeks your consent to tap the estate every time they arrest or assess
the vessel/strawman. What's another name for surety?

Underwriter.
And what's another name for underwriter?

Insurer.

Now who is liable in admiralty when you have a car accident?

The insurer.

So who is the debtor? Who pays the bills? WHO ultimately pays the assessments levied against the strawman?

The estate; the BC trust/account.

John, the BC trust/account IS the estate. It's the surety for all debts attributed to the strawman.

Another way to deduce it would have been to recall that the strawman is a TRANSMITTING UTILITY. I
suspect that very few patriots understand what that means. Simply this: it exists to transmit debt back to the
estate. They make a perfect pair: the debt transmitter and the surety. Which is exactly what happens when we
get in an accident. We're just the stand-in for the insurer.

P.S. Point is, since the estate/BC trust/account is the surety for the strawman
debtor, it is a debtor by definition.

"BC TRUST IS THE SURETY FOR THE DEBTOR WHICH = DEBTOR"

Meaning that if you're the surety for my Debtor, then YOU are my Debtor.

THE ESTATE IS THE MOTHER OF ALL DEBTORS. - Bill

#721 re. #691

TOPIC: "EXEMPTION #" - CLASSIC PATRIOT MYTHOLOGY.
joshuasdad100

I'M SO GLAD YOU MENTIONED THE EXEMPTION #. Perhaps nothing better demonstrates how we must
update and discard old patriot legends as our understanding matures.

First of all, THERE IS NO EXEMPTION #.

The "exemption number" (Social Security number without the dashes) arose from the need to specify the private
side of the ledger that represents all of the living man's assets placed in trust (confiscated) in 1933. How do you
refer to an invisible account? So someone got the bright idea of using the SSN without the dashes.

It's been nothing but confusion ever since. When we accept the BC, do we charge it to the SSN or EIN? Dashes
or no dashes? And why charge instead of credit?

We have learned much in a dozen years. We now know that the infant's pledge of future labor (a security future)
is the equity by which the Department of the Treasury creates the BC trust account into which it deposits the
pledge, thereby creating our PUBLIC estate, and from which it issues the birth bond, a certificated security
future which it trades for currency with the Fed before being deposited with The DTC.

The moral of the story is this. All of those securities and accounts: the BC trust, the BC account, the birth bond,
the Certificate of Birth and the Birth Certificate are represented by a single number, the one, true identifier for
the estate, the private side of the account, our exemption, and the foundational security for our interest in the
United States (the Certificate of Birth) - namely the birth certificate number: 123-45-123456 (or whatever
configuration may appear on the Certificate).

There is no reason in 2012 for any patriot to ever again refer to the exemption number (other than to uphold
tradition for something that may have worked in the past).

With this understanding, all of the confusion should melt away. The statement "and charge the same to Account
# 123-45-6789" noted on the Certificate of Birth during the Treasury process could just as easily specify the BC
#. On the other hand, the statement is basically correct at its core.

How do I know? What's the normal business practice used by U.S. Courts for assessing (charging) the estate?
Don't they routinely charge the strawman (arrest the vessel) for the sole purpose of bringing forth a surety to
post bond (the estate)?

So it is technically correct to "charge Account # 123-45-6789" (with the dashes in place) since charging the
strawman is the normal accounting method for assessing (charging) the private side of the account when
creating a payment instrument (such as an acceptance on the BC). Other than the dashes and a lack of
knowledge about the Estate, Roger Elvick was a genius in pulling redemption basically out of thin air.

And the member who posted a message about pleading guilty to the facts [#515 & #625] was also spot on when
he suggested ordering the Court to "charge the same to the Estate and credit the strawman" (which gets the
funds to the Defendant) and then "charge the strawman and credit the case #" (which is the same as saying "for
further credit to account # ________").

Hope this will resolve years of confusion. Most of this is just basic deductive reasoning and logic. Bill

#733 re. #725

TOPIC: PATRIOT MISCONCEPTIONS RE. PAYMENT, CHARGING, CREDITING, etc.
joshuasdad100

DERRICK, NONE OF THE THINGS YOU MENTIONED DOWN BELOW ARE NECESSARY. Don't get
me wrong, Winston and Jean are remarkable men and I intend to address the "guru" attack another member left
earlier today in a future posting. It is so easy for people to hide behind the web and malign intentions with no
knowledge of how these men have sacrificed and little appreciation for their contributions to our present
knowledge.

Patriots tend to obsess over technical peculiarities, myself included, which often results in faulty concepts going
into legends. Here are a few such myths to be trashed: [Theses are stating the method, not myth]

- Money orders are not necessary and only confuse the issue in processing the payment instrument.

- Blue ink is fine. Its usage traces back to ancient times.

- The concept of "charging" the bill is a classic patriot misconception. See my previous email regarding
"charging" v "crediting. It's our payment that must be drawn from ("charged" against) our credit, just like a
personal check. The only way to do that is through the Estate which personifies the infant's pledge of our labor
through the hospital birth document. This is why I say that the Estate is the surety for all debts attributed to the
strawman. BUT IT IS NO MORE NECESSARY TO MENTION THIS ON MOST PAYMENT
INSTRUMENTS THAN IT WOULD BE ON A CHECK. The payer's bank is visible on a check, and the
strawman (which is the portal to the Estate) is visible on the bill. So there's no real reason to mark a payment
instrument: "Charge the same to account # 123-45-6789 and credit to account number ________" although one
could choose to do that. THE MORE ONE WRITES, THE GREATER THE CHANCE OF ERROR OR
CONFESSING THAT ONE IS A NEWBIE TRYING TO LOOK LIKE A PRO.

- If we wish to note the strawman or the vendor's account to be credited, we can.

- We do not endorse our own instrument that's being used for payment. Do you endorse a check when you pay
National Grid? We might endorse someone else's instrument when we're depositing it, just like a check. This is
so typical of how a basic confusion between apples and oranges grows into a legend. The bank's have an ancient
system in place for negotiating instruments and exchanging securities. If you want to know how to use
securities, that's where the lessons will be found.

- As to being the last signature on the page, this is yet another apples and oranges scenario. It's hogwash to say
that they can only see the last signature on the page. The actual situation is that when we endorse the lower right
corner, we THEORETICALLY prevent another party from endorsing the instrument. This is fine if we intend
the instrument should not be negotiated (trade) beyond the payee, but sometimes we might want them to
negotiate our instrument.

- Charging the sum to the vendor and crediting the memory of myself is just off the wall. Those statements have
no tangible accounting interpretation and only serve to prejudice the recipient against the payer. Bill

#737
B2B Re: Court security origins
fires1up

Is it critical to understand EXACTLY how we become the "issuer" in a security resulting from a court case?
Robb Ryder claims each case starts as a simple trespass, before being trumped up. In "The ABCs of the UCC",
Article 8, the authors state that there are two holding systems for securities, direct and indirect, the latter being
the DTC. I assume that criminal complaints for traffic stops are held in the `direct' system. The authors state that
"the asset must be either an obligation of an issuer, or a share, participation, or other interest in the issuer or in
the issuer's property…" If I read this correctly, it says that the officer (or clerk, or STATE OF….) can be the
"issuer" in real terms, but the UCC definition of issuer includes "drawer", (3) "Drawer" means a person who
signs or is identified in a draft as a person ordering payment. And "draft" • • (e) An instrument is a "note" if it is
a promise and is a "draft" if it is an order.

So if I understand this correctly, THEY, (the court, etc.) can be the issuer in real terms, but put the obligation to
pay upon us, by means of the `draft'. Is this correct, and does it matter in terms of reclaiming our securities?
#766 re. #737
B2B Re: Court security origins
joshuasdad100

NO, IT DOES NOT MATTER. IT HAS YOUR STRAWMAN'S NAME ON IT, THEN IT IS BEING
ASSESSED/CHARGED/LIENED. They have no credit to be issuing a security. That only leaves you. It
is a bet that you will appear and consent to the estate being surety. So, it's a security future. The only
thing missing is your signature. I'll be happy to sign - the payment security and my directives as Grantor
and Beneficiary to exchange, offset, settle and close or show me the tax filings regarding the payment.

#743 re. #733

Re: Group Question on Foundation???
hammond_ted

"The bank's have an ancient system in place for negotiating instruments and exchanging securities. If you want
to know how to use securities, that's where the lessons will be found." – bill
[Note: Clerks Praxis is a good book to understand admiralty from a very old perspective. ]

#745
LEINHOLDER
hammond_ted

LIENHOLDER
If it is determined that it is not in the client's best interest to arrest a vessel, then another option available to
preserve the plaintiff's maritime tort lien is to file a notice of the lien with the U.S. Coast Guard National Vessel
Documentation Center. The filing of this notice of lien, which can be accomplished with minimum effort and
cost, will place the world on notice of the lien and place a cloud on the vessel's title. Generally, most vessel
owners will eventually satisfy the lien, because the filing of the lien may be in violation of the terms and
conditions of the vessel's preferred ship mortgage or deter potential buyers from purchasing the vessel. This
paper will provide a general guide for filing the proper pleadings to arrest a vessel to enforce a maritime tort
lien and will discuss the steps that must be taken in order to arrest the vessel

A maritime lien is a property right of a non-vessel owner in a vessel giving the non-vessel owner, or lienholder,
the right to have the vessel sold by a federal court sitting in admiralty and the proceeds of the vessel's sale
distributed to the lienholder to satisfy the in rem debt of the vessel.[5] A plaintiff enforcing a maritime tort lien
is proceeding in rem against the vessel, which is referred to as the res. The res is fictionally personified and
hence, can be sued.[6] In the case of liens on vessels, the lien is non-possessory as it does not require the
lienholder to posses or control the vessel until the lien is satisfied and is indelible. The existence of a maritime
lien is the prerequisite to any admiralty in rem action against the vessel.[7] To give rise to a maritime lien, the
accident of which liability arose must itself be maritime innature.[8] A maritime tort lien arises at the moment
the accident occurs.

To arrest a vessel, the plaintiff must have a valid maritime tort lien[9] against the vessel or other maritime
property.[10] The requirements for a maritime lien on a vessel include: (1) a maritime tort; (2) the object of the
lien, the vessel, must be "in navigation"[11] ; (3) the person in possession at the time the tort lien arose must be
in lawful possession of the vessel; and (4) the lienholder or plaintiff may not be an owner, part owner, or joint
venturer in ownership of the vessel[12] .

#761 re. #724

CRITICAL TOPIC: OID's, GURUS & CORRECTING PAST FILINGS
joshuasdad100

MYTH #1. The OID process didn't work.

FACT: When the 1099 process exploded on the scene, IT HAD A TEN YEAR TRACK RECORD OF
SUCCESS. At least one of the "gurus" had used it successfully for nearly a decade.

MYTH #2. The OID process was done incorrectly.

FACT: AT THE TIME it was introduced, the process was being routinely processed by the agency. But when
they became swamped in 2008, they changed their internal criteria and started handing out the penalties.
SHOULD WE BE SURPRISED? The same thing happened to zero returns, EFTs, the BIC process, removals
and estate letters. IT IS A FACT that the protectors of the Corporation do NOT believe the masses can handle
the remedy, and will destroy anyone who tries to go public. YOU HAVE BEEN A VICTIM OF YOUR OWN
SUCCESS, all the while thinking that you were failing.

MYTH #3. The OID process as routinely done today and discussed on the Yahoo groups is correct.
FACT: Unfortunately, 1099 forms, setoffs, acceptances and money orders canNOT be issued by the strawman
debtor trust or the real man. One may sneak through from time to time, but neither entity has the standing in
admiralty to direct a setoff. THIS IS WHY YOU FAIL. THIS IS WHY THEY PROSECUTE. Because the
strawman, as a dedicated transmitter of debt, is presumed to be the Trustee who is stealing funds that belong to
the presumed beneficiary (the estate).

THIS IS WHY WE CLAIM OUR SECURITIES so that there is NO CHANCE ANYONE CAN PRESUME TO
BE THE BENEFICIARY except us. Much discussion at other Yahoo groups is based upon faulty conclusions
drawn from a few fluke outcomes. One of the great patriot vulnerabilities is our tendency to allow the
momentum of faulty conclusions to create doctrine. For this, we can only blame ourselves, not the gurus.

FACT: Once you understand the accounting and applicable law, the entire 1099 process with all of its myriad of
contingencies and situations becomes self-evident, much as my recent posting about how Courts truly operate
was self-evident once explained.

MYTH #4. The "gurus" are evil profiteers who charged exorbitant fees, withheld information to milk the
community, and lacked honor.

FACT: Most (not all) of the men who provided the foundation for our present knowledge are courageous,
knowledgeable and honorable to a fault. We owe them a debt. Where would you be if Jack Smith hadn't taught
you about money, Winston hadn't given you the BC bond, Kennedy hadn't taught you about promissory notes,
bonds, returning process and administrative procedures, David Clarence hadn't discussed the estate, Jean
Keating hadn't taught you about trusts, Irwin Schiff hadn't taught you the definition of income, and Lynn
Meredith hadn't taught you about everything?

You'd be back in the Dark Ages trying to hide income and boost deductions. Condemning such people with a
broad brush is inappropriate - even if you had a bad experience. These people risked everything to bring forth
knowledge. Condemning them for not teaching today's level of information is foolish. That knowledge opened
many doors. Attacking their intentions is unacceptable.

MYTH #5. The new breed of teachers have all the answers.

FACT: Most of today's self-proclaimed "mentors" are operating on conjecture and recycling old technologies
that no longer work.

MYTH #6. You're in trouble because of a guru.

FACT: Who's to blame when we have a bad experience with a "mentor?" I CHOSE to listen only to what I
wanted to hear. TELLING YOU WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR IS THE ESSENCE OF BEING A CON
MAN. And, HEARING ONLY WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR is the essence of being a victim.

MYTH #7. You can correct previous filings with a notice.

FACT: THIS MYTH IS TRUE. One might refile corrected forms or even send a brief affidavit which includes a
blank order to quash all such previous filings due to error, an apology for wasting resources, and an offer to pay
any fees and costs you may have caused. The reason such Notices work in admiralty is because they take
"intent" off the table.

The reason they work at all is because they demonstrate the beginner's mind and humility the Father requires if
you are to ascend to the Kingdom. They show that you are a peacemaker.
And so we return to the words of Jesus as it should be. Bill

#795 re. #782

RE: executor
dang_78...

I noticed something interesting in the link you posted before to IRS qualifications. At the top of the page look
for the section titled "Personal Representative".

Click this link and note the 3rd paragraph....This may shed some light who would be qualified as an Executor if
there is no executor already appointed.....

"For estate tax purposes, if there is no executor or administrator appointed, qualified, and acting within
the United States, the term “executor” includes anyone in actual or constructive possession of any
property of the decedent. It includes, among others, the decedent's agents and representatives; safe-
deposit companies, warehouse companies, and other custodians of property in this country; brokers
holding securities of the decedent as collateral; and the debtors of the decedent who are in this country."

#817 re. #816

Re: executor
Sportniks

31 CFR 363.6:
Minor means an individual under the age of 18 years. The term minor is also used to refer to an individual who
has attained the age of 18 years but has not yet taken control of the securities contained in his or her minor
account.

363.27
(2) In order to gain control of the securities held in the minor's account, the minor must first open his or her own
primary account.

We need to prepare ourselves to take control of our securities and it is spelled out right here, go to the link, it
will blow you away. http://law.justia.com/cfr/title31/31-2.1.1.2.57.html#31:2.1.1.2.57.1.21.1

#867 re. #865

Re: TreasuryDirect Acct. - First Baby Step?
joshuasdad100

If you open a TDA as a strawman debtor, any funds you deposit will become property of the state as it does
with any bank account. Bill

#825
Do we Have standing?
Sportniks

This may help you understand what is happening to us and how we are seen by the IRS. John

31 CRF § 363.6 What special terms do I need to know to understand this part?

Individual means a natural person. Individual does not mean an organization, representative, or
fiduciary.
 Legal guardian of a minor or incompetent person refers to the court-appointed or otherwise qualified
person, regardless of title, who is legally authorized to act for the minor or incompetent individual.

Minor means an individual under the age of 18 years. The term minor is also used to refer to an
individual who has attained the age of 18 years but has not yet taken control of the securities
contained in his or her minor account.

§ 363.27 What do I need to know about accounts for minors who have not had a legal guardian
appointed by a court?

2) In order to gain control of the securities held in the minor's account, the minor must first open his
or her own primary account.

§ 363.11 Who is eligible to open a TreasuryDirect® account?

In order to open a TreasuryDirect account, you must:

(a) Have a valid social security number;

(b) Have a United States address of record;

(c) Have an account at a United States depository financial institution that will accept debits and credits
using the Automated Clearing House method of payment;

(d) Be 18 years of age or over;

(e) Be legally competent; and

(f) Be an individual.

#843 re. #829

Re: Do we Have standing?
joshuasdad100

PRECISELY, "LEX," ESPECIALLY ABOUT NATURAL PERSONS BEING ARTIFICIAL. However, you
will not find the term "individual" defined in the IRC. This is by design. They covet the ambiguity since the
entire corporate system consists of misnomered mirror-image reflections of the real McCoys (strawmen/men,
religious organizations/churches, statutes (inferior law)/common law "rule of decision," money of
exchange/money of account, dimes/dismes, quarters/quarter dollars, Courts/court of record, USA/US, Natural
person/man, marriage (civil union)/marriage etc.) Bill

#838 re. below

Re: Do we Have standing?
joshuasdad100

YES, UNJUST ENRICHMENT IS AT THE HEART OF OUR LIABILITIES. When we fail to obey statutes,
which are the directives of the public trust, those who presume that we are the trustee deem that we are in
foreclosure for having engaged in unjust enrichment, namely stealing funds belonging to the beneficiary
(presumed to be them). The game changes when we defeat the presumptions and correct all the parties. Bill

Re: Do we Have standing?

Lawfulstudy
 I believe some of this may be helpful,

Since 1933, the people have formed new a new unincorporated United States in trust by their silence in
accepting the loss of their ability for paying their debts at law. In other words, the suspension of our
national money standard created a void in the law. Consequently, a resulting or implied trust rushed
in to fill the void. In a resulting or implied trust, there are not terms of how and who is to administer the
terms of the trust, therefore you cannot put the blame on anyone besides the people for letting the trust
be established. “The United States Government may be the trustee of a charitable trust,” Russell v.
Allen, 107 U.S 163; 27 L.Ed. 397, and further; The United States or a state has capacity to take and hold
property upon a charitable trust, but in absence of a statute otherwise providing, the charitable trust is
unenforceable against the United States or a state.”

You(we all do by our actions) admit to conveying y(our) estate to the public trust, thus all your
arguments have little or no merit.

You/we must also remember that you/we are also considered a beneficiary to the trust and as such,
unjust enrichment comes into play.

A resulting implied charitable trust is formed by operation, of law.

#840 re. #834

Re: Do we Have standing?
joshuasdad100

SOME "CLARIFICATIONS" RE YOUR POSTINGS:

1. The "Captain" of the vessel is one of those patriot concepts that convolutes what is conceptually simple. You
have a vessel, a prosecutor, a Court and a fishing expedition to bring in a creditor, owner or banker to post
bond.

2. ALL of those parties have standing in admiralty.

3. Discussion of the "Captain" is counterproductive. A prosecutor, attorney or grand jury deposits a security
with the Court, the Court charges the vessel with the liability to get its consent in the public forum to the
presumption under which it's operating, namely that the Estate has already consented to the public trust as the
result of the infant's pledge of its future "credit" as certified into the public venue (certificated) by the County
registrar as I will explain in more detail in a future posting.

NOTHING IN COMMERCE HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE REAL MAN, TRUTH, OR G-D. That's
just the way it is.

#842 re. #831

Re: Do we Have standing?
joshuasdad100

IF A REAL MAN IS COMPETENT, WHY WOULD HE NEED A COURT TO DECLARE IT? He IS the
court, the master of his domain, the underwriter for his decisions. He may employ the court of record (there are
thousands of them) to do his bidding. Bill

Those of you who engaged in an Estate process, did you pause to consider defining it as an inter vivos estate?

#849 re. #848

Re: TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder
joshuasdad100

BASIC LOGIC AGAIN. I ALWAYS ASK MYSELF, HOW DO THEY DO IT IN THE PUBLIC? Don't they
send in an attorney to give notice that you're alive? We send in a proxy (a proxy is an attorney by definition, an
agent, as distinct from an attorney-at-law) with our claim. And he's a paragon of admiralty virtue and knows
how to get things done, so to speak. Bill

#860 re. #859

RE: THE TURNER DOCS...
joshuasdad100

Hi Johnny,
Re. the process you've described:

1) Copyright - not necessary.

2) Commercial Security Agreement - is critical, but the Turner document is fatally flawed (see #6 below).
3) Hold Harmless Indemnity Agreement - This document is harmful as it reveals the user's inexperience since
the Sec Agreement should already include an indemnity bond.
5) Non-Negotiable Security Agreement - Same problem as the hold harmless doc. It's a duplicate of what's in
the security agreement.
4) Power of Attorney over the Straw-man - This is a contrived document derived from old faulty patriot
theories, and potentially dangerous because it offers you and your body as surety for the strawman. VERY
dangerous. Your lien is sufficient. Unfortunately, the Turner process does not result in a recognizable lien.
6) Indemnity Bond in favor of the real flesh & blood person - The presence of the real man in any of these
documents is fatal.

Status is a very discrete process which is devised based upon sound principles of securities, trust and
commercial law. Unfortunately, the process you've described notifies the Secretary that you're a newbie, ripe for
plucking. Sorry to be the one to tell you this. I would never impugn the author's intentions, but the documents
speak for themselves. Bill.

#859
who here know everything to the real deal of how to get back what was hijacked
johnny_sykora

To be a 'Secured Party Creditor' which is also known also as an `American Sovereign' of the Republic of
America, you have to file at the minimum 6 documents below, which Bill has sent to you in a previous
email. To have access to your$200Billion/USD US Treasury Bond, more filings need to be done.
Documents you need to file BEFORE you file the UCC-1:

1) Copyright your Name and the straw-man's name (your name is in upper and lower case) (Straw-man
is in all UPPER CASE) This template is attached to this email. You don't have to be a sovereign
American to copyright your name.
2) Commercial Security Agreement between you and the straw-man trust
3) Hold Harmless Indemnity Agreement between you and the straw-man trust
4) Power of Attorney over the Straw-man Trust Account
5) Non-Negotiable Security Agreement over the Straw-man trust
6) Indemnity Bond in favor of the real flesh & blood person -YOU.
7) And there are a couple more documents besides the named ones above
 Second: Also, since you have not filed the public notices you are not a Sovereign, who is known to the
courts and public counties and state recorders, any law authorities, etc, as a 'Secured Party Creditor', you
don't have the standing to file a UCC-1, UCC-2, UCC-3, (UCC=Uniform Commercial Code).

- UCC-1 is an informational filing or notice of a lien - This is a paramount first place lien that can be
recorded on property and fixtures.
- UCC-2 is a filing to remove the UCC-1 or make it void on a public record.
- UCC-3 is an Addendum, that you file to add or update the information that was/has been filed
originally on the UCC-1.

All of these liens must be filed by a 'Sovereign American, also known as a Secured Party Creditor' or a
Corporation, not by one who has the standing as a 14th Amendment US Citizen/slave.

#861 re. #855

Re: executor
joshuasdad100

First of all, I don't use the Executor for anything, even though I have also created a decedent Estate as an
overlay of the Estate that's already there. Using the Estate with a 98 or 45 # confuses the issue when the Estate
already has a number, the BC #. Some of the "mentors" can be very convincing because they believe what they
say. However they may not be at the level of understanding of some of the members of this Group. Bill

#862 re. #846

Re: executor-PERFECT EXAMPLE OF PATRIOT ILL-OGIC KILLING US
dang_78...

I went back to the http://www.irs.gov/publications/p559/index.html link

Within the Personal Representative section......Look at this paragraph.....

"Notice of fiduciary relationship. The term fiduciary means any person acting for another person. It
applies to persons who have positions of trust on behalf of others. A personal representative for a
decedent's estate is a fiduciary.

Form 56. If you are appointed to act in a fiduciary capacity for another, you must file a written notice
with the IRS stating this. Form 56, Notice Concerning Fiduciary Relationship, is used for this purpose.
See the Instructions for Form 56 for filing requirements and other information.

File Form 56 as soon as all the necessary information (including the EIN) is available. It notifies the IRS
that you, as the fiduciary, are assuming the powers, rights, duties, and privileges of the decedent. The
notice remains in effect until you notify the IRS (by filing another Form 56) that your fiduciary
relationship with the estate has terminated."

Can this be interpreted to mean whomever is the person we appoint as Fiduciary the appointment is made by
filing IRS Form # 56?
#868 re. #862
Re: executor-PERFECT EXAMPLE OF PATRIOT ILL-OGIC KILLING US
joshuasdad100

NO. A 56 is a NOTICE of a fiduciary relationship. The appointment is separate. It's a complex form,
changed drastically for 2012, and you would want to read page 3 very carefully to see the nuances of
how it works especially fulfilling Sect 6903 threshold. Remember that we are all in bankruptcy when
 you read the instructions. They are very accurate (and cute) with that term. I know very few patriots who
understand how to properly use the form, and why and when. It takes a good solid day to review it to a
point of proper understanding. THIS IS WHAT THEY INTENDED. Since most of them arrive flawed,
they can ignore them. Bill

#866 re. #864

TOPIC: POA TO THE AGENCY?
joshuasdad100

WE NEVER GIVE POWER OF ATTORNEY TO THE AGENCY. NOT ONLY WILL THEY ACCEPT IT,
BUT THEY WILL USE IT TO RETAIN ANY SETOFF FUNDS FOR THEMSELVES. This is fact, not
opinion. Bill

#873 re. below

Re: TOPIC: CORPORATE FIDUCIARY?
joshuasdad100

Would it be better to form a corporation and have it be the fiduciary? Excellent idea. The thing is, someone beat
you to it by decades. The corporation is the United States Federal corporation represented in 28 USC 3002(15),
a derivative of the United States of America public trust, and we surely want it to fulfill its obligation under the
public trust to act as trustee. So you see, the mechanism is already in place to execute our directives. Bill

#897 re. below

TOPIC: REASONS I LOVE SECURITIZATION
joshuasdad100

As for me, I consider every one of those events you cited to be gifts. Each is a taxable event to the bank which
they failed to report because they presumed that they were the original issuer of the certificated derivatives. OH
HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR THEM. Once I reclaim my securities, it's all taxable capital gains, transfer taxes on
terminating my interest in my securities, and worst of all, the nuke: the loss of tax-exempt status for the entire
REIT, mutual fund or REMIC. Who cares who sold what to whom? My collection agency takes no prisoners.
No leverage, Paul? Where do I begin?

#898 re. below

TOPIC: DOUBLE ENTRY BOOKEEPING & MY ONE JOKE FOR THE YEAR.
joshuasdad100

DOUBLE ENTRY BOOKEEPING. In this society, you cannot post an asset to the books without an equal
offsetting liability. This is how Lucifer has moneychangers keep the books. The sum total of all activity today
and every day throughout the world is....nothing. How perfectly ironic.

#899 re. below

TOPIC: DTC
joshuasdad100

Cede & Co. is nothing more than a DBA filed in NY County. DTC steals your securities by registering them
(meaning it holds a security interest) to itself and relegates you to the lowly position of beneficial owner
mentioned only in the books of its Participants. A beneficial owner is sort of like the prettiest maggot in the
garbage pail. A maggot still.
The Fed is a DTC Participant, meaning it takes the value of your BC and SS bonds and adds them to its reserves
as yet another scam to allow endless fractional lending ad infinitum. A win-win...for DTC and the Fed while
you're waiting on tables. Bill

Re: TOPIC: CORPORATE FIDUCIARY?

picotech9999

I always wondered why the DTC would need CeDe as nominee ;) P

#903
TOPIC- NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD
joshuasdad100

- Your public Estate is not granted by the State any more than your inalienable rights are granted by the
Constitution. The Estate is the result of the infant's pledge being "legalized" into the public venue by the County
Registrar. I am hoping to post the article on this subject some time tomorrow.

- Public agencies, trusts and actors are not governed by State law as long as they are presumed to be the
beneficiary. Statutes, codes and regulations apply to trustees. There's good reason for the phrase, "The judge can
do as he likes."

- The State comptroller's office has no more involvement in policing the processing of setoffs through the
agency than the local sanitation department.

Addiction to statues is a common illness among patriots. Let us distinguish between applying statutes
strategically to achieve our remedies, and looking to statutes to justify our existence. It is wise to remember that
U.S. Inc. was conceived to provide a palatable veneer to the bankruptcy, and its bylaws can never, and should
never, be the measure of a man, his wisdom, or his faith. Bill

#911
MAJOR TOPIC: THE BIRTH SCAM - THE UNIFORM SECURITIZATION SCHEME
joshuasdad100

GREETINGS, AS PROMISED, I HAVE UPLOADED A FILE ("THE BC SCAM") to the Group explaining
the boilerplate method which underlies every commercial event of your lives from the original birth pledge to
the typical banking, Court, and commercial transactions of daily existence. As you will see, the UNIFORM
SECURITIZATION SCHEME ("USS") is a template that appears time and again in the resale of your credit
card applications as bank notes, the ledgering of Court indictments, warrants and summonses, the purchase of
groceries, and the pledges, certificates, trusts, accounts, securities and Estates that make up the diabolical birth
Matrix that began your journey.

The article may not be equivalent to personal mentoring, but I hope it will assist your understanding and raise
the level of dialogue throughout the community. It was written in response to a subject that was receiving many
inquiries at the Group after consulting with the Father. The article is nothing more than a reflection of His
inspiration to find our way back to the Kingdom from the realm of buying and selling.

You can download the file by selecting the "Files" link in the blue box on the left side of the screen where you
are reading this message.

Please do not expect this sort of time expenditure for other topics. Like you, I have but one life to lead.
Nonetheless, I hope it is helpful to your deliberations and remain your humble servant. Bill
#951 re. #782
Re: executor
picotech9999

Perhaps more specifically here personal rep and duties

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p559/ar02.html#en_US_publink100099487

#965 re. below

TOPIC: SIFTING THROUGH THE PATRIOT SPOILS TO FIND THE FRUIT
joshuasdad100
When the Court receives a charging instrument or complaint, the Uniform Securities Scheme kicks in (see the
BC Scam article in the Files section). Like any depository institution, they open an account, issue a number,
deposit the security (charging instrument or complaint), and begin issuing securities (Court bond, arrest warrant,
summons to start). An Order is just another bet against future performance (security future) funded by the
deposit of the charging instrument or complaint which are assessments against the Estate. But a check?

What's a check? A security which, like all securities, is intended for disposition (even-exchange under Public
Law 73-10). Can you deposit it in a bank? Of course n---

Well actually, you can. Correction: THEY can. Orders CAN be deposited into a bank by the Court. I've seen
them bearing the deposit endorsement. However, the bank sure as heck is not going to use its license to
monetize an Order if you bring it in (although it could).

But to describe a Court Order as a check is to invite ridicule and threats of contempt. Rather, we might ask for
the bond or restructure the trust on the record or claim our securities or any one of many other approaches
which advance our position and avoid the rolls of the eyes, or my favorite response, "Sir, you can't believe
everything you read on the Internet."

One by one, I hope we can inspire the community to apply strategic logic to the theories and enticements that
abound. So we learn to pick through the spoils to get to the fruit.

#981 re. #968

CRITICAL TOPIC. CAUTION: THE SEDUCTION OF "MAINSTREAM THINKING"
joshuasdad100

THE PROBLEM WITH MAINSTREAM THINKING AS A YARDSTICK IS THAT IT'S ALMOST

ALWAYS WRONG AS YOU'RE ABOUT TO SEE. The first thing I do on those rare occasions when I mentor
someone is to strip away the false concepts and let them decide for themselves if they wish to open their eyes to
self-evident truth. Because truth IS self-evident once you can see again.

Yes an owner receives dividends and interest. But what is a dividend? DIVIDENDS AND INTEREST ARE A
FRACTIONAL RETURN OF WHAT WAS STOLEN FROM YOU. THEY NEVER GAVE YOU YOUR
SECURITY WHEN YOU "BOUGHT" THE STOCK OR BOND. Instead, DTC "registered" it on their books
and relegated you to the status of "beneficial owner" and "credited the account" of the Direct Participant. For
birth bonds, the Fed is the Direct Participant. This means the Fed enters the credits as money of account on its
books, posts 3 - 10 percent to their reserves, and leverages the "money" nine more times by the practice of
fractional banking (fractional securitization) and also gets to borrow against the credits as an asset. DTC also
milks the stone by issuing a bankers acceptance against the security, which converts YOUR security into
THEIR security interest which they can then trade as an asset. I explained this Uniform Securitization Scheme
in the BC Scam article I recently posted. So you, the owner, get a nice dividend, while DTC and the Fed,
holders of a presumed security interest when DTC "registered" the security, expand the money perhaps dozens
of times over to their own benefit (using YOUR security).
The problem with Mainstream thinking is that no one pauses to ask themselves: "What's a dividend?" Why
would they? Just about every public scam is as well-entrenched in our brains as our own name. People go nuts
over a 10,000 point market, but who can define the term "point." They cheer marriage even though the pastor
says, "By the power invested in me by the State of Kentucky." They value ownership while ignoring that their
deed calls them a tenant. The more you examine it, the more it appears that mainstream thinking is global
insanity. From buying groceries to Court cases, no one pauses to examine the transaction carefully. Here's a
FACT to remember: the purpose of every security issued under public policy (Public Law 73-10) is a
disposition, a tax-exempt even-exchange of securities. In EVERY case, the Scheme is to open an account,
assign a number, deposit the security via disposition, and start leveraging more securities against our Estate for
profit and feudal control.

People such as yourself who obviously have a background in common law usually have the strongest beliefs
and the hardest time abandoning them. When examined cognitively, Common Law is the law of the merchant
(as you point out), from ancient Rome, Greece and Egypt to the present rulers of Saudi Arabia, Syria and the
U.S.

Mainstream thinking reflects false flags begun hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of years earlier by the
European Jesuit Order, the banking cartels, and others with the intent to enslave others. The present system of
security interest supremacy dates back at least to 1694 when William of Orange borrowed 1 1/4 million pounds
and basically gave away the farm. So when you look to "mainstream thinking," you're looking to a carefully
crafted deception - theater of the absurd - so well entrenched that almost no one is left capable of assimilating
truth.

As to focusing on the flesh in court, I regret you went through that but it was strictly business. I've explained
how in some of the postings. It's not that they can't see you. OF COURSE THEY CAN SEE YOU. But like a
snake only sees the infra red spectrum of light, every Court event involves a security first. If you signed a paper
or thought to argue with them, that was all it took to consent to the paper in their hands. Those who know what
to say (or not to say) often walk free, where others wind up warehoused. They see you all right, as a surety.

So now the job is to turn those experiences into a triumph by examining most deeply what the Father was trying
to teach you. I left a recent posting on that subject you might check out.

#989 re. #893

Re: TOPIC: UNDERSTANDING THE WHY, BEFORE THE HOW.
eponymous_680

Here's the Wikipedia definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_agreement

For agreements pertaining to the national security of participating states, see Treaty.

A security agreement, in the law of the United States, is a contract that governs the
relationship between the parties to a kind of financial transaction known as a secured
transaction. In a secured transaction, the Grantor (typically a borrower but possibly a guarantor
or surety) assigns, grants and pledges to the grantee (typically the lender) a security interest in
personal property which is referred to as the collateral. Examples of typical collateral are
shares of stock, livestock, and vehicles. A security agreement is not used to transfer any
interest in real property (land/real estate), only personal property. The document used by
lenders to obtain a lien on real property is a mortgage or deed of trust.

The security agreement sets out the various rights the grantee will have with respect to the
collateral, which are in addition to all other rights which the lender may have by law, such as
 those rights contained in Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code which has been adopted in
some form by each state in the United States. The Security Agreement also addresses issues
such as permitted sales or other transactions with the collateral in the ordinary course of the
grantor's business and notices that may be required to be given by the grantee to the grantor if
certain actions are taken. There are many forms available for purchase from legal supply and
banker supply companies, in addition to software that will produce a security agreement
according to specific user input.

A security agreement may be oral if the secured party (the lender) has actual physical
possession of the collateral. Where the collateral remains in the physical possession of the
borrower, or where the collateral is intangible (such as a patent.,[1] accounts receivable, or a
promissory note), the security agreement must be in writing in order to satisfy the statute of
frauds. The security agreement must be authenticated by the debtor, meaning that it must
either bear the debtor's signature, or it must be electronically marked. It must contain a
reasonable description of the collateral, and must use words showing an intent to create a
security interest (the right to seek repayment of the loan by foreclosing on the collateral). In
order for the security agreement to be valid, the borrower must usually have rights in the
collateral at the time the agreement is executed. If a borrower pledges as collateral a car
owned by a neighbor, and the neighbor does not know of and endorse this pledge, then the
security agreement is ineffective. However, a security agreement may specify that it includes
after-acquired property. If such a specification is included, then a pledge of "all automobiles
owned by borrower" would include the neighbor's car if the borrower were to buy that car from
the neighbor.

In order for a security interest to attach to the collateral in the possession of subsequent
purchasers, it must be perfected. If the security agreement is for a purchase money security
interest, perfection is automatic. Otherwise, the lender must record either the agreement itself,
or a UCC-1 financing statement, in an appropriate public venue (usually the state secretary of
state or a state business commission under that person's authority). Perfecting the interest
creates constructive notice, which is deemed legally sufficient to inform the rest of the world of
the lender's rights in the collateral. Where a borrower has used the same property as collateral
with respect to multiple security agreements made with different lenders, the first lender to
record the interest has the strongest claim to that property.

#993 re. #989 2nd

Re: TOPIC: UNDERSTANDING THE WHY, BEFORE THE HOW
joshuasdad100

Have you Googled "security agreement," "security interest," "sample security agreement" and similar tags?
There's a world of information at your fingertips. Wikipedia alone is a goldmine.

I used that very method to learn how to write a contract from BOA, and a basic trust from a top law firm. At
least that gives me clarity on the public perspective and the general concepts before I go fishing. Once you
pause to read even one such document, your question about the need for one will be answered. - Bill

P.S. I CAUTION YOU IN THE STRONGEST TERMS THAT THE PAPERWORK IS LAST ON THE LIST.
FIRST YOU MUST LEARN THE CONCEPTS. Frankly, most people don't get that formula, and eventually
pay the price.

#998 re. #996

Re: Understanding the power of the knowledge
Iamsomedude
Would one first have to "reclassify" the "deposit" to a "special deposit" instead of the "general deposit" it
apparently currently occupies?

I would think this would be the first action ...

Rumsfeld used to say there are the known-knowns, the known-unknowns, the unknown-unknowns ... so would
it be reasonable to also conclude there is a public, a private-public, and private-private and as well as equity-
equity (special) and statutory/legal equity (general)?

#999 re. #998

Re: Understanding the power of the knowledge
Sportniks

It is my understanding that once you claim the trust as grantor/beneficiary, express it as an expressed trust,
appoint the Court as trustee (which they already are since they hold the res) then I see the deposit as being
special, a trust deposit. In your letter you could tell the trustee (judge) that you have claimed, withdrawn and re-
deposited under special deposit the complaint securities. This would clearly show your intent and as you know
"the intent of the settlor is the law of the trust". Intent is by words or actions.

There really only exists the private and the public, however the public does have a private side which is still
public. John

#1014 re. #973

Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
picotech9999

It depends on who you mean by "we". Men /women are not seen, but the trustees and surety for the "Estate" can
be seen (appear).
If your body vessel is taken for surety, then the man/woman goes to "security holding".
Normally they will take property or land first, but if there are none listed, the body may have to do.
Many tricky pieces in here all in the USS pattern ;)

#1019 re. #1006 2nd

TOPIC: WHO OWNS THE BONDS? WHO OWNS THE STRAWMAN? WE DO.
joshuasdad100

The belief that they created the strawman and the BC is a common misconception. THE BIRTH
CERTIFICATE IS NOT THEIR CREATION. AND THEY ARE NOT THE BENEFICIARY. This is one of
those concepts that I find the need to break down when I mentor someone so that they can better assimilate the
vast power in understanding securities and trusts. People who hold that belief haven't diagrammed the actual
transactions. I've done that for you though, if you will download the BC Scam article in the files archives.
Following the Uniform Securitization Scam, the BC was issued from the Department of Treasury account
opened to accommodate the deposit of the Certificate of Live Birth against the funds in that account. Those
funds consisted of the pledge of OUR labor represented by the Certificate of Live Birth. What people need to
understand is that the public trust has no credit of its own. It has no capacity to create anything. It is an
impossibility of law and Law that the strawman is their creation. This is why currency is backed by the "full
faith and credit of the people" of the United States. This is why they will pull any uncivil stunt to get you to sign
the appearance BOND. The public has no commercial energy – IT NEEDS YOURS.

Is a car owned by the men who built it? Who owns the grass that grows on "your" lawn? The party doing the
physical issuing is irrelevant. It is our credit, and they're bonds.
Now if they paid us for the bond, then they might be able to re-issue a derivative against it. But they have no
credit to pay us. From the Certificate of Live Birth to the quarter you use to "buy" a piece of candy, they all
belong to us.

The strawman trust belongs to us, not them. When we correct the proper roles, THEY have the problem, not us.
I hope this makes sense. Give that article a good read and see what you think. Bill

#1020 re. below

CONTRACT LAW IS IRRELEVANT. IT'S THE SECURITY.
joshuasdad100

THE SUPREMACY OF CONTRACTS IS ONE OF THE MOST COMMON PATRIOT MYTHS THAT HAS
CAUSED SO MUCH PAIN FOR PEOPLE IN THE PAST. The contract is secured by an exchange of
securities, which establishes a couple of trusts. When you claim the securities (both of them since both were
issued against your credit through the Estate) then they have substantial TAX liabilities, REPORTING
requirements, and FRAUD CONCERNS which ARE collectible through the agency, which ARE saleable to
financial institutions, which ARE subject to freezing, lien and enforcement. Plus, they are now finally subject to
their own laws, which are the directives of the public trust. When you attack the contract, THEY STILL HOLD
YOUR SECURITY and the profits and proceeds from all the securitization. This is why so many patriots have
come to blows with the public despite every possible measure to withdraw, pull numbers, and end contracts.
Sure, it can work now and then, but it takes extraordinary skill and courage. AND THEN, YOU'RE OUT OF
THE SYSTEM AND ITS ADVANTAGES.

If you believe that a proper claim with knowledge of enforcement strategies will not work, it won't. But as your
knowledge of securities and trusts grows, hopefully the reality will become part of the new awareness that
provides remedy, be it deflecting attempts to rob your beneficiary status, or cashing out. Bill

"rcarne@..." <rcarne@> wrote: re. #1011 2nd

As long as you have standing contracts with them via your signature you Can Claim all day long if you
want they don’t care.. until you void out those contracts and give back the property (U.S. Citizen) SS#
and DL and Bank accounts as well as invisible contracts you’re under their jurisdiction. Can't pull the
codes from my phone but have all the info at home. You’re either in or out...alien or Citizen. Privileges
or rights, this is how the government of Arizona is able to cut off new U.S. Citizens from receiving State
benefits... it is written that u.s. citizens do not enjoy the same rights and privileges as state citizens.
Tashiro v. ??? Can't remember.. powers of the king are divested or fall to each individual state
Citizen...post it when I get home...

#1030 re. below

Re: ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED
picotech9999

It begins to be "tricky" The beneficiary can not ask for a benefit (unclean hands , self-interest) so a fiduciary is
needed (Can you spell that as proxy???) I'm sure the grantor is seen and can express implied trust conditions---
"I meant ......blah"
Some trusts are irrevocable - no idea about grantor's power there. P

On 8/17/2012 3:28 PM, JohnTrustee wrote: re. #1014

Can't grantor/beneficiary for the trust also be seen (appear)? John

#1050
Re: Understanding the power of the Knowledge/CONTRACT LAW IS IRRELEVANT. IT'S THE
SECURITY. re. below
joshuasdad100

You see, they surely do care when they know you mean business, can capture their bond, can sell their liability
overseas, can process the claim through U.S. Fed Ct of Claims, and so on. Using one's knowledge of trusts and
securities, there isn't much we can't do.

#1076
I AM A real man DMV
dvanderryt

I though I would share my experience I had today. I went to the Dept. of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to renew my
Driver's License. I did not bring two letters addressed to me as proof of address. Instead I asked to do an
affidavit and swear it.

She gave me the affidavit and I put my name as David Wayne of the VanDerryt family and my address I put
C/O 1234 my street then; my town and I spelled out Florida and left the zip code off.

I signed it with my first and middle name only.

I gave it to her and she read it over carefully. She looked at me and dropped her left eye lid (winked) ever so
grinningly. She told me to sign my name for the card and she looked into my eyes sternly as if to say here is
your chance kid. (I am 50 and she must have been 65)

Well, I have my Real man's name on my DL and an accepted affidavit swearing it.

#1097 re. below

Re: [Reclaim_Your_Securities] Re: I AM A real man DMV
kdcinstitute

All I have is US DOT and the words ‘private conveyance.’ I have not been stop by the police in 2 years and
they get behind me all the time. plates been expired for 2 yrs. I always LOL when they get behind me cuz I
know they can't do nothing but look. I'm invisible to them. I've run stop signs and red lights, but I do it with
care. I showed a friend how to be invisible to the cops and he can't believe it. His DL’s been suspended for 4
months and he hasn’t been stopped ..and he drives with no plates, just US DOT number and the words ‘private
conveyance.’ Just make a bill of sale for your "automobile" make up a new VIN number of your choice, file
with the recorder of deeds or records, give notice, and send copy to secret service giving them notice. And your
done...but you didn't. hear that from me.

JohnTrustee <john@...> wrote: re. #1086

David, keep us posted as to what happens, it is good to think outside of the box. Several years ago I
signed my DL 'without prejudice' took copy of it and typed 'For Identification Only' made copies of my
master travel agreement with all 50 states, my declaration expressly waiving the benefit privilege of the
States, US, etc.. then I got stopped in AZ by a state police for speeding, & wasn't wearing a seat belt. He
asked if I new how fast I was traveling, I told him no but I do try and travel at least 10 miles per hour
over the speed limit. When he asked for my DL and insurance I told him I don't carry my DL with me as
I am not for hire and just traveling. I gave him my copy for ID and my other stuff that I had signed as
RM and had notarized and recorded in county. After a few minutes he came back to the car and gave me
 back my stuff, I never did find the insurance card. He leaned through the passengers window and shook
my hand and told me to have a great day.

Last year I got stopped on my Harley because the cop did a check on my plates that I never registered in
my name or changed title to when I bought it in 2005 (I had put 'Not For Hire' 'Right to Travel' on the
plates, I don't have an indorsement but have ridden my whole life. Same thing happed although he was a
rookie and wanted to argue with me as I am from Oregon and this was in New Mexico. Again he gave
everything back and we parted. I don't recommend this to others, however it has worked for me and
what you did may work for you. I will change what I have been doing and perfect it through trust, and I
do hope this works for you. John

#1113 re. #1097

RE. THE DMV POSTINGS
joshuasdad100

THERE IS MUCH MORE TO THAT STORY THAN MEETS THE EYE. DOT is used to register a claim in
the strawman. Hundreds of patriots have used it to register a claim in the strawman by the Estate. However, the
public Estate is actually a surety on the public's books for the debts charged to the strawman. The "Estate" that
people are registering is a different estate, one which is registered as a foreign entity. This is fine except the
name is similar to the BC name so there is confusion between the debtor estate and the creditor estate. This is
something perhaps understood by a handful of those who have registered at DOT, the rest are flying blind. Once
in a while someone gets it right and files a UCC with the estate listed as both debtor and creditor, with a slight
difference in HOW they are listed. None of this matters if the creditor Estate has no credentials to act, unless
you wish to go direct to cashing out.

Better to use a non-estate proxy to do the job as we've been discussing.

DOT numbers can (and likely will be) challenged from time to time. It varies from State to State and cop to cop.
One shouldn't fly the plane without a true command of what to do if (when) challenged.

IF YOU HAVE THAT COMMAND, then you can transform the public attack into a wonderful opportunity to
teach them to avoid the expense of messing with you again.

THE OTHER OPTION is to keep the license and teach them the same lesson anyway when the opportunity
appears. You can choose to act as Trustee when it's beneficial to the beneficiary (like a smooth traffic stop with
kids in the car) and shift to beneficiary when it's useful (like dealing with the Court). You do NOT have to be
Siamese twins to wear two hats. G-d gave you two hands. You can change the flag at will. Bill

#1114 re. #1113

REGARDING THE DMV POSTINGS (#2)
joshuasdad100

The Department of Transportation can also be used to register a claim AGAINST the Estate.

ONE THING TO REMEMBER, the recent use of DOT to register a claim because it's the "highest venue in the
admiralty" concerning vessels, is another example of our tendency to expand thread of information into faulty
conclusions. No one in the public will recognize such a claim as a maritime lien. The public facilities one uses
to achieve a remedy should be the ones that will elicit predictable responses from public officials. Otherwise,
you can expect a bit of a conflict.
Bill

#1118 re. below

CAUTION - CAUTION - CAUTION
joshuasdad100

IRS WOULD NEVER BE A PROXY UNLESS YOU WISH TO GO TO PRISON. Ask yourself some simple
questions:
Why would you assign your lien rights to the bookkeeper?
Why would you name the IRS as a beneficiary?
Isn't the IRS already a trustee on the SSN?

MEMBERS - THIS THREAD DEMONSTRATES THE DANGERS OF PUBLIC SPECULATION. Thousands

of miles away, some poor bastard is devoting his life to constructing a process using IRS as a proxy because he
read somone else's speculations. -Bill

#1153 re. below

Re: IRS - why the caution?
joshuasdad100

WHY WOULD YOU WANT YOUR ACCOUNTANT TO BE YOUR PROXY? A fiduciary, sure, but not your
proxy! Give your claim to the accountant??? It's been tried. Think Bernie Madoff. Bill

#1156 re. #1153

Re: IRS - why the caution?
peterpapoulias

It's not so much about the HDC and more about the EH (entitlement holder) UCC8. There are 2 types of fiction.
1st is an ens legis (legal entity, a fiction of the mind ) like a corp. 2nd is a fictional representation (like the
grantor ).
The grantor is a fictional representation of the real man. Like a photo of yourself is a fictional (2dimensional)
representation of you. The grantor never speaks in the public. You never say your the grantor. You are just
ACTING in the CAPACITY of trustee. Think electricity folks. The grantor communicates in the public on
paper. Same thing for the beneficiary.

It is all about accounting in the public. Think electricity and you will u see the flow of energy (currency). For a
circuit to be closed it must go back to ground (the private).

Here is a scenario :

You work for GM building cars (commercial energy). But who benefits from the labor? Simple just look at the
pay stub. What number is always on it? The SSN which is the beneficiary of the BC. The labor is coming from
the grantor. The beneficiary is getting the evidence of that labor as debt. But remember the beneficiary did not
earn or create that energy so it is all income profit to the SSN. When you file a 1040 you Re font as the trustee
to the BC reporting the dividends paid out to the beneficiary. That is taxable.

Our goal is to ground out the charge. Where is the ground? It's in the private.

IRS = internal REVENUE service

Revenue = revenue (French) for that which must return. The private is a venue, so is the public. So the energy
goes from the private into the public. Now we must REVENUE it back to the private (ground it out). Look at
the congressional record of 1942. It's all there. Since the grantor is lost at sea and the IRS only exists in the
public. Where does the currency (energy) go that the IRS collects?
It goes to the entitlement holder (US Treasury). Your BC Is a certificate of indebtedness issued by the debtor to
the creditor. The DTCC has you BC ledgered as a security and the US Treasury is ledgered as the entitlement
holder. Go the DTCC web site and read there PDFs. One of them explains the process of ledgering securities.
Guess what type of security they use as an example? Yup you guessed it YOUR BC !

The US Treasury claims parens Patriea (spelling may be off) FATHER of the estate as the bible explains the
father is the executor of the child's estate.

So the BC is the debtor as it borrows from the estate to acquire title. And the borrower is always guilty and
always pays.

You need to have a trust that holds the highest claim (maritime lien). So you can claim the debt and ground it
out.

Look up maritime liens.

#1191 re. below

Re: TreasuryDirect Acct. - First Baby Step?
joshuasdad100

Beneficiary / depositor / authorized representative for the Grantor.

"dnadesi" <dnadesi@...> wrote: re. #1022

So, we want to go from SM debtor to------------->??? (please fill in the blank)

#1194 re. #1118

Re. CAUTION - CAUTION - CAUTION.....CLARIFICATION
joshuasdad100

A PROXY IS NOT THE SAME AS A FIDUCIARY. We can appoint a fiduciary for specific purposes and give
notice with a Form 56, but you would never want to give a blanket POA for the agency to stand-in as your
proxy. If you do, they will take your property every time. Bill

IRS WOULD NEVER BE A PROXY UNLESS YOU WISH TO GO TO PRISON. Ask yourself some simple
questions:
Why would you assign your lien rights to the bookkeeper?
Why would you name the IRS as a beneficiary?
Isn't the IRS already a trustee on the SSN? - Bill

#1195 re. #1194

SPEAKING OF FORMS 56...
joshuasdad100

DO THEY WORK? You bet. They can even be used to terminate/collapse the strawman trust, not that you
would necessarily want to. But if you do, their records will show it as dead - WITHOUT EVER HAVING
SUBMITTED A DEATH CERTIFICATE. That, alone, is proof they understand. Bill

#1220 re. below

Re: TreasuryDirect Acct. - First Baby Step?
picotech9999
There is no beneficiary with clean hands -- that's why a fiduciary is needed .... P

On 9/1/2012 5:00 PM, circumnavigator2 wrote: re. below

Why can't the auth rep provide notice of his/her own appointment? Who has a better record? John

#1228 re. #1156

Re: IRS - why the caution?
maharaj333

Peter Papoulias <peterpapoulias@...> wrote:

"It's not so much about the HDC; more about the EH (entitlement holder) UCC8"

In going through the UCC 8, looking at entitlement holder (EH):

§ 8-102. DEFINITIONS.(7) "Entitlement holder" means a person identified in the records of a securities
intermediary as the person having a security entitlement against the securities intermediary. If a person acquires
a security entitlement by virtue of Section 8-501(b)(2) or (3), that person is the entitlement holder.

" If a person acquires a security entitlement by virtue of Section 8-501(b)(2) or (3), that person is the
entitlement holder."

§ 8-501. SECURITIES ACCOUNT; ACQUISITION OF SECURITY ENTITLEMENT FROM SECURITIES

INTERMEDIARY.

(14) "Securities intermediary" means:

(i) a clearing corporation; or

(ii) a person, including a bank or broker, that in the ordinary course of its business maintains securities
accounts for others and is acting in that capacity.

(16) "Security certificate" means a certificate representing a security.

(17) "Security entitlement" means the rights and property interest of an entitlement holder with respect to a
financial asset specified in Part 5.

I'm really enjoying reading the UCC - thanks Peter!

#1230 re. below

Re: could this be true
essentialer
Mon Sep 3, 2012 1:39 pm

I am interested to know if this company was one of the cons? If so, I can then avoid using them.

DATA CUSIP SYSTEMS

490 North Main Street
Woodstock, Virginia (22664)

#1232 re. #1102

ESSENTIAL READING - THE ESTATE PROCESS (pt. 1)
joshuasdad100

You would NOT want to simply walk away from your estate process. Rather, YOU ARE MARRIED TO IT.
Here's what you need to know:

1. The Estate for which you secured a foreign EIN is NOT the Certificate of Birth estate that is the surety for the
debts of the strawman. IT IS A SEPARATE ENTITY. Your "mentors" probably forgot to make that clear, or
more likely, did not understand that themselves. If you secured the 98, 27 or 45 No., you now have three entities
in play:

STRAWMAN DEBTOR 123-45-6789, a domestic trust, the entity that they charge with all debts they wish the
estate to pay.

The COB estate, 123-45-123456, a domestic trust, the surety for the STRAWMAN. The name of this entity is
as it appears on the long form: Marie Ruth White, MARIE RUTH WHITE, Marie Ruth WHITE, etc.

THE NEW ESTATE, 27-1234567, a foreign trust, Secured Party to the foregoing IF you filed your UCC-1's
properly. MOST OF YOU HAVE NOT. If you created a fourth trust under a new name and registered it in the
commercial registry as S/P, the UCC is still defective.

2. If you try to register the NEW ESTATE on a UCC1, it will appear to be the same party as the original estate
debtor, so it needs to be done cleverly, and it's number needs to be featured prominently.

3. CRITICAL: Your Estate procedures are an impediment to any trust procedures you may be planning to
secure your status or cash-out. For instance, IF YOU USED FORM 56 TO KILL THE STRAWMAN AND
COLB ESTATE, there's a good chance that the agency's records will SHOW THAT THE STRAWMAN IS
DEAD. This is not speculation. It might be advisable to call them to confirm. If you call them as the Strawman,
you may encounter a very disturbed agent. If you need them to perform in some way, the call should be made as
the Executor. When you confirm that the strawman is dead, then perhaps you will see the power of the 56. A
pronouncement of death without a death certificate. (Life insurance anyone???)

4. How will this death status impact any attempt to cash-out? This is a good question for which I don't have a
definite answer. However, remember Roger Elvick's "command the memory of STRAWMAN 123-45-6789"
language? Perhaps it's starting to make better sense. Just remember, SEC. IV OF THE CESTUI QUE VIE ACT
OF 1666 SAYS THAT IF THE PERSON PRONOUNCED DEAD RETURNS, HE OR HIS EXECUTOR
MAY RECLAIM THE PROPERTY.

5. Here's another problem. Those of you who created a second trust to act as Secured Party have recorded it on
your UCC’s as an individual. But it is not. IT'S A TRUST. A replacement for the strawman. Those filings are
incorrect.

These are just some of the issues for "Estate people" to address. I would not be upset if it seems like, once
again, you have to rethink and change your processes. Good lessons always come from these things, AND
THERE'S NOTHING IN COMMERCE THAT CAN'T BE CORRECTED. Dead or alive, the money is still
ours. -Bill

#1233 re. #1232

ESSENTIAL READING - THE ESTATE PROCESS (pt. 2)
joshuasdad100

HUNDREDS OF PATRIOTS SPENT THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OVER MANY MONTHS to achieve

their Estate "status." Most of you are stalled in that process. That should be a lesson in itself.

The reason you don't know how to proceed is because you were not given the CLEAR UNDERSTANDING
you need to control your commercial fate. You were strung along. You ignored your gut and believed what you
wanted to hear. You were convinced that only your "mentor" had the wisdom to figure things out. You
conceived of him as the hero willing to take the risks while plowing the field for you. In reality, you were
treated as children and you accepted that role as you did with Tony King. After all, if you did not understand
that you had created a third estate (private, COLB, NEW ESTATE), how could you possibly proceed
intelligently?

THIS SITUATION SHOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THAT, WHETHER ITS THE ESTATE PROCESS OR
UNDERSTANDING SECURITIES AND TRUSTS, IT'S ALL ABOUT UNDERSTANDING. The postings
in this Group have already given you the roadmap to your remedy. MOST OF YOU DON'T SEE THAT (yet),
but in time you might.

If I love my neighbor as myself, I CANNOT CONDENSE HOURS OF DISCUSSION AND RESEARCH

INTO A FEW PARAGRAPHS without risking the greatest harm to my brothers. The outcome is so predictable.
With inadequate understanding, we will create yet another platter of victims for the beast to consume. So my
postings will continue to promote that understanding within the limitations of my own schedule, even at the risk
of causing frustration."

If we can't conduct ourselves peacefully, then how can we credibly claim to hold the Government to the same
standard? -Bill

#1243
RE. THE CUSIP #
joshuasdad100

Sure, there are some interesting things one can do with a CUSIP # for a court case or the SSN. But consider
this.......

If the Grantor claims all securities, accounts, trusts and deposits represented by, associated with, or derived
from, the global designation 123-45-123456, then haven't you claimed the Case bond, the SS account, the SS
bonds, and every other security? Do we really care how the derivatives are identified?

For your answer, check out 31 CFR 356.5..."When we issue additional securities with the same CUSIP number
as the outstanding securities, we consider them to be the same securities as the outstanding securities." Is that a
remarkable quote?

THEY'RE ALL THE SAME SECURITY. If you snare the Certif of Birth, you've snared them all. 356 governs
the sale of "marketable Treasury" securities (think Certif of Birth).

The options are many once we claim the COB. The problem is that most patriots issued their claims years ago
and then walked away at the first sign of resistance. That's not how you play poker with a big bluffer. Bill

#1249 re. #217

Re: Funds in treasury come from a conversion, NOT liens upon estates.
maharaj333

I just want to clarify this, what was stated in the 3rd paragraph:
"YOU ARE SO RIGHT ABOUT NOT LIENING OUR BROTHER. But UCC 9-311(a)(3) makes it clear that
the holder of a certificate enjoys the presumption of a perfected lien. The BC is the evidence of our lien
against the strawman. It exists whether we claim it or not. It was born by our actions. The BC treasury process
just makes the lien digestible in the public."

Are you saying, as per UCC 9-311(a)(3) : If the security certificate is in registered form and is delivered to the
secured party pursuant to agreement, a written security agreement is not required for attachment or
enforceability of the security interest. Mere delivery suffices for perfection, even if a necessary indorsement is
lacking?

I kind of glossed over this before. We already have priority security interest, but because, we haven't expressed
that interest in the fiction public, using our proxy/pawns, we cannot be 'seen'?

#1267 re. below

Re: redressright at youtube
joshuasdad100

Roy, you're correct...you wish to be outside and lose the advantages. But if you wish to enjoy the advantages of
the beneficiary who can enforce the trust indenture, then a BEN could be helpful. Both are entirely unnecessary
from the commercial perspective. Bill

Re: redressright at youtube re. #1258

Roy Lewis <nohgdds@...>

I am new here but this is the first time I have seen discussion of the W-8BEN on this forum. I don't
think this is the form to be using. The form you need is the W-8 which is not available on the IRS web
site. The W-8 removes you from their jurisdiction while the W-8BEN puts you squarely in it. Think
that might be why they want to hide it? I don't know if you can request (and get) the W-8 from IRS but
it would be worth a try.

#1299 re. below

Re: APPOINTMENT
picotech9999

Very Interesting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment

On 9/15/2012 4:51 PM, ted wrote:

he may not do it on his own, but by the power of appointment act you can sign for him by
accommodation......

#1300 re. #1299 2nd

Re: APPOINTMENT As Securities Future
picotech9999

Warrants are securities aren’t they? ;) P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Warrant

#1355 re. #1353 & #1554

TOPIC: GSA FORMS NO. 1
joshuasdad100

HI SHEILA AND ROY - THIS IS A HUGE TOPIC SO LET'S SEE WHAT WE CAN WHITTLE AWAY.
First of all, the GSA forms were designed to work, and they WILL work (and here's the qualifier no one wants
to hear).... WHEN USED BY SOMEONE WHO UNDERSTANDS SECURITIES AND TRUSTS. With that
understanding they're an open book like most procedures.

For example, in an earlier posting do you remember when I said that THE ESTATE IS THE SURETY FOR
THE DEBTS THAT ARE CHARGED TO THE STRAWMAN. I noted that the strawman is nothing but a debt
entity; a creation to transmit debt to a creditor, owner or surety. Perhaps you recall a lengthy posting in which I
explained how they CHARGE THE STRAWMAN to entice the Estate to pay, which is why Roger Elvick used
the language: "and charge the same to account JOHN HENRY DOE 123-45-6789."

In a file I posted for the Group, I explained that your estate is your inheritance from the Father and reviewed
how the recording of the birth record as a certificate by the County registrar creates a mirror-image PUBLIC
ESTATE which is derived from the presumption that since you were born on this land, you're a member of the
posterity and therefore a surety for the debts of the United States - specifically that portion attributed to your
strawman.

Therefore, YOUR CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH REPRESENTS YOUR PUBLIC ESTATE, the surety for
the strawman. The birth number is the number that represents that the surety.

Some members recognized the value of that information and chose to pray and analyze it for significance.
Others elected to huff and puff in typical patriot fashion about the glass being half full. What those lost souls
fail to realize is that their negative energy has blocked them from seeing the remedy that's ALREADY in their
hands. Here's an example...

The GSA forms are nothing more than bonds with which you buy out the lien which has been placed on your
property. In a criminal case, the case bond which they issued (against your credit) from the case account which
was opened to receive the Indictment security as a deposit, represents that lien.

Let's complete the very first sentence on the 90 and 91 in light of the Estate's role as underwriter:

"Whereas JOHN HENRY DOE, of CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH NO. 145-68-123456, by a bond for the
performance of U.S. Government Contract Number 123-45-6789 became a surety for the complete and
successful performance of said contract, which bond includes a lien upon certain real property further described
hereafter, and"

Fancy language, but easily understood when you examine it under the looking glass of your knowledge. Notice
the language: "by a bond for the performance of U.S. Government Contract Number 123-45-6789..."

Ring a bell? THIS IS THE SMOKING GUN EVERYONE'S BEEN LOOKING FOR - RIGHT UNDER THEIR
NOSE.

Here's how it translates:

"Whereas the Public Estate (the COB trust), represented by CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH NO. 145-68-123456,
BECAME A SURETY for the debts attributed to the Strawman Social Security trust account "contract" due to
issuance of a bond by the Department of the Treasury (the birth bond exchanged for currency) which ensures
the strawman's performance on its debts..."
Right there, in the first sentence, they're telling you exactly what I told you months ago, namely that THE
ESTATE IS THE SURETY FOR ALL OF THE DEBTS ATTRIBUTED TO THE STRAWMAN. Is that not a
revelation of sorts?

With this knowledge, suddenly forms 90 an 91 are no longer a mystery, but they offer a road map into what
actually happens to your birth bond...The forms go on to say:

"which bond includes a lien upon certain real property further described hereafter,"

Translation: the birth bond is considered to be a lien on all of the securities issued on behalf of the Estate, such
as the Court's case bond. In the very next sentence it says:

"and Whereas said surety established the said lien upon the following property" at which point you list the case
number as the property. What this tells you is that THE SURETY, namely the party you listed above, JOHN
HENRY DOE, THE ESTATE, is a surety for the Case bond that they issued in the Estate's name to charge the
strawman.

And what you're doing with the GSA bonds is buying that lien out, classic admiralty, you're functioning as a
creditor who is posting bond so that the property, the case bond, AND YOUR BODY AS COLLATERAL, can
be released.

First you release the lien with the 90.

Then you release the property, the case bond, with the 91.

They HAVE to release the collateral.

That's all I have time for right now, but I KID YOU NOT, IT'S ALL ABOUT UNDERSTANDING. As I've
been saying from the beginning, if you develop your understanding, if you understand Articles 8 and 9 of the
UCC, you can figure most anything out. Bill

P.S. My apologies to whiners everywhere. We have all been bred to be lazy thinkers.

PPS.Roy, there are probably dozens of reasons why your GSA's failed, beginning with the Clerk. The Clerk is
NOT the Court. The JUDGE TRUST is the court. The Clerk only knows to file. Did you put them through the
court of record? Did you include a trust, an appointment confirmation, a POA and such? There is so much
more than throwing darts at the wall, and it all comes down to understanding.

#1364 re. #1361 2nd

Re: TOPIC: GSA FORMS NO. 1
joshuasdad100

IT'S CRAP ONLY IF YOU LACK UNDERSTANDING. IF I WERE TO TRY TO DO SURGERY ON

SOMEONE, it would surely be viewed as butchery by the family of the deceased and everyone who followed,
except for qualified surgeons who understand the process WHEN DONE CORRECTLY. My work would have
nothing to do with their highly skilled undertakings. The GSA forms are crap because no one taught you the
correct way to wield the scalpel: what they mean, how to complete them, how to support them, how to process
them so they're "proved," and how to let the recipient know the consequences of stealing your property. It's like
trying to build a building after a lobotomy. You didn't stand a chance. How could they have worked?
When a public official terminates your "interest" in property, he creates a taxable termination (26 USC 2612)
for which HE is liable. Read 26 USC 2203 - it's shocking. The debt IS collectable, AND enforceable, AND
saleable, for the surgeons among us.

As to the authority, what gives you the authority to sign a bank check? The authority is reflected by the BC (the
Estate). The first sentence of the 90 and 91 tell you the capacity of the Estate as surety. The SF 28 is a
dissertation on the BC surety and the SS debtor. Every time they "charge" the strawman they are telling you
they want the Estate to act as surety. We're not speculating. We're giving them exactly what they want. Once
you understand who you are, you realize that ONLY you can order the release of the lien and collateral. Aren't
you the only one who can assess the strawman a tax? -Bill

#1389 re. #1371

TOPIC: CLARIFYING THE PARTIES.
joshuasdad100

The public trust has established two entities in your place:

First entity: the Estate, the trust account(s) operating under the birth designation 123-45-98764. That number
represents all the accounts, trusts, deposits and securities associated with or derived from the original deposit at
the County. The Estate is the surety for the strawman, paying all of the liabilities charged to it through the
strawman. That account is also represented by the name on the long form Certif of Birth be it Joh Henry Doe,
JOHN HENRY DOE or John Henry DOE.

Second entity: the Social Security trust account represented by the number 123-45-6789. That number, and the
name JOHN HENRY DOE, represent that trust and all accounts, securities and deposits associated with or
derived from it.

The number is always a more accurate identifier than the name, so don't get lost in all of the other diversions
patriots love to debate. It's all irrelevant. Bill

#1390 re. below

Re: Coin and currency
joshuasdad100

Paul:

31 CFR 103.11 defines a monetary instrument.

UCC 3-104 defines a negotiable instrument.

When someone declines either, then their rights of recourse are discharged, meaning the debt is paid. And that
is handily explained in UCC 3-311, 3-603(b) and 3-604(a)(i). "It's paid, counselor."

UCC 10101 - 107 provide for the supremacy of the UCC. However, they are likely to overrule in Court, which
is why you need to restore the proper roles of Trustee and Beneficiary so that THEY now have to obey the
public Indenture (the codes, statues and regs). Bill
Coin and currency
europeaneagle90

Can someone give me the law and codes that shows that they cannot ask for a specific coin or currency?
Thanks in advance.
#1406 re. #1372
Re: TOPIC: GSA FORMS NO. 1
joshuasdad100

AGAIN, IT PAYS TO KEEP THINGS SIMPLE AND LINEAR, RATHER THAN CONVOLUTED. With
respect, let me say that the Strawman is none of those things, It is not a grantor, an incorporator, or a parent to
proxies. The strawman is a debt vehicle, created SOLELY to transmit debt to the Estate...TRULY a vessel in
admiralty which exists ONLY to be arrested (whenever it receives a bill of charges) so that the owner or
perhaps a creditor will APPEAR in admiralty and post bond so that the vessel can be released to get back to it's
business of being "charged" for its portion of the public debt. That's it: a debt conveyance.

Conversely, the Estate is the surety that guarantees those obligations will be paid...one way or the other. Bill

#1407 re. #1392

Re: TOPIC: CLARIFYING THE PARTIES.
joshuasdad100
Thu Sep 27, 2012 10:58 pm

Nope. It's a security future which certifies that you were born on this land, and therefore are responsible for the
debts of the United States. It doesn't create the obligation; it represents the obligation. It's interpreted as a
pledge whereby the Estate is presumed to be the surety which guarantees payment of all obligations charged
against the strawman SSN. It's the first paragraph on GSA Optional Forms 90 and 91 wherein a "surety" "by a
bond for the performance of U.S. Government contract No. 123-45-6789..." The future performance against
which the bond has been wagered is that the Estate will pay the obligations charged to the strawman. So it is not
incomplete (or inchoate" as you chose to put it.

When you note a banker's acceptance on it you've created a brand new security, just like when a bank check is
endorsed "Pay To The Order Of" the bank. Bill

#1408 re. #1406

Re: TOPIC: GSA FORMS NO. 1
ladyfairfax3...

All I meant was...the SSN entity has the power to create true vs. quasi corporate entities EIN. The new entity
can serve as the proxy for the trust estate. This takes the us citizen out of the equation all together. Granted,
there are other ways of knocking off the SSN entity. Executor EIN is a good one, but it requires actually talking
to IRS on the phone to receive a foreign designation, after some finagling. Either way will work. The point is to
stop using the SSN entity all together for funding and tax reporting. BTW- debt is currency, but that debt
vehicle has been operating in a detrimental way through performance on 1040 forms.

#1424 re. #1391

TOPIC: PUBLIC OFFICIALS DO NOT HAVE TO OBEY THE LAW
joshuasdad100

Under their system, public officials do NOT have to obey their own statutes, codes, regulations, and case law, in
particular the Constitution in either country. All of those elements comprise the public INDENTURE, meaning
the rules of the public trust created by the U.S. Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights. The terms of a
trust indenture apply ONLY to the trustee. The deposit of the Certificate of Birth at the County or Province
creates the mirror-image public Estate which is the surety for all public debts charged to the strawman, and a
presumption that the strawman is a trustee and the PUBLIC OFFICIAL TRUST is the beneficiary of each
constructive trust they create equity. Hence, only the strawman trustee is obligated to obey
the terms of the Indenture. And they are free to rule by fiat. I don't care if Einstein drew the administrative
process and Miss Piggy made presentment, it's of less concern to them than a mosquito bite.

That is, UNTIL YOU EXPRESS THE TRUST AND RESTORE THE RIGHTFUL PARTIES. At that point,
suddenly they get to savor the taste of their own statutes. Bill

#1427 re. below

HERE'S WHY IRS IS IGNORING YOUR EXECUTOR LETTERS...
joshuasdad100

First, the Strawman is a debtor entity that was created solely to be arrested, aka to be charged with your portion
of the public debt. It has no capacity to reclaim securities or order the IRS to do anything.

Secondly, it is NOT that the living man can't be "seen" in the public as patriots are fond of saying. Rather, the
PUBLIC ESTATE is a mirror image misnomer of the private estate as I've mentioned a number of times. Now
here's the point: THE PUBLIC ESTATE CONCOCTED FROM THE ORIGINAL DEPOSIT OF THE CERTIF
OF BIRTH AT THE COUNTY EXISTS SOLELY TO RE-PRESENT THE LIVING MAN INTO THE
CORPORATE SYSTEM. The living man is irrelevant in a system that eas created to keep him out.

People who try to use David Clarence's concepts such as "Office of the Executor" will find that their efforts will
be ignored by PUBLIC OFFICIALS. Admiralty is about property (interests in things, rather than the things
themselves), the so-called "res," not about people.

IRS has a slew of forms to achieve whatever you desire be it collapse of the trust (that's actually easy to
achieve) acquisition, refund, set-off, and even arrest of public bonds. Heck, one can even "kill off" the
strawman so that it shows as deceased in their records, and withOUT using a death certificate. Proper use of
these forms is eye-opening.

Since the private estate is your inheritance from the Father, the way to deal with it is through prayer. Bill

#1441 re below
TOPIC: STEALING INSTRUMENTS??
joshuasdad100

OFTEN these things find the round file. If not, however, YOU WERE VICTIM OF A GENERAL DEPOSIT.
When a bank indorses a security by a Pay To The Order Of or other acceptance, it becomes a new security - an
"expansion of deposits.) This is neatly explained on pages 5 and 6 of Modern Money Mechanics. Bill

Robyn Samara rhs8963@... wrote: re. #1411

I hope someone brings forth the answer to this......I've had similar incidents myself. One of them was a
presentment to my former auto finance company and the others were to utility companies. UCC and
state code included on the cover letter. Never got originals back nor did they credit the account.

#1442 re below
TOPIC: ACTING AS TRUSTEE...
joshuasdad100

Good question, peacemaker. There are three circumstances when we might wish to act as trustee:

1. When we act as trustee to oversee the other trustee such as a public officials;
2. When we control the beneficiary and receive benefit from acting as trustee such as signing a bank check, and

3. When the trust collapses upon their termination of our interest in the trust property, thus we become sole
trustee and beneficiary, the trust collapses and ALL SECURITIES, PROFITS AND SUCH MUST BE
RETURNED TO THE GRANTOR. This is called foreclosure.

We can pop back and forth between roles, like Woody Allen questioning himself during the trial in "Bananas."
Yup, the legal system is that ridiculous. Bill

#1477 re. #1471

Re: HERE'S WHY IRS IS IGNORING YOUR EXECUTOR LETTERS...
joshuasdad100

YOU ARE REFERRING TO 26 USC 2203 AND 2002. But they are talking about the executor of the public
estate, rather than the private estate from the Lord.

#1493 re. #1480

Re: Naturalization Certificate
joshuasdad100

Can one eat vegetables if you're accustomed to meat? Of course. Food is food. A security's a security. And they
all belong to you, Bill

#1497 re. #1477

Re: HERE'S WHY IRS IS IGNORING YOUR EXECUTOR LETTERS...
picotech9999

We are back to here again

If there is no executor or administrator appointed, qualified, and acting within the United States, then any
person in actual or constructive possession of any property of the decedent. [is the executor]

In estate law, any creditor of the deceased can apply for letters of administration to probate the will. Since we
know the mariner/vessel is lost at sea, you need to understand what happens with the wills of soldiers and
mariners.

If the mariner returned from over the sea, we come back on topic.... not that its really OT just further
understanding

#1557 re. #1530

TOPIC: THE LONG LIST OF PATRIOT MISCONCEPTIONS.
joshuasdad100

Hello Angela, I'm glad you posted. The statements you posted are powerful lessons for the need to move
beyond the clichés into a better understanding of the commercial environment. IF YOU READ THE ARTICLE
YOU DOWNLOADED WHEN YOU JOINED ON THE UNIFORM SECURITIZATION SCHEME, you will
understand that...

1. All securities issued beginning with the Certificate of Birth are YOUR property. They were construed to be
abandoned when you failed to claim them at age 18 pursuant to 31 CFR 363.6, followed by your presumptive
disappearance at sea under the Doctrine of Cestui Que Vie. The County Registrar "legalized" the hospital birth
record by issuing the certificate (a security future) against your credit, opening an account, assigning an account
number, and depositing the security in the account.

2. If you read 31 CFR 363.250, you will find that ALL securities issued from the birth the same security...and
they all belong to you. The public cannot claim them without suffering unjust enrichment, so they control them
be creating constructive trusts in equity every time they present a security to another "clerk," and presuming
themselves to be the beneficiaries and the strawman to be the trustee.

3. The name is irrelevant. It's the number that designates the security, account, deposit, and resulting trust, and
all of them are your property.

4. Not only is the Birth Certificate yours, so is every citation, indictment, certificate, IRS bill, and public
document (securities all) that bears the strawman's name.

5. You are correct, however, when you observe that you cannot claim anything when operating as the strawman.
That's why we don't. We use other fictions that they can't control. Once you've returned to competency, there's
nothing they can do.

6. Yes, you cannot pay a debt with a debt. HJR 192 is not about payment or discharge. It's entirely about even-
exchange.

7. The promissory note is not a note, It’s a security. Article 8 of the UCC (securities) is superior to Article 3
(negotiable instruments) in all circumstances.

8. The deed of trust is not a transaction,. It's a trust indenture. Read 15 USC 77ccc(7) for the purpose of
leveraging securities in your name.

The first step in learning the truth is to strip away the clichés and misconceptions. The void will be filled with
the truth as you concentrate on rebuilding cognitive thinking. There are many postings in this group that can
help being clarity. Bill
#1530 re. #1529
Re: Just refied the house...
totallybeachin

YOU have no securities to claim.

The NAME is not yours
The SS NUMBER is not yours
The Birth Certificate is not yours
The Cestie Que Trust is NOT yours.

What is there to "claim"?

As long as you are operating AS their fictional person, you become LIABLE for everything that
"person" does.
And anytime ANYTHING is "bought" with their fictional fiat currency, it isn't really "bought". You can
not pay a debt with a debt.

A promissory note ("loan") that you attach a "signature" to is really just a check, written by the
strawman, Pay to the Order of......the lender. They in turn take this "check" to the fed window and cash
it. That is why if you ever look on the back of the Promissory Note any number of days after the fact, it
is ENDORSED. Just like someone would endorse the back of a check that they cash at a bank. The Deed
of Trust is a SEPERATE transaction altogether. After the "signing" of the Promissory Note, that's it.
 You (your "strawman") gave them a check, they gave you a house. The proper thing to do at that point,
is to TRANSFER the property to someone else, through a means of EXCHANGE. I.E.

Your information is listed here first, (since you are the "owner" who is transferring)

the GRANTOR upon receipt of twenty-one each united States of America, silver eagle one troy
ounce pure silver coins, each of which has a face value of one dollar, for a total value of
twenty-one dollars in lawful money, as payment in full, does hereby convey, grant, and
exchange to;

someone's proper name here (Not the name the state owns), sovereign living soul, inhabitant
of the land of wherever you live (not reside, domicile, or any of the other 'terms' that put you
and your land in THEIR fictional jurisdiction), holder of the office of “the people”,

the GRANTEE
all right, title, and interest, to the following described real property situated on the land of
then finish it off with the county in which your land is situated ON.

together with all of the rights and privileges associated with the original Land Patent the
Sharp Whitley Survey #285 granted to the Sharp Whitley on the tenth day of March, in
the year one thousand eight hundred and forty-five, a true copy of which is attached
hereto, all of which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety;

This brings forward the original land patent, shows the land was lawfully transferred, in means not
WITHIN their fictional fiat created jurisdiction.

All property bought/sold NEVER really belongs to you anytime a bank is involved. It has to exchange
from one living soul to another. And that is why it is taxed, FOREVER. Because it doesn't belong to
YOU. You are merely a tenant that has to pay fealty to the King.

I just noticed, this group is called Reclaim Your Securities. I glanced too quickly when joining the
group. I thought it said Reclaim Your Sovereignty.

My Bad.

#1559 re. #1533

TOPIC: DISCERNING THE TRUTH
joshuasdad100

When I state that everything's a security future, you can verify the information in Title 15, USC. Likewise, the
fact that everything's a trust. Soon the logic will become apparent so that you will no longer feel like you're
grasping at the straws of someone else's deductions, but enjoying a true understanding of the world around you.
For instance, it will become self-evident that when you present a security to anyone, you have created the
circumstances of a trust relationship where the recipient has the obligation to perform. That one piece of
information alone is invaluable because it exemplifies the responsibility of the recipient to perform on the
instrument (and in the only manner a trustee is permitted to perform. I hope you choose to probe deeper into
these resources. Bill

#1560
TOPIC: CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH
joshuasdad100
The Certif of Birth is evidence that you were born on the American land, and hence you are a surety for the
debts of the United States. So, no, you would NOT list the estate (the trust represented by the birth number) as a
secured party on a financing statement.

Anything you would want to accomplish with the certificate would have to be on a certified copy, and at times,
an authenticated copy.

#1562 re. #1557

Re: TOPIC: THE LONG LIST OF PATRIOT MISCONCEPTIONS.
hammond_ted

I read 31 CFR 363.250, they had some interesting insight into who may make a transaction request. Who do
they control? Representative includes an executor, administrator, legal guardian, committee, conservator, and
any similar person or entity appointed by a court to represent the estate of a decedent, minor, or incompetent, as
well as a trustee, whether appointed by a court or otherwise.

(g) Attorneys-in-fact. A transaction request made by an attorney-in-fact must be accompanied by the original
power of attorney or a properly authenticated copy. A power of attorney must be executed in the presence of a
notary public or a certifying individual. See § 357.31. The power of attorney will not be accepted if it was
executed more than two (2) years before the date the transaction request was executed, unless the power
provides that the authority of the attorney-in-fact continues notwithstanding the incapacity of the principal. If
two or more attorneys-in-fact are named, all must execute the transaction request unless the power authorizes
fewer than all to act. A transaction request executed by an attorney-in-fact seeking transfer of a security to the
attorney- in-fact will not be accepted unless expressly authorized by the document appointing the attorney-in-
fact.

#1578
Instructions
congrace7

I received this as a private email a few months ago. I found it last night in my files, and I cannot express how
sad that we have been so duped, happy that a remedy is real.

Does anyone know how to find this information to complete the understanding? The email addresses didn't
work
*************************************************
Dear Bill,

Nice talking with you after all this time. I do believe we can quash the criminal case, foreclosure and lien all at
once. We must quickly COLLAPSE THE TRUST and ESTABLISH YOUR CREDENTIALS AS HOLDER
OF U.S. STOCK WHO HAS FIRST CLAIM TO HIS OWN BODY (your movable “land”). Did you know that
a foreign oath comprises AUTOMATIC loss of U.S. nationality? Read 8 USC 1481(a)(2).

The trick is to choose a jurisdiction that is OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED as being superior to the United States
but still preserves your allegiance to the Lord. That’s not a hard needle to thread once you understand. Once
your status is certified by a COMPETENT COURT OF RECORD, U.S. Courts automatically lose jurisdiction.
This is not some abstract patriot tacit agreement. Just last week, a Federal judge entered the following order in
the docket: “Upon reconsideration and for the purpose of preserving the record, Defendant’s notice of filing
foreign judgment will NOT be stricken from the record” (docket attached).

When have you ever heard of a judge reversing himself to comply with a foreign judgment? The minute we got
involved in the case, we suggested that the patriot certify his administrative record with the court of record.
That’s literally all it took to have a Federal judge reverse himself to correct the record. THEY KNOW THE
RULES, Bill. They don’t want to be held liable by the superior court under Article VI and U.N. agreements
like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

As to collapsing the trust, its easy to do and we have formal written IRS confirmation for every step. Upon
collapse, IRS designates the strawman as a “Terminated Entity” and the Executor as sole Fiduciary for offsets
and administration. This transforms the Executor from a useless patriot theory into the CONTROLLING
LEGAL AUTHORITY under YOUR command. Like the court of record, this remedy has always been hidden
in plain sight.

This late in the criminal case, status is everything. Once our status is certified, we never again appear in a U.S.
Court. In fact, our mere presence would comprise an automatic contempt. The presence of truth shames a
corporate court. Why do you think they act like barbarians? I don’t care if you stand outside the bar or hang
from the chandelier, a man who appears at a private bar association meeting is ALWAYS presumed to be a
subject-class citizen. We prefer to appear specially through our paperwork in the superior court of record and
then give notice to the Democracy. For those who cannot overcome their fear to appear as the Defendant, we
also have methods for keeping the public subservient to the foreign judgments until such time as the case is
dismissed or the judge resigns. Hopefully by then people better understand their own power.

Regarding Sandra and the kids, there are other ways to have the court of record certify their status as members
of the posterity and kill any future presumption of U.S. citizenship – without having to take an oath. Some of
these are very simple to do.

As to your question about the GSA forms. They failed because Tony never told you about the second set of
bonds needed to re-insure the 24, 25 and 25A without which you cannot cash-out the court bond or close the
case. We can do the forms of course, but I prefer addressing the UNDERLYING CAUSE by ESTABLISHING
YOUR PROPER STATUS as legacy-Founder, grantor, stockholder, beneficial owner and member of the
posterity.

The failure of your executor letters was also not your fault. It was inevitable. You were never told about the
PUBLIC estate. THERE ARE TWO ESTATES Bill. There’s the private estate which is your inheritance from
the Father and includes your body as well as your stock in the United States re-presented by your LONG FORM
birth certificate.

But there’s also the mirror-image PUBLIC ESTATE which appears on the SHORT FORM birth certificate.
Between Tony never disclosing the difference between the two birth certificates and the Estate guy withholding
information about the public estate, patriots have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars and suffered untold
injury. It makes me sick.

The PUBLIC ESTATE is self-evident. Didn’t they clone our names, churches and government? Of course they
cloned our estate. And this is another pathway out of bondage.

How do I know? Scripture. Knowledge of good and evil led us from the Garden and will also lead us Home
through Yehoshua. What got us in will get us out. THE PRIVATE ESTATE IS USELESS IN THE PUBLIC as
thousands of patriots have discovered the hard way. Did Roman legions obey Yehoshua or Pontius Pilate? The
only way a slave could be set free and still live within the walls of Rome was through Roman paperwork. The
notion that public servants will follow the orders of a private executor when they wouldn’t follow Yehoshua is
foolishness. Which is why the failures were so predictable. Patriots can save themselves a whole lot of grief if
they would weigh new concepts against Scripture.

But there’s also a BIG silver lining. THIS CONCEPT OF DUALITY IS ACTUALLY ONE OF OUR MOST
POWERFUL REMEDIES. The United States wants you to believe that they have a monopoly on creating
public trusts in our image. But when they established the strawman as a public shill, they also DISCLOSED
THE REMEDY. Using THEIR statues and methods, we create two new public trusts to serve US in commerce
but WITHOUT the adhesion contracts and public debt. We create a PUBLIC TRUST to re-present the Estate,
and a NEW STRAWMAN TRUST to re-present the Beneficial owner (us). That’s not a typo. A new strawman.

First, we secure formal IRS recognition of the PUBLIC ESTATE as a FOREIGN trust under OUR control. The
IRS response letter states: “We have approved your election as a foreign eligible entity with a single owner.”
What’s really amazing is that the “single owner” on the application is listed as a living man in the “kingdom of
the lord.” How's that for formal recognition?

So while the actors cannot see the living man or the private estate, they sure can see the PUBLIC ESTATE
under OUR control. It has the Good Housekeeping (IRS) Seal of Approval. Doesn’t that make perfect sense? In
this way, using Roman law, we create a PRIVATE remedy THAT IS VISIBLE IN ROME. Who says you can’t
have your cake and eat it too?

Likewise we create a NEW STRAWMAN TRUST to give a public face to our status as Beneficial Owner of
U.S. stock. As with the Estate, IRS confirms that the new trust is a foreign entity indistinguishable from the
living man. This allows us to START CLEAN IN COMMERCE.

Think about that. A new beginning including banking, travel and sovereignty. We secure new ID that is
RECOGNIZED BY THE PUBLIC and which establishes our foreign status. Some have used it to travel
internally, cross borders, and even get out of jail. This way we don’t have to live in isolation. All these years
we’ve been fighting against misnomer when we should have been adapting it to our own needs.

Speaking of adapting, the patriot-run private registry you’ve been using will continue to cause conflict. Why try
to reinvent the wheel when the United States still maintains a lawful option for recording in the original
republic? We routinely record UCC statements NON-commercially within the jurisdiction of the court of
record, and then give international notice to bridge the gap between the republic and the democracy. These
remedies were also hidden in plain sight.

Once the Executor’s authority is officially recognized, there’s a whole bunch of family business to settle
beginning with the original Form 56 and 1099-A they filed years ago when they claimed you abandoned the
public estate. The Executor is the ONLY one with the authority to terminate the acquisition, fire all public
officials, and appoint new Fiduciaries to perform under 26 USC 6903. This formally ends all of the presumed
partnerships with the U.S. and U.S.A. corporations as a permanent record in your IRS Master File. Goodbye
judiciary.

The Executor’s the ONLY one who can fire the mortgage trustee. Let’s see the bank continue operating the
trust when IRS confirms they’ve been LEGALLY terminated. Any further action on behalf of the trust would be
a criminal matter under 18 U.S.C. 2071, 1956, 1623, 1506 and 1512. In other words we’ve lassoed the bank
under their own LEGALIZATION nightmare. Goodbye bank.

The 56 is a bit of a nuke, but it’s also a marvel of deception that can involve up to six parties at once. Almost no
one knows how to execute it properly, but when it’s completed and filed CORRECTLY in 6 IRS offices, the
public servant is bound to the appointment.

The Executor’s the ONLY one with the authority to perform setoff, A4V, recoupment and acquisition. Up until
now, the WRONG person (strawman) was filing the WRONG forms (1040, 1040-V, 1040-ES ) with the
WRONG information. The strawman’s a U.S. employee in 26 U.S.C. 3401. Can a janitor who stumbles upon
the corporate checkbook start issuing checks? No wonder they prosecute.
The Executor’s the ONLY one with authority to issue a voucher. Have you noticed that no one seems to know
what vouchers do? Vouchers provide authority for IRS to draw funds from your private trust. They work like
the routing numbers on a check so that the payee’s bank can draw the funds from the drawer’s bank. The thing
is, IRS has been acting as both banks. To deposit funds in a public account, IRS must draw the funds from your
private trust. A VOUCHER IS A DEBIT MEMO THAT AUTHORIZES IRS TO DRAW THOSE FUNDS.
You’re going to be shocked when you see the correct accounting. It’s an eye-opener. You wouldn’t guess it in a
million years.

We also use the Executor to reacquire our property with Form 1099-A. You want another mind-blower? Wait
until you see how Form 1096 was written to accommodate access to our Social Security bonds. Once you
understand that the remedies have always been hidden in plain sight, you will start seeing them everywhere.

We also use the Executor to establish special bank accounts where the funds are segregated from the general
fund and immune from lien, levy and cash reporting requirements. They hid this remedy under layers of
Treasury regulations when the banking system was hijacked.

ONLY THE EXECUTOR CAN CASH OUT THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE. As I mentioned on the phone, there
are a number of ways to do this. Tony King showed you part of one, but that led to DTC. I want no part of that
demonic organization. DTC participants live off the funds they steal from others. You really think they wanted
5000 Christians roaming their halls? The United States is obligated to provide other remedies. They are hidden
in U.S. Code and Treasury regulations. These redemption procedures are underway as we speak.

I hope this information will open your eyes as to what’s been hidden from you. You should never follow patriot
doctrine without measuring it against Scripture. When you hear nonsense like: The only remedy is in the
private, your first question should be: How do you know that? Living like a hermit is not a solution, it’s a
defeat. Now that you know about the public estate, a world of PRIVATE remedies with a PUBLIC FACE is
likely to reveal themselves.

EVEN IF THEY CLOSE THE ESTATE REMEDY TOMORROW, our status as a foreign national is
bulletproof. The paperwork is really a thing of beauty Bill. It defeats all presumptions of 14th amendment
citizenship and subjugation to the corporate judiciary. It means we are RECOGNIZED as an unincorporated
private beneficial owner no matter how many times our family name pops up in capital letters in an indictment.
This is why I keep emphasizing status.

By the way, if any lawyer ever again asks if you’re crazy, just open the indictment and ask him if he believes
the members of his profession are so ignorant or insane as to need this sort of prompting? Or perhaps the Court
needed some way of denoting a legal fraternity fiction.

One thing I’ve learned is that I MAY BE WRONG TOMORROW ABOUT WHAT I’VE EXPLAINED
TODAY. Nothing is absolute, especially when the egos and paychecks of public actors are involved. They may
still try to test you. We have found that THOSE WHO DO NOT CONFESS TO BEING U.S. SUBJECTS ARE
RELEASED QUICKLY, often the same day, most recently where bail was set at $1M. It’s important to know
in your heart that they can NOT hold a foreign national who is not of their jurisdiction. If they do, their bond
becomes liable when the Executor invokes CID to foreclose on the Estate’s collateral using IRS forms. If we
don’t confess to being a U.S. subject, if our ID indicates we are foreign, if a foreign judgment proves our status,
if we stand firm on our religious CONVICTIONS (not just beliefs), they must release us. They know it and we
know it. I suggest reading Exodus 3:14. God replied to Moses, I am who I am - and follow the Father’s
example.

A final thought. Which is most preferable, logical and Scriptural:

APPEAR AS A VOLUNTARY SUBJECT?

APPEAR INVOLUNTARILY AS A U.S. STOCKHOLDER?

Which is most likely to lead to freedom? I’ll call you Monday.

In Yehoshua. Your friend Peter

glorytothelord@.

P.S. The rumor about closing down commercial remedies is most likely an intentional strategic deception out of
DTC, their Las Vegas connection and the notorious group of Atlanta Masons. It’s all about causing chaos. Its
also irrelevant once our status as living men and women under foreign oath is officially recognized. We are who
we are.
*************************************************

#1604 re. #1591

TOPIC: 2 SIDES TO THE SSN - IT'S ALSO A CONTRACT, A TRUST, A SPECIAL DEPOSIT.
joshuasdad100

On its surface, the movie The Matrix is about a future world of deception and slavery. That's the story. But it
represents something much larger, the real world matrix of banking feudalism in effect for hundreds of
years. For millions of viewers, all it's accomplished is to keep them focused on fantasy entertainment instead of
their real world problem of life as a slave.

Everything you said about Social Security Numbers in the below email is true. But THAT'S ONLY THE
LABYRINTH THEY'VE CONSTRUCTED to keep your eyes diverted from the truth. Here's the truth...

- Like most public documents, the SS certificate is a security certificate representing a series of derivative bonds
leveraged from the SS account.

- The SS account was created on the books of the U.S. Government to receive a deposit of a bond issued by the
Department of the Treasury under the birth certificate number. Therefore, it represents a depository account in
the nature of a securities account held by a securities intermediary (UCC 8-102).

- The SSN also represents the trust created by the deposit of the birth bond. THIS IS THE TRUST THEY
CHARGE FOR EVERY PUBLIC DEBT whether an indictment, a credit card bill or an auto loan. People are
misguided when they turn in their BC to a judge and say "Here's the Defendant." THE BC REPRESENTS THE
SURETY FOR THE SS TRUST. It's the SS card that represents the Defendant. THAT'S what they should be
handing over (certified copy) if they are so inclined (properly accepted for value and indorsed of course).

- Above all else, the US recognizes the SSN as a U.S. Government Contract. The smoking gun can be found
in the first paragraph of Optional Forms 90 and 91 where the form confesses that the BC, "by a bond for the
performance of..." is underwriting the SS Contract. In other words, every charge against the strawman SS is an
arrest of the vessel in admiralty for the purpose of bringing in the surety (the BC) to post bond and eventually
pay the debt.

For those who understand these structures, the SS card and bond numbers have provided a portal to freedom
and abundance. For others who may try to argue statutes with them, the public will have the last laugh because
those statutes only apply to trustees of the public trust. Since they are assuming that THEY are the beneficiary
and YOU are the trustee, they will win every time because the trust indenture (the statutes) does not apply to
beneficiaries. Bill

#1682 re. #1678

Re: TOPIC: GSA FORMS AGAIN. Hey, ONLY you can use them as intended.
joshuasdad100

For other members I observe that once you have returned to competency, there's nothing THEY can do that WE
can't do. All of the authority granted to the public trust comes from the people. And the people cannot delegate
authority they do not have.

Secondly, like the income tax, only YOU that can assess (i.e. use) the GSA forms. Form 28 and the initial
portion of the 91 and 90 provide an opportunity to establish the record of the birth bond identified by the BC
number as surety for the contract represented by the SSN. So when you list the strawman as the warranted
contracting officer further down on the 90 and 91, it is already confessed to have a warranty in the form of the
birth bond (estate) confessed in the first paragraph. As a subsidiary of the United States Federal corporation
under 28 USC 3002, it is in fact the only officer on the contract. The forms are handing a remedy on a silver
platter to those who will look. Instead of reading GSA's web site, you might give a look to sections 28 and 53 of
48 CFR.

Third, when the County received the birth record it issued a Certificate of Birth. That's the receipt that proves
the delivery (similar to a bill of lading). It is also a security under Title 15 in that it is a certificate of interest.
What many people fail to realize is that the failure to return equity when the County registrar received it
comprises a stipulation to the creation of a resulting trust. By definition, THEY are the trustees on the trust.
THEY are holding the instrument. THEY are holding all the equity. That means that THEY, all of the public
officials in total, NOT YOU, are obligated to perform as trustees on the bond according to the rules of the
public trust, namely all of the statutes, codes and regulations that you are so convinced apply to you. So once
you declare the trust, everything you believe goes out the window and is replaced by the original reality that
THEY are the trustees and YOU are the beneficiary.

Fourth, THEY NEVER GAVE YOU EQUITY, so they have no standing to demand equity on any statutes. On
the other hand, YOU have every right to demand satisfaction. In fact, not only are you NOT restricted from
using the 90 and 91, YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE with the authority to release the lien against the real property
(your body) and release the personal property (the bonds) that they concocted in your name and against your
credit. Who else has the Father empowered to nourish your body until he returns to claim it?

The reality is that they've got you digging through statutes looking for reasons you can't claim your securities
AND YOUR OWN BODY, when the simple truth is that Scripture tells us exactly who enjoys that exclusive
divine right. And that's YOU duquelong.

Statutes and double-entry accrual bookkeeping are Lucifer's tools to entice your consent.

As to me being a GSA employee, all of our strawmen are U.S. employees by definition or they would not be
subject to Title 26.

However, permit me to caution that you are free to comment as you see fit, but this group has a two strike
policy regarding condescension and attacks on people's intentions. We leave that sort of venom to the
politicians and professional agitators who seem to covet it. We will not be adding to the decline of discourse in
society in contravention of Scripture. Thank you for understanding. Bill

#1683 re. #1652

TOPIC: WHICH BC TO REGISTER WITH TREASUR?
joshuasdad100

THEORETICALLY, it doesn't matter. All of them evidence the deposit of the birth record, the existence of the
resulting trust, the issuance of the birth bond by Treasury to be exchanged for currency and to fund the SS
bonds. But TECHNICALLY, we should use the most recent long form, and that one should be more recent than
any short form also, so that the number coincides with the registration at The DTC.

Thing is, more important than which document, is WHO IS REGISTERING. To do it right, requires the
principle be someone OTHER THAN THE LIVING MAN, ideally an entitlement holder.

Look up the definition of abandonment and you will see that one component is the intention to never reclaim
the property. This is where the concept differs from pure Escheats under the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666 in
which properly is to be returned if the "deceased" sailor should ever reappear. Bill

#1710
Maritime Law Abandonment
duquelong

maritime law abandonment

http://tinyurl.com/co3dgsd

In maritime law abandonment means relinquishment to underwriters of all claim, the act by which the owner of
a ship surrenders the ship and freight to a creditor who has become such made by contract made by the master.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode46a/usc_sec_46a_00000746----000-.ht\ml

TITLE 46, APPENDIX App. > CHAPTER 20 > § 746

§ 746. EXEMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY

The United States or such corporation shall be entitled to the benefits of all exemptions and of all limitations of
liability accorded by law to the owners, charterers, operators, or agents of vessels.

Posed as a question:

The BC registers the vessel in the public. The private underwriter to the private grantor is an entitlement holder.
Okay so the vessel is abandoned I acting as the private underwriter am reclaiming by a4v the public BC.

The private creditor to private trust says by the way I have a lien on the vessel. Any vessel SS constructive trust
claims against (public strawman owner of goods) are now handle by the private beneficiary estate send them for
settlement to the private alien property custodian aka the Secretary of the Treasury.

#1711
TOPIC: YES, You CAN collapse the trusts.
joshuasdad100

I thought I would repost this here to correct the many misconceptions that appeared at another Group:

1. You CAN terminate the trust that is represented by the SSN. Better yet, you can also terminate the parent, the
trust that is represented by the BC file number. I am talking from experience as the agency records reflect that
mine are closed.

2. There is no such concept as terminating a number. The number is merely a designation which is used to
represent various simultaneous things. For instance, the BC number represents
A. A certificate drawn by the County Registrar and deposited into an account created to accept that deposit as
funds (a pledge). That certificate is a securities future representing a bet against future access to our credit. It is
also a bill of lading indicating that a shipment of cargo was received, in this case by the United States.

B. The resulting trust created by the deposit of that security. A trust is created because there was never any
return of equity on the security, so the recipient became a Trustee obligated to perform.

C. A Treasury bond issued from that account which is exchanged for currency when the Fed "buys" the bond.
That's what's being released from escrow when Optional Form 91 is properly used.

D. A mortgage against our credit as the result of that currency exchange.

E. A lien against our real property, our bodies. That's what's being released with Optional Form 90.

F. The funds which are attributed to the Fed account upon receipt of the bond, and which serve as the surety for
the SS bonds.

G. A U.S. Government Contract, just like it states on the 90 and 91.

As to the SSN, it represents the account in which the birth bond is deposited, the resulting trust, and a U.S.
Government Contract which is underwritten by the birth bond - exactly as it states at the top of the 90 and 91 if
you complete them properly.

More importantly, the SSN trust serves as TRUSTEE OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE TRUST. This is the part
almost no patriots realize. Why do you think the Court, the gas company, DMV, he banks, and every other
public entity depository "charges" the strawman? Read 26 USC 2603 - the trustee pays the gift tax. Basic trust
law: THEY ALWAYS BILL THE TRUSTEE FOR THE DEBTS OF THE TRUST. The strawman SSN trust is
truly a utility for transmitting debt to the estate, to the BC trust. It's a portal.

There are various ways to collapse, terminate, kill - call it what you will - one or both of those trusts. Once you
understand the system, suddenly you can't swing a dead trust without seeing yet another exit sign. If you just
give notice of the termination, it may still work but you will not gain the proceeds o the collapse, the return of
your equity. That depends on the actual method of termination.

Also, it's a big mistake to assume that the public owns the SSN or those accounts. They---own---nothing. Every
security, deposit, trust, and derivative issue begins with the certificate of birth. THEY BELONG TO US. When
they issue an Indictment, Citation, Warrant, Order, or even a utility bill, that liability charged against the
strawman is also an asset to us, an account payable on their books that they owe to us, a derivative of OUR
original pledge. UNTIL YOU REALIZE THAT, YOU REMAIN A SLAVE.

Whether you remain in or out, whether you collapse the trusts, terminate all contracts, cash out, or use the
agency as a collector, it all begins with understanding the nature of the system, and then returning to
competency. - Bill

#1712 re. #1690

Re: My BC Name differs from my SSN/IRS NAME!-OF COURSE!
joshuasdad100

THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES. The BC name represents the name of the Estate, the ultimate
debtor as it is the presumed surety for all of the debts charged to the strawman due to the issuance of the birth
bond that is traded for currency and used to fund the SS trust, contract, account and bonds.
The SSN name represents the SS trust, which is the trustee for the Estate trust. -Bill

#1725 re. #1718

Re: TOPIC: YES, You CAN collapse the trusts - CORRECTION
joshuasdad100

SORRY Greg. Let me clarify...

1. All such paper (Warrants, Orders, Indictments, bills etc) are securities...security futures hedging a future
payment by a payer to a payee in a sum certain or implied. Like any security, it will be entered as an asset AND
a liability. They represent obligations to pay aka a bet against future payment.

2. A good example for illustration is a promissory note for a bank loan. The note is entered by the bank as an
asset (after all, it's a promise to pay). But the bank is also obligated to return the security to the maker, so it
enters the instrument as an account payable, a liability to the bank. The item is also an asset to the maker who is
entitled to a return of the instrument or the proceeds derived from it.

3. The nature of double-entry bookkeeping is that a liability must be offset by a corresponding asset. The only
purpose for a security is even-exchange. It is supposed to be exchanged for a security of equal value and then
returned. So it shows on the books as an asset with negotiable value, and a liability owed back to the maker.
When your security is hoarded (whored) by a public servant it throws your books out of balance making YOU
liable for the taxes. Bill

#1726 re. #1710

Re: Maritime Law Abandonment - TOPIC: ABANDONMENT
joshuasdad100

THE GERMAINE ISSUE IS THAT A PRESUMPTION OF AN "ABANDONMENT" INCLUDES THE

PRESUMPTION THAT the property is available to be claimed by any finder. Since the public can NEVER
claim our securities without becoming liable for the taxes on the gains, they remain available to future claims.
Status consists of expressing that claim through agents. Bill

#1750 re. #1740

Re: My BC Name differs from my SSN/IRS NAME!-OF COURSE!
joshuasdad100

Scott, I don't fight with these people any more. They will take everything you own. The entire system is
institutionalize fraud. That's what a legal fiction is - absence of truth. I simply see "units" that need to be
transferred from one account (private) to another account (credits to the strawman account that was charged).

You can find units defined in the Nat Coinage Act of 1792. Bill

#1769 re. #1753

Re: My BC Name differs from my SSN/IRS NAME!-OF COURSE!
joshuasdad100

You would not be an executor with respect to a trust, other than an Estate established in the nature of a trust.
Bill

#1770 re. #1756

CRITICAL TOPIC: - SPECIAL DEPOSIT -
joshuasdad100

No. Special deposit is a bedrock essential concept to study and understand as it terminates their ability to use
our funds or credit them to a general securities account from which they then leverage additional securities
against our credit much to our injury (eg arrest warrant).

It is also a classic example of reversal by misnomer. We only have to specify special deposit (a name which
implies we have ego problems - we want special treatment), because the normal transaction at any depository
(Courts included), what's called "general deposit," is a theft of title to the deposit. General deposit should really
be called "theft by routine."

So the real transaction should actually appear as: "Ma'am, do you want me to deposit the funds for your own
use, or would you mind signing this deposit slip that transfers title to the bank so it can loan you back your own
funds?"

This is one to review with your own study group or hook up with someone who can direct you. Bill

#1771 re. #1768

TOPIC: THE TRUE PROBLEM IS not KNOWING WHO YOU ARE.
joshuasdad100

WHERE WOULD YOU LOOK FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF BREACH OF TRUST?....

IN THE TRUST ITSELF! Many things in life do not need outside validation. Even the Agency admits that in
Sec. 7701 of the IRC when it defines a U.S. person as including an individual, corp, estate and a trust but
ONLY if the trust has a US person making all substantial decisions, and therefore the trust is subject to the
jurisdiction of U.S. Courts. In other words, even the Agency confesses that a trust is a PRIVATE
AGREEMENT - ALWAYS - between at least two parties unless it contains language specifying otherwise or
has a U.S. person acting as czar.

That language is always inserted by attorneys as they were taught to do in law school (eg. "This trust is subject
to the Estates and Trusts Act of the State of ____________"). We would never do such a thing of course unless
it was to the beneficiary's advantage.

A trust should always contain language controlling distribution of the Trust estate (property). That language
defines the Grantor's intentions. Even the Uniform Trust Code states that a judge must follow the Grantor's
intentions (see Sec. 416). The public recognizes the speciality of a trust as the last bastion of separation from the
commercial society of misnomered thefts.

If a private trust collapses for any reason, the State can never have a claim against the property. That property
was placed in trust by the Grantor and is destined for the beneficiary one way or another. Hopefully the trust
contains language that specifies the Grantor is a successor trustee in the event the other trustees breach. WHEN
THAT HAPPENS, the Grantor takes over, distributes the property as intended and the Trust collapses either due
to total distribution OR because the Grantor is now the sole beneficiary and trustee, hence, there is no trust.

If a public official (which is also a trust, eg JUDGE MARY WILLIAMS) controls the property and won't
release the escrow, then it becomes person-ally liable for the capital gains taxes on the taxable termination and
the income taxes on the gain, among other enormous liabilities. Enforcing that liability takes a substantial
learning commitment, but there's just no justification for patriot defeatism claiming we have no remedies. There
are some people out there who know how to do it right.
There are many circumstances where we might express a trust presently or retroactively. This is a
comprehensive subject, a bit like deciding to take on a new hobby like collecting antiques. It would pay to find
one who is willing and has the ability to walk you through it as one way of saving a few years messing around.
Bill

#1783 re. #1771

Re: TOPIC: THE TRUE PROBLEM IS not KNOWING WHO YOU ARE.
maharaj333

" Even the Agency admits that in Sec. 7701 of the IRC when it defines a U.S. person as
including an individual, corp, estate and a trust but ONLY if the trust has a US person making all
substantial decisions, and therefore the trust is subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. Courts. In other
words, even the Agency confesses that a trust is a PRIVATE AGREEMENT - ALWAYS -
between at least two parties unless it contains language specifying otherwise or has a U.S. person
acting as czar."

Oh man, you're blowing my mind. That's why the Bookeeper makes such a big deal about trusts! Smoke
and mirrors. But they have no jurisdiction if the US PERSON, is not making ALL "substantial
decisions" .

#1803 re. #1783

TOPIC: THE TRUE PROBLEM IS not KNOWING WHO YOU ARE-clarification

joshuasdad100

Just to be clear, if a U.S. person is not making ALL substantial decisions. - Bill

#1772 re. #1731

TOPIC: RETURN OF EQUITY

joshuasdad100

YOU SURELY CAN GET YOUR NOTE BACK whether it's in the waterlogged basement at DTC, another
depository, or on Mars. The reason most people don't see this is because they don't have the bigger picture of
concepts under their belt and don't understand the use of various in-the-box forms. This is understandable
because mastering those forms is a college-like subject that would take a good semester with someone who
knows. But what a semester! Almost as good as chugging beer and chasing girls (the true college experience in
the US).

If they keep YOUR note, then THEY have a problem. They have caused a taxable termination and owe the
taxes under 26 USC 2603. Income taxes on the sale of the property upon the abandonment. Capital gains taxes
on the termination. And the mother of all taxes, the loss of exemption by the fund that's trading the derivatives
as if they were tax exempt original issues.

Their bonds cannot sustain this. Their liability can be converted into an account receivable and sold without
slapping them with a lien. After all, they're holding YOUR security. THEIR public trust, the depository, can be
charged just as your strawman can be charged. Haven't you been charged enough to see how that works?
THEIR surety can be assessed through the attorney-in-fact. Etc. Bill

#1774 re. #1772

TOPIC - RETURN OF EQUITY 2. No return?->Resulting trust.
joshuasdad100

YOU ARE ALWAYS entitled to have your equity returned. Here's a quote that I really enjoyed from a close
friend - the best mentor I know:

"We have ten charges against you. You're facing twenty years in prison."

"Am I to understand you want me to pay equity on your statutes when you failed to return equity on the original
deposit from which all of these proceedings are derived?"

The point is that the ONLY REASON A TRUST EXISTS IS BECAUSE THERE IS A FAILURE TO
RETURN EQUITY. If equity was returned in the form of the original security (such as an indictment) endorsed
indicating the strawman's account was credited with the funds, or an equivalent form of special deposit such as
an order to dismiss (a receipt), there would be no trust, or perhaps the trust existed for a nanosecond.

The trust exists only because they FAILED TO RETURN EQUITY ON A SECURITY. Think about that.
THEY are holding the security. It's in a security account THEY opened (bank acct, Court file, etc.) The proof of
the resulting trust is the case/file/account number THEY assigned. THEY HAVE ALREADY CONFESSED
TO BEING THE TRUSTEE. We don't have to appoint them. THEY ALREADY STIPULATED TO
ACCEPTANCE when they accepted the security, opened the account, and assigned the number. (We might give
notice PROPERLY with a Form 56 to bind them to Sec. 6903.) The arrest warrant, the complaint, the bill, the
charge, the letter, whatever, prove the existence of the trust and their trusteeship.

THE FACT THAT THEY ARE PRESUMING BENEFICIARY STATUS IS RUBBISH once you...

UNDERSTAND the foundational knowledge, and MASTER the enforcement methods and strategies.

The latter is necessary so you are not shooting blanks. They WILL test you. When the test comes, it had best
turn THEIR faces red and fearful, rather than yours.

Once you have that big picture under your belt, their emperor is revealed to be naked so you might smirk,
instead of collapse, when they threaten those years in prison. Bill

#1775 re. #below

Re: Personal Advice for Newer Members
joshuasdad100

Excellent perspective. Mr. Miagi. Thanks. Bill

"prosperofla" prosperofla@... wrote:

Greetings, all.

2) Read every post.

3) Develop your own system for sorting and cataloging all of the information.

Mine began with a work product of nearly 100 pages on a Word document. Then I broke it all down in
to several categories of major subjects, including one primary document. Using these documents, and
reading them a few times over, I then congealed this all into another primary document, less than half
the size.
 4) Read all of the files posted in this group's "Files" section. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

5) Read the UCC, with special emphasis on Articles 8 and 9. This is where I am presently at, studying
the UCC, the above mentioned articles of which I will read a several times until I can navigate them
smoothly. I will probably follow this with a study of the UTC.

6)After that, you will have a solid "base" of understanding from which to proceed with some clear-
headedness and confidence. You might carefully consider what you wish to ask of the Moderator and
members in order to fill in blanks of what has already been offered, and to probe more deeply the minds
of those who fully comprehend the subject. I believe that it is right and proper to glean all of the
intelligence already available on here before (unwittingly) posting redundant or inapplicable questions.
-Peter

#1776 re. #1767

TOPIC: USE OF TERM OWNER
joshuasdad100

IRIS, YOUR RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE USE OF THE TERM OWNER ARE BASED UPON PARTIAL
UNDERSTANDING AND OUTDATED PATRIOT CONCEPTS. You are correct, only the Father owns. And
it is also true that in admiralty, an owner is a debtor, tenant, trustee, borrower, defendant, liable party, principal,
bailee, and holder of legal title (in other words, a poor deluded fool).

However, regarding a trust, the word can be used to signify that trust is a grantor's trust where the tax liability
passes through to the grantor. Believe it or not, this is desirable in many cases. Posting documents without the
supportive education is literally handing a loaded gun to a schizophrenic. MOST patriots do not have the
complete understanding needed to use the technology. So of course they will go with what they know, and wind
up in prison.

NOT AT THIS GROUP, however. We seek a safe educational environment, not an army of potential victims.
Bill

#1806 re. #1805

DOT INFO
joshuasdad100

DAVID, YOU ARE NOT REGISTERING YOURSELF AS A NONCOMMERCIAL CONVEYANCE. You

are registering a claim with the highest admiralty venue - that's the underlying mechanism that most people
have not grasped. Like other areas, the value of this undertaking depends on understanding the rationale,
implications, and enforcement strategies. Bill

#1807 re. #1804

TOPIC: TRUST V. CONTRACT
joshuasdad100

Brian, three parties is not the defining characteristic of a trust. A trust is created when property is placed in trust
with a trustee. Sometimes this is voluntary. MOST OF THE TIME IN THE PUBLIC, IT IS NOT
VOLUNTARY, BUT RESULTS FROM THE FAILURE OF THE RECIPIENT OF THE CARGO TO
RETURN EQUITY. Hence, the circumstances of a trust are created wherein the recipient has trustee obligations
as holder of the property. This sort of presumed trust in equity is ALWAYS a taxable termination since the fact
that they failed to return equity is a termination of the grantor's interest in the property. THIS IS WHY 126 USC
2612 DEFINES A TAXABLE TERMINATION AS TERMINATION OF AN INTEREST IN PROPERTY.
EVERYTHING'S held in trust. That's how the public operates.

A contract results from an agreement with an exchange of consideration. If EQUAL consideration was
exchanged at the time you delivered the security (if you received equal equity for your security) there would be
no trust. THEN you would have a contract.

Confusion arises from the nature of the system. The SS account is created by the deposit of a birth bond issued
against the Certif of Birth. The Fed trades currency for the bond. Hence, the SS account is a U.S. Government
contract.

One problem, YOU GOT NOTHING OUT OF THE DEAL. No return of equity. So their PUBLIC
CONTRACT, is a trust from our perspective, and for OUR benefit. Starting to make better sense? Bill

#1821 re. #1756

Re: TOPIC: LOST IN ESTATE. DON'T KNOW WHERE TO GO.
picotech9999

Try Black's Special Deposit vs. General Deposit. If you still own the "deposit" someone must have it in trust.
And the trustee must take instructions if you are the grantor P

#1840 re. #below

TOPIC - HERE'S THE TRUTH YOU'VE BEEN WAITING FOR...

joshuasdad100

HAD A ROBUST CONVERSATION WITH A FRIEND LAST NIGHT ON THIS VERY ISSUE OF
BEING A BANKER...

Did you know that an arrest warrant and a summons are vouchers seeking a bank's consent to transfer Estate
(private) funds to the Court's depository account to pay for the Case Bond?

Let's examine a standard check deposit at BOA. The bank endorses the check PAY TO THE ORDER OF
BANK OF AMERICA, which is a banker's acceptance by the Payee's bank that monetizes the instrument
(converts it to money of account). BOA then steals title to the funds by issuing credits to the depositor's account
(a general account). It places a hold on the credits and forwards the check to the Payer's bank for authorization
to release the hold. If funds are available, the Payer's bank will endorse the check (yet another banker's
acceptance) and return it to its customer, the Payer (at least they used to). If funds are insufficient, BOA will
cancel it's endorsement and RETURN THE CHECK TO THE DEPOSITOR/PAYEE.

Notice that the credits move to the Payee and the security moves back to the issuer who issued the security. You
can always return to this transaction to understand most any event in the world around you.

For instance, a case in an incorporated Court. The Court (JUDGE ROSE WILLIAMS) deposits the Indictment
by endorsing it "FILED IN CASE NO. 1:10-CR-123456." THE STAMP IS A BANKER'S ACCEPTANCE.
Doesn't it signify acceptance, opening of an account, issuance of a number, and a deposit? Doesn't the
indictment have a Payer (strawman), Payee (Plaintiff), implied amount (penal sum on the charges), a date,
signature, and place of payment (the Court)? Doesn't the Court maintain securities accounts in its normal course
of business, making it a securities intermediary per UCC 8-102(a)? What else could it be if not a banker's
acceptance?

By the way, the Clerk is a pimp (to quote Vito Corleone). The Clerk is a bank teller acting for the Court. The
concept that the Clerk is the Court is one of our legendary patriot misconceptions.
After depositing "the check" (Elvick, Shrout, Kennedy and Smith were on the money), the Court then issues
credits to a general account, meaning it steals title to the deposit (to the funds - see my last posting) ON THE
PRESUMPTION that the funds will eventually be made available by the Payer. They ALWAYS presume the
funds will be available until proven otherwise by an NSF notice from the Payer's bank. Then, just like BOA, the
Court issues a voucher to the Payer's bank to certify the existence of the book-entry credits - the funds.

Regarding Court, THE VOUCHER IS THE BENCH WARRANT OR SUMMONS. These are nothing more
than securities issued to secure acceptance by the Payer's bank - indorsement. That's all that's going on.

It's well disguised of course. For the masses (messes) at large, the transaction is disguised as law.

For lawyers, it's disguised as equity - a violation of a presumed contract to comply with statues.

To patriots, it's disguised as an admiralty arrest of the vessel as Jack Smith taught for years to get the creditor to
appear and post bond.

But the core issue - the real issue at work - the underlying issue that controls your life is that they are seeking
authorization by the Payer's bank (you) to establish the Payer as surety on the account.

Who's the Payer? THE ESTATE of course. They are seeking your consent to ESTABLISH THE ESTATE AS
SURETY for the funds credited to the account represented by the Case Number...

Meaning, AS SURETY FOR THE CASE BOND they already issued.

I repeat...FOR THE CASE BOND which they already issued on the PRESUMPTION that the funds WOULD
BE MADE AVAILABLE when appeared physically, hired a lawyer to appear, gave your name, sent in a
motion (which creates a general appearance even if you protest jurisdiction), or just entered the Courtroom and
said "I'm here on that matter."

Read the definition of Bond in 48 CFR 28.001. A bond is a two party pledge to the Government in which a
principal (the strawman) and a surety (the Estate) guarantee an obligation to perform. All they want is the Estate
to step forward and ACCEPT liability as SURETY to fund the securities account identified by the Case
Number.

BANKER'S ACCEPTANCE.

The concept that they just reach into the Estate any time they want and take the funds is more patriot
misconception. Yes, THE BC IS A PRESUMPTION OF THE ESTATE'S AGREEMENT TO ACT AS
SURETY. But just like a bank check, they MUST go back to the source and have the security approved.

They MUST get your SPECIFIC consent to have the Estate act as surety on the Bond (the Case Bond).

They MUST get YOUR banker's acceptance. Any time you want to understand the public system, JUST
DIAGRAM HOW THEY PROCESS A SIMPLE BANK CHECK.

SO what you have is the Court issuing CREDITS TO A GENERAL ACCOUNT (stealing title), a securities
account represented by the Case Number under the PRESUMPTION that the Payer's bank will authorize the
funding on behalf of its client, the Estate, the presumed surety.

How do they secure the Estate's consent?

THE APPEARANCE BOND. The appearance bond is your BANKER'S ACCEPTANCE of the arrest warrant
voucher. Make no mistake about it - YOU ARE THE BANKER. They are seeking YOUR INDORSEMENT -
your BANKER'S ACCEPTANCE - the authorization to presume the Estate is the surety on the Case Bond.

If you decline, if you tell them "the Estate does not consent to act as surety on the bond," then they have a huge
problem. Like any depository institution, they can either:

Recall the Case Bond, cancel their endorsement on the Indictment/Complaint security, and return it to the
prosecutor/plaintiff's attorney marked NSF (insufficient funds), or

They can ACCEPT LIABILITY AS SURETY FOR THE CASE BOND. Meaning, the public trust known as
JUDGE ROSE WILLIAMS, the gambler that issued the Case Bond on the presumption that the Payer (the
Estate) would agree to convey its credit, is the only possible source of the funds.

This is why they will resort to shameless incivility to get the appearance bond. They don't want to be stuck with
the liability. Because when they steal the Estate's equity by depositing the Indictment security generally, they
have terminated your interest in it and they become liable for the income and capital gains taxes on the taxable
termination (26 USC 2612, 2603).

When you sign the Appearance Bond in admiralty, the creditor is agreeing to provide the real property (your
body) as security. THIS IS WHY TIM TURNER'S DEBTOR/CREDITOR RELATIONSHIP IS A
TRAVESTY. The desired relationship Trustee (them) / Beneficiary (us) where we can hold them accountable
for breach of trust.

When you sign the Appearance Bond in equity, you are agreeing to MAKE A GENERAL APPEARANCE as
the Defendant in a corporate Court of inferior statutory law.

Which means, you have also CONSENTED TO THE ORIGINAL GENERAL DEPOSIT. You have consented
to the transfer of private funds to the public side of the ledger for deposit to a general account under their
control (legal title). rather than a special deposit under your control. THIS IS HOW THEY TAP THE ESTATE,
not by some backroom grab.

The Arrest Warrant is the voucher to secure that acceptance. Nothing more.

What would happen if the Appearance Bond was noted with a banker's acceptance and the reverse side was
indorsed: "FOR SPECIAL DEPOSIT ONLY TO ACCOUNT NO. 1:10-CR-123456 FOR RELEASE OF REAL
PROPERTY." And one added: "NOT FOR GENERAL DEPOSIT OR REISSUE OF SECURITIES. SEE
JUDGE ROSE WILLIAMS FOR PAYMENT OF BOND NO. 1:10-CR-123456."

Definitely NOT recommending this to ANYONE.

Does anyone still think that UNDERSTANDING is not your ticket out? Bill

John Ingress <fires1up@> wrote: re. #1837

Bill, please clarify: If one is qualified to submit a 'banker's acceptance', then would this not indicate that
the 'banker' is a trust (or trust company) of which you are the grantor? Or which you have directed your
proxy to establish?

If so, and assuming that your 'bank' is authorized to take 'deposits', then you would want to deposit your
securities as a ‘general deposit’, so that you can claim a refund later. Am I close enough to smell the
roses?
#1846 re. #1826
TOPIC: NEVER A SECURED PARTY CREDITOR
joshuasdad100

JT, you would NEVER want to become a secured party creditor. That's Tim Turner language for debtor. The
public WANTS you to claim creditor status just like it WANTS you to argue jurisdiction...

When you file a motion claiming they don't have jurisdiction, the act of filing is construed as a general
appearance thereby confessing you into the jurisdiction. It is a presumed consent to the general deposit of the
charging instrument in their securities accounts.

When you claim to be a secured party creditor, you are confessing into equity where you are contractually
obligated to obey the statutes. You are really confessing to being a trustee under the public trust, the BC trust
and the SS trust.

What we want to do is replace the debtor/creditor relationship with the trustee/beneficiary relationship. That's
what this Group is all about. I suggest analyzing the postings very carefully as a good place to start. Check out
message 1840 just posted or insight into the depth of the rabbit hole.

We use the UCC financing statement to establish a maritime lien within the framework of what I just said. But
we avoid standing on the debtor/creditor and bailee/bailor relationships because they convey our consent to
diminishing the trustee/beneficiary relationship. Bill

#1864 re. #1863

Re: TOPIC: SPECIAL DEPOSIT-CAUTION PLEASE.
joshuasdad100

You are NOT directing special deposit for safekeeping. You do NOT want to create a bailor/bailee relationship
in place of a trustee/beneficiary relationship. That would defeat the purpose. - BILL

#1908 re. #1905

TOPIC: A4V MYTHS (Question directly for Moderator Bill re. A4V)
joshuasdad100

The big problem is that they are not processing acceptances without approved agency standing. So I would
NOT take any risky action like not paying a critical bill such as a mortgage, as you are likely to wind up, like so
MANY patriots, in controversy PREMATURELY learning by the school of hard knocks instead of competent
gentle mentoring.

Also, if you understood what an acceptance is and what the term "for value" means, you would know that you
don't need a money order. By doing that, you gave them two securities drawn on the same instrument. This is a
holdover from ZYA. Bankers have been doing acceptances for generations. What they do - all it takes - is the
word "ACCEPTED" to convert it into monetizable credits.

As to the endorsement, when you pay a bill, do you endorse the check? Or is that the Payee's job?

By the way, your acceptance is a security, not a negotiable instrument. Securities have indorsements rather than
endorsements.

And then there's the issue of reserving the acceptance and assigning it to the payee.
I point these things out to show there's more to it than meets the eye. When we do an acceptance, the acceptance
is a security that encapsulates the security they provided. It tells them to off-set against a prepaid account. Our
security agreement pledges the Grantor will cover all the debtor's debts. Our acceptance transmits the asset back
to the Estate so they can convert the credits they post to the account into funds (just like a bank seeks the funds
from the Payer's bank to cover the credits it posted to the Payee's account. Jut like an appearance bond gives
access to the Estate.

My intention is not to criticize or embarrass, but to suggest the need to change course so you dedicate yourself
to learning instead of doing, from people who know how the system works, until you become a force of nature.
You will know when you've arrived when you can do things correctly with the same clarity as when you write a
check. Bill

#1909 re. #1880

Re: TOPIC: NEVER A SECURED PARTY CREDITOR
joshuasdad100

I wish I had a dime for everyone who volunteered to appear in person due to fear, circumstances, lack of funds,
whatever. They are all in prison. IT DOESN'T WORK IN CRIMINAL CASES UNLESS YOU HAVE
EXTRAORDINARY SKILLS. The term "in person," is no lie. You appear in the personage of a U.S. trust,
contract, securities account.

SWAT is testing if you have CONVICTION, rather than mere BELIEF. When you get dragged in by the
Gestapo, THEY CANNOT PRESUME YOU ARE A U.S. PERSON. They can't presume you're a trustee. They
can't presume you've granted access to the Estate. THEY CAN'T PRESUME GENERAL DEPOSIT OR
GENERAL APPEARANCE. That's why they keep hammering away with the questions and threats. That is a
golden opportunity to end the conflict then and there.

I am hoping at some point that you will stop responding to the postings with but, but, but, and instead start
thinking, Yeah, I can do that. Maybe this would be a good time to change. Bill

THEY KEEP TRYING BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T CLOSED THE CASE.

#1911 re. #1909

Re: TOPIC: NEVER A SECURED PARTY CREDITOR
iamsomedude

So, it appears every "account" is an "open escrow" that has received "credit" from the "treasury" ... but has
never closed since "equitable interest option over the escrow" has never been exercised by "estate of the King"
thus is still open for use of the credit via the "payday anticipation loan" granted by "kings' treasury" upon the
"deposit" (28 USC 2041).

As such, does it makes sense one should probably authorize the collection and return the funds to the Treasury,
unless there is a "verified claim" by an "injured party"?.

"we the people" = all kings upon this earth

"Name on Live Birth" = "estate of the King"
"NAME ON BC" = "HIS VASSAL"
"US Treasury" = "kings' treasury"
"Society" = "Kingdom the Kings build"
"HIS VASSAL" is there on business to verify the claim against the "king" and since the "king" always "pays his
bills", the "kings treasury" ponies up the "funds" via "credit" to be held in "escrow" and authorizes the
collection of those funds for distribution to any injured party, then if no one can put up a "verified claim", the
"funds in escrow" revert back to the "king's treasury" while the "remainder in escrow" "delivers" to the "estate
of the king" in care, custody, and control of "HIS VASSAL" for use for the benefit of the "will of the king" ...
and if the "King's heart" is with "his people" and "his people's heart" with the "king", then that "love" will
inspire the people to build a "glorious kingdom" or "society" to honor "god" for the "divine king" "god"
provided for them.

#1919 re. #1911

TOPIC: ESCROW - OPEN THE BOX. EAT THE FOOD, LOSE THE WEIGHT.
joshuasdad100

SOME DUDE-I'M GLAD YOU POSTED THIS. As with usufruct, many of us tend to get lost in unnecessary
circuitous concepts to explain what are basically simple concepts. We learned this from the lawyerly class.
Every time we transform Thou shall not kill" into a million pages of complicated subterfuge, we lose 99 percent
of the audience including the serial killers, and make the message unintelligible to the remaining 1 percent.

Most every transaction in the public involves tendering a security, be it an indictment, bank check, credit card
application, or mortgage note. The recipient is supposed to return equal value, but they never do, So, either they
have stolen the funds at worst, or suffered a taxable gain at best. Prior to 1933, it was an even exchange of
commodities. Since HJR 192, it's an even exchange of futures (promises to pay). HJR replaced a commodities
system with a futures system of credit. If the recipient fails to return equal value as usual, then he must place the
item into trust or face the consequences of theft.

We are the beneficiary of that trust. If we were not, then they would have effectively stolen your security. A
public official simply canNOT steal or claim YOUR securities. They can't afford the tax, or the criminal
liability (10 years in prison - see 18 USC 2073). Therefore, by definition, each of these trusts involving every
facet of our lives consists of YOUR funds being held in escrow for YOUR benefit.

Those trust depository accounts are the legendary "escrow" accounts no one knows how to explain. Nothing
magical. Basic trust law. If I give you property and you fail to return equity, the property is considered held in
trust (escrow) for my benefit. THIS IS WHAT 26 USC 2612 AND 2603 ARE ALL ABOUT. If you claim
special deposit and demand a return of your securities and they fail to comply, you've got a taxable termination
(of your interest in the securities) for which the party holding the instrument is liable for the taxes.

The problem is that they always presume that the security was deposited generally to an account at their
disposal, thereby reversing the roles. Everything in the public is backwards. They are operating under the
presumption that the Plaintiff is the beneficiary and YOU are the trustee. But once we correct the faulty
presumptions, they revert to the trustee obligated to follow the public indenture, and we revert to our rightful
role as beneficiary of the funds.

As much as I loathe popular culture, we might yet learn something from Madison Avenue. "Open the box. Eat
the food. Lose the weight." We would do well to steal that linearity for ourselves when it comes to these
concepts. "Deposit the funds. Credit the account. Return the deposit." Bill.

#1937 re. #1914

Re: TOPIC: A4V MYTHS (Question directly for Moderator Bill re. A4V)
joshuasdad100
A negotiable instrument is defined in UCC 3-104. Securities are referenced in Article 8 of the UCC. You can
find a definition at 15 USC 77ccc as I recall. Mostly everything is a security. UCC 4-102 states that Article 8 is
superior to Article 3. The purpose of a security is disposition - even exchange. That could take the place of the
recipient indorsing the item, crediting your account, and returning it. The indorsement is also a security. If they
fail to return equity as I've just described, then either they've stolen the security (which is rare in Government),
or they've created a trust by having received property being held for someone else’s benefit (you). The trust is
not governed by the UCC. By definition, the very existence of that trust due to their failure to return equity is a
confession of a taxable termination (26 USC 2612) and THEIR liability for the taxes (26 USC 2603) as the
confessed trustee. 26 USC 2612 is like a roadmap to the system: taxable termination is a termination of an
interest in property held in trust. Guess what, when they fail to credit your account, they've terminated your
interest on property held in trust (your security) and THEY owe the taxes which are equal to the value of the
termination. Bill

#1953 re. #1945

Re: EVERYTHING'S A SECURITY
joshuasdad100

OKAY, THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HOW THE ANSWER LIES WITHIN US if we will only resort
to cognitive thinking...

WHO issues a bank check?

WE do (the drawer).

WHO determines the term? A recipient? A depository (which is yet another recipient)? Of course not. THE
ISSUER establishes the terms.

Does it say: "Good for six months?" Of course not. Although it could if we so chose.

Does the UCC language suggest word games? If they had the power, surely they would have said, "A bank draft
older than six months shall be considered void."

They have no such authority.

We issue the check. WE set the term. It's almost always of an indefinite term, or like any other lien, good for
seven years...Security.

Regarding the exchange of the mortgage note for a bank check, it is not an even exchange as cantinista pointed
out. But not for that reason. The reason is that they enter the note at full value with interest, but pay you the face
value.

Think about it. On a $50K mortgage, did you promise to pay $50K? Or did you promise to pay perhaps $150K
when interest is added in? $150K. That's the promise. That's the value to the bank. That's what they enter on
their books.

Your brain is stuck on $50K.

This is how easily they've been playing with us. We've been bred to be a society of morons. But the wall is
breaking down. Bill

#1945
 Securities Exchange Omission?
route4401

I've been reviewing the definition of "Security" at 15 USC § 78c (a)(10) and it is interesting to note the
things that are not securities.

"but shall not include currency or any note, draft, bill of exchange, or banker's acceptance which has a
maturity at the time of issuance of not exceeding nine months, exclusive of days of grace, or any
renewal thereof the maturity of which is likewise limited."

A clear understanding here could help avoid confusion as to what transactions constitute an exchange of
securities. It doesn't help that they say things like "a maturity at the time of issuance of not exceeding
nine months, exclusive of days of grace..." While one can, with a little effort, discern that this means
maturities of nine months or less, plus Sundays and bank holidays - say approx. 320 days or less (I'd
round it to less than a year). So a check, which according to UCC 4-404 is good for six months*,
should presumably be excluded from the definition of a security. And FRNs, which are currency, would
also be excluded.

This, it seems to me, is why when you gave the bank your promissory note (a security), and they gave
you a check (not a security) to purchase your home, it didn't constitute an even exchange of securities.
This is exclusive of the issue of their undisclosed liability to you for the full value of the note, including
30 years accrued interest . I guess that hints at the true reverse mortgage nature of the transaction.

Now I'm just speculating on this point, but that declining loan balance in the public, it seems to me, is
really the mirror image of an increasing liability of the bank on the private side. You should, when
reclaiming the note and deed at a later date, be entitled to a rebate of all the principal and interest you've
paid to that date. Could it be that reclaiming them voids the constructive fraud of the public transaction
ab initio and entitles you to the refund if claimed timely?

As Bill has said, this is all just fighting. Just reclaim the BC Trust and then set-off the bank loan. Maybe
afterward you might endeavor to reclaim the securities and payments if you feel you're that competent.
The bank will still have the tax liability to worry about even if the REMIC is then safe.

* The issue of the maturity of a check (draft) seems to be a gray area. Could this be intentional? Since
the latest bankruptcy reorganization in 1999 banks have ceased returning our checks. It is thought by
some that this is evidence that the banks are bundling them as securities and selling them into the
market. UCC 4-404 says the banks may honor the checks after six months in good faith.

Does this constitute a longer, or even indefinite maturity for a check?

Does UCC 4-404 really even constitute a maturity date for a check?
If not, then absent a stated void date on the check (of approx. 320 days or less from issue), is a check
then a security? - cantinista

#1955 re. #1938

Re: EIN
joshuasdad100

98 EIN is a foreign entity issued through the Philadelphia office. Rules are at IRM 21.7.13:

http://www.irs.gov/irm/part21/irm_21-007-013r.html

45 is also reserved for Phillie issuance for domestic entity, though can be converted to foreign.
One might want a foreign trust. One might want a domestic trust. Depends on the purpose of the trust. Bill

#1996 re. previous EIN posts

Re: EIN
prosperofla

From my notes of our Moderator's comments:

The ONLY REASON A TRUST EXISTS IS BECAUSE THERE IS A FAILURE TO RETURN EQUITY.
(Someone has been entrusted with the equity until the beneficiary shows up to take it.) If equity was returned in
the form of the original security (such as an indictment) endorsed indicating the Strawman's account was
credited with the funds, or an equivalent form of special deposit such as an order to dismiss (a receipt), there
would be no trust, or perhaps the trust existed for a nanosecond.

The trust exists only because they FAILED TO RETURN EQUITY ON A SECURITY. Think about that.
THEY are holding the security. It's in a security account THEY opened (bank acct, Court file, etc.) The proof of
the resulting trust is the case/file/account number THEY assigned. THEY HAVE ALREADY CONFESSED
TO BEING THE TRUSTEE. We don't have to appoint them. THEY ALREADY STIPULATED TO
ACCEPTANCE when they accepted the security, opened the account, and assigned the number. (We might give
notice PROPERLY with a Form 56 to bind them to Sec. 6903.) The arrest warrant, the complaint, the bill, the
charge, the letter, whatever, prove the existence of the trust and their trusteeship.

#2028
STUDY RESOURCE: UCC Article 9
prosperofla

here is an 80-minute lecture on video by Professor Ali Khan which distills much of UCC 9 - Secured
Transactions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Tk-eO13blk

#2071
UCC- 9:Study- Another source
prosperofla

BASICS OF CREATION AND PERFECTION OF SECURITY INTERESTS UNDER ARTICLE 9 OF THE

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
http://www.gslaw.com/resources/pdf/Article%209_Weiler.pdf

#2104 re. #2008 2nd

TOPICS: 5 ADDRESSES; SPECIAL APPEARANCE
TOPIC: THE ESTATE, GEN APPEAR & GEN DEPOS. (same post) #2105
TOPIC: DEFUNDING THE CASE AND THE BOND (same post) #2106
joshuasdad100

GENTLEMEN:

1. 5 ADDRESSES. Do you send your rent to five addresses? Sending to five offices is a confession of sorts that
the system remains a mystery, and whoever is recommending it doesn't really know what they're doing. They
got lucky. Think about it.
2. SPECIAL APPEARANCE. As with everything else, special appearance at a court of record at the common
law rule of decision is mirrored in the public. If you say the words "special appearance" in open court, they will
hear "special appearance to argue jurisdiction in the public." Translation: general appearance. If you argue
anything in the public, you have conceded jurisdiction. Now, "special appearance at the court of record and I'm
accepting your oath as binding upon you and invoking your ministerial duty to protect the posterity" is a
different story.

An appearance does NOT mean physical presence. Hiring an attorney, making a motion, asking for
dispensation, obeying an order - all "may comprise a general appearance" at inferior law where a special statute
conveys inferior jurisdiction according to their own case law. SO WE PREFER TO APPEAR SPECIALLY
AT THE court of record BY OUR PAPERWORK, properly declared, and give them notice that a general
appearance (WHICH IS NOTHING MORE THAN THE ESTATE'S CONSENT TO GENERAL DEPOSIT
WHEREBY IT IS PRESUMED TO ACT AS INDIVIDUAL SURETY ON THE CASE BOND) is simply
inapposite. The fear of being D.I.S. (Dragged In by Swat) is what makes patriots appear in the flesh and sell
their souls to the Devil. When you convey any appearance inside the Courtroom, you are conveying your
consent to general deposit, and hence to having PROVIDED THE FUNDING FOR THE SECURITIES
ACCOUNT identified by the Case number.

When you get dragged in in chains, they MUST get your name as consent and your "yes" to "understanding the
charges" or they can't proceed with the charges.

"Sir, do you understand the charges?"

"The Grantor has not authorized the Estate to consent to act as individual surety. So let the record show that
your public trust, JUDGE SUSAN WHITE, is the individual surety of record on the Bond. Would you like to
retire to chambers for discussion? I see no need to embarrass the Court."

You see, when they deposited the charging instrument, THEY PRESUMED THE FUNDS WERE THERE. Just
like a bank presumes the funds are there when you deposit a check. The Court is a depository institution and
securities intermediary. But when the Estate fails to consent to general deposit, guess what, the Indictment is
NSF, the account is defunded, and if they wish to continue trading the Bond then the JUDGE TRUST or
PROSECUTOR TRUST is the individual surety by default.

NOW you might want to go back and STUDY your SF 28, 90, 91 and a 24 and perhaps the bigger picture will
emerge. Bill

#2107 re. #2106

Re: THE JUDGE IS ALREADY THE TRUSTEE.
joshuasdad100

YOU WOULDN'T BE STANDING THERE IF THERE WASN'T A TRUST. Why appoint the Judge as
trustee? This give them opportunity to decline. If for some reason you're standing there, why not confirm that
IT'S ALREADY THE TRUSTEE...

"I'm sorry, I don't know what you're talking about." OR

"I decline."
"Sorry, you don't get to walk away. Didn't you accept the deposit, open an account, issue a number and deposit
the charging instrument? Didn't you leverage this Warrant security and the Case bond? Now if you'd like to
resign and collapse the trust, that's fine, but then I will need you to return ALL the securities and proceeds by
the end of business today or stand on the liability. The Grantor has claimed the equity, bub."
See, when we push the envelope, they devise another weasel's tactic to divert. THE ONLY ANSWER IS TO
MASTER YOUR UNDERSTANDING then there's NO place for them to hide. Bill

#2108 re. #2000

TOPIC: SETTLING WITH PROSECUTOR? - PATRIOT MISCONCEPTION
joshuasdad100

HI PATRICK. "Settling with the one who brought the charges" is yet another patriot misconception. The
Prosecutor is YOUR agent, having presumed to deposit YOUR security (Indictment, Information, Complaint,
Citation) ON YOUR BEHALF. YOU are the actual depositor. He's just a rep. No need to settle with him.

ONCE THE SECURITY IS DEPOSITED AT THE COURT, it's THE COURT that's presuming legal title to
the funds via general deposit.

GENERAL DEPOSIT - GENERAL DEPOSIT - GENERAL DEPOSIT.

IT'S THE COURT that has stolen the credits on the presumption that the funds would be there - aka that the
Estate would consent to act as individual surety.

It's all about securities, deposits and trusts. You wouldn't settle with the prosecutor any more than you would
settle with the bank teller. IT'S THE BANK that owes us a return of equity under PL 73-10. Security for
security. Future for future.

It there's any settling to be done with the Prosecutor, it's the Prosecutor's liability to the Grantor as possible
individual surety on the Bond if the Judge balks. After all, if the account is NSF and the Court cancels its'
indorsement, doesn't the liability revert to the depositor? Bill

#2109 re. #2003

TOPIC: PLEA BARGAIN
joshuasdad100

A plea bargain is just like an appearance bond. A STIPULATION THAT THE ESTATE IS CONSENTING TO
A GENERAL APPEARANCE, AND THEREBY STIPULATING to the Court's deposit of the Indictment as a
generally, stealing of title to the funds, and thereby the Estate’s consent to ACT AS INDIVIDUAL SURETY
ON THE CASE BOND. Bill

GEN. APPEARANCE – GEN. DEPOSIT - INDIVIDUAL SURETY

#2113 re. #2015

Re: Bonds
joshuasdad100
Hi Boris, As you know, the confiscation and enrollment (insurrection) acts of 1861, 62 and 62, acquired all
property for the administration and left the conquered people with only Equity - constructive trusts in equity
where they flip the trustee and beneficiary. That's layer number one.

Then they disguise it in admiralty - arresting the bond and such as jack Smith used to talk about. Layer two.

But it's really all a disguise or layer three, securities deposited in trust in lieu of returning equity. Generally I
stop there because that's the layer that contains the fudge that melts in your mouth. Bill

#2134 re. below

CAUTION - CAUTION - CAUTION
joshuasdad100

Debtor-creditor is comparatively useless compared to trustee-beneficiary. YOU HAVE PROBLEMS

BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN PRESUMED TO BE THE TRUSTEE on a trust that was created by the deposit
of YOUR securities due to THEIR failure to return equity. Correct this, and their control of your securities falls
apart instantly.

#2141 re. #2134

CAUTION-CAUTION-CAUTION ADDENDUM...
joshuasdad100
Sat Dec 22, 2012 1:11 pm

Only have a moment but wanted to add that THERE'S NO NEED TO FILE 18 DOCUMENTS.
Declaring your sovereignty isn't that complicated.

You can do it by oath in ONE document.

You can do it by reclaiming securities in THREE perhaps four pages.

IF YOU NEED 18 DOCUMENTS, maybe it's because you don't know what you're doing. Relying on other
people's research can be risky. I found out the hard way in one case myself when I was lazy, listened to a patriot
legend (even though I knew better), and blew a beautiful case that I was working on and which had the judiciary
running for cover and would have changed the country.

As you know, we don't slander people here. But the documents she described in her email exemplify the "I don't
understand" problem. Most of them are fatally flawed, the majority are unnecessary or redundant, and some are
downright dangerous. Tim Turner followers are slowly finding this out. Nothing against Turner personally, but
the materials are insane.

Oh, and it always a good idea to keep a wary eye on sales pitches disguised as advice. Even drug companies
have to list the risks in their commercials. Bill

#2143 re. #2122

Re: A Man who Tried to Reclaim His Public Estate in the Wrong Way...
joshuasdad100

U.S. Court of Federal Claims is a court of record acting at the common law as the rule of decision. The Plaintiff
appeared in admiralty which undid its advantages. The claim could have been pressed in the superior
jurisdiction rather than the inferior statutory jurisdiction. Bill

#2144 re. #2083

Re: Authentication of Long Form BC
joshuasdad100

Has nothing to do with the Hague convention of 1963. Rather, the old fashioned authentication as legalization
of documents usually has a full faith and credit statement. Clerks will tell you that it cannot be used in the
United States. Meaning, it is foreign to the United States. Welcome to the United States of America. Bill

#2152 re. #2146

Re: A Man who Tried to Reclaim His Public Estate in the Wrong Way...
joshuasdad100
Title 5 USC. Look for section under Organization of Courts. This sort of question is ideal for researching on the
internet for those who wish to broaden their knowledge. Bill

#2199
Security Agreement with the STRAWMAN Filed?
prosperofla

An exhaustive search of UCC-9, with the aid of electronic word search, indicates that there is no requirement to
record a Security Agreement except one (shown below); otherwise, it is a private, though necessary agreement.

The reason, deduced logically from Article 9, is that the SA exists in case there should arise a dispute between
the Creditor (for our purposes, that is the Grantor's authorized Representative) and the Debtor (for our purposes,
the Strawman) or with a third party claiming priority against the debtor (9-326(b).

Exception regarding necessity of filing is 9-607(b)(1), which may apply in the applicable dispute at a later time.
There is one mention of SA in UCC-8, but it refers to one with a securities intermediary.

I know of no other law, statute or regulation requiring the SA to be recorded. A further logical deduction drawn
from UCC-9 is that the initial Financing Statement is the recorded version of the SA: fill in the blanks showing
the elements of the SA in such a way that the bureaucrat robots can digest it.

Is anyone aware of a requirement stated elsewhere? I would think that UCC-9 prevails on this subject.

#2202 re. #2196 3rd

TOPIC - DISPELLING MYTHS ABOUT NOTARY PUBLIC, AUTHENTICATION.
joshuasdad100

I can see there's a bit of confusion about notaries public, authentication and BC. Contrary to what's been written
in some of the posts, the name tells you the capacity of the office. When a notary uses the prescribed
authentication or jurat language, it does "bring the signer into the public" in a matter of speaking, by overseeing
his confession as the "person" listed in that language. The term person is defined in the IRC, Sec. 7701 as a
corp, partnership, indiv, estate or trust in which a US person has authority to make ALL substantial decisions.

This is only a problem if your goal is to try to bull your way through society and its armies of trained protectors
as a self-confessed private. WE DON'T NEED TO DO THAT to reclaim our securities, establish and live
through trusts, establish the controlling estate, or similar undertakings where we use fictions to control fictions.
They use fictions posing as "individuals" to control us. So we create individuals in the nature of trusts to control
them. Who better to learn from than the masters of misnomer? Patriots have been so trained to fight and argue,
many can't even conceive of using the system to their own advantage.

However, if we need to go private at any time, the problem is that the sheeple have been trained to not file docs
without a notary's signature, and the sig is needed to authenticate. So we alter the language accordingly to
remove terms like "person," and add disclaimers indicating that use of the notary does not stipulate to an
election to submit to the jurisdiction. Then it is what we say it is.

As with many patriot concepts, we seem to act as if there's some secret formula or code to be discovered to
understand the issue, when its usually right in front of our face if you trust your own knowledge, or if you
research it on the internet usually requiring less time than it takes to complain how it wasn't researched,
deciphered, explained, and spoon-fed to you as one of the recent posts complained.

As to authentication, I was referring to the clerks who issue the document. I am not concerned that a clerk won't
file it because usually its served privately, and if we choose to file it, it's the ONLY proof that is recognized
as proved for admission into a case under Fed Rule of Civ Proc 44 and 28 USC 1739 (the US judicial code). In
fact, AUTHENTICATION IS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE IT IS A UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA DOCUMENT, HENCE IT CREATES THE court of record VENUE. The clerks'
limited knowledge may be "Oh that's only good outside the United States," to which I answer, "Show it to the
judge and tell him we're invoking superior jurisdiction."

An authenticated BC and the associated CUSIP can be sand in the gears. Those who choose to REALLY
decipher 1739 and 44 can probably parlay that into any remedy they want with a little bit of imagination.

I STRONGLY SUGGEST PEOPLE USE THE POWER OF INTERNET SEARCH TO RESEARCH ISSUES
LIKE THIS INSTEAD OF SPECULATING. Even Wikipedia articles can be useful in setting you on the right
path. Bill

#2237
MORTGAGES---MENTORS---MIRACLES. Thanks for the remedies Bill.
thebradleys2012

Hi Bill,

My husband and I were appalled at the posting by Scott Macneilage:

"it is my experience that you will get no useful guidance from Bill, Boris or anyone here."

That may be Scott's experience but not ours. IN SIX MONTHS WE'VE GONE FROM MUDDLE TO
MENTORING OTHERS. It is so gratifying to be REALLY able to help others - at least if they really want to
learn. Like you we've found that not everyone comes to the table ready or committed to learning. We can't thank
you enough for our recent victories and remedies. In fact we consider the knowledge alone to be enough remedy
and victory for a lifetime.

Since we joined your group at the beginning last June, we have not read your postings. We've lived them,
pouring over them word by word and doing mountains of research until we actually began to understand things
like the GSA forms, the Affidavit of Individual Surety, banker's acceptances, trusts, bonds and even the IRS
forms to back it all up. We have a small study group and we began meeting every other day, assigning research
and exploring the concepts. Here's a brief list of what we've learned and been able to put to work:

- the power of claiming our securities

- paying with securities
- holding public officials fully LIABLE when they steal our funds through general deposit
- trust law
- special deposit
- general deposit
- taxable terminations
- enforcement of our standing and lien
- dispositions, sales and deemed dispositions
- the universal securities scheme that underlies everything
- true understanding of the BC pledge
- leveraging securities
- individual surety
- principals
- grantors
- courts of record
- courts not of record
- judicial v non-judicial records
- authentication
- general and special appearance
- jurisdiction at law
- jurisdiction in equity v jurisdiction in admiralty
- double entry bookkeeping
- 1099s
- gift taxes
- escheats
- bonds, bonding, GSA bonds
- understanding their Courts
- working around them with paperwork at law
- handling ourselves in them at OUR choice.

I could go on and on but those are the highlights. These are not just bedrock concepts, THEY'RE THE GLUE
THAT HOLDS THE MATRIX TOGETHER. You have given us the key to Zion, Bill, and we are very grateful.

Because of your group, our lives have been transformed. We no longer feel like we're chasing our tails (chasing
their tales!) YOUR PREDICTION CAME TRUE!...SUDDENLY things started becoming SELF-EVIDENT.
We refrained from posting our thoughts and speculations and only posted occasional questions when we were
really stumped. G-d rewarded us by stripping away the curtain on the big mysteries:

- Mortgages became an open book.

- Suddenly we knew exactly how to shift the liability to the bank.
- Banking through trusts.
- Bonding public officials.
- Handling their Courts. This knowledge was HUGE. You should have seen our guys handle the judges once
they had the confidence from our role playing. This wasn't that hard with the information you gave us. We
KNEW they would ask our name, our residence, if we understood the charges, how do we plead, and tell us
they weren't there to answer our questions. So it was EASY to prepare for each scenario.

I don't mean to imply we know everything. But we know enough to strike fear into the hearts of attorneys.
We're no longer immersed in fear, doubt and confusion. That's just some of what we've gotten from the group.

We believe our experiences reflect our beliefs and methods. Scott has embraced laziness and whining. People
like that join a group like this and expect miracles after reading the most recent postings. They're deluded. Why
is it always people like that who feel the need to share their illness with the world? Only an egomaniac would
make comments like that in public.

Come to think of it, THERE ARE NO GROUPS LIKE THIS! You have changed the world, Bill! ANYONE
who does the work will be rewarded. It may take some time, but in six months we went from slaves to serving
G-d by helping others. We consider this to be one way of preaching the gospel and saving people from Lucifer's
grasp.

Thank you Bill from all of us. -Sheila

#3051
FOCUSING
peterpapoulias

I have been silent for a while. Everyone seems to be all over the place.
Number one. The Birth Certificate certainly belongs to them. But what is it? ITS A CERTIFICATE OF
INDEBTEDNESS ISSUED BY THE DEBTOR.

Is the BC valuable? Yes and no. In of itself it has NO intrinsic value (what does in the public anyway?)

- BUT -

IT HOLDS VALUE

What value? Our estate (evidence of the existence of the flesh and blood – Birth registration) that is why they
take a footprint (proof of life on the land).

SO WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN

- WELL -

IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO PROPERTY LAW (more specifically abandoned property law)

VERY FEW on this board quote any law (well any of significance at any rate. So I will

Cestui-que vie act of 1666 - last amended (language was modernized) in 1946 I believe.

how about these little nuggets

Definition of United States trust.

The proposed regulations define an individual as a United States person if she is a citizen or a resident alien
under the rules of §7701(b), but defining "United States" as provided in 31 CFR 103.11(nn) rather than as in 26
CFR 301.7701(b)-1(c)(2)(ii). The determination of whether an entity, including a trust, is a United States person
does not rely on the definitions provided in the Internal Revenue Code. Instead, an entity "created, organized or
formed" under the laws of the United States or any state, the District of Columbia, or any territory is treated as a
United States person

``Person''.—The due process clause provides that no States shall deprive any ``person'' of ``life, liberty or
property'' without due process of law. A historical controversy has been waged concerning whether the framers
of the Fourteenth Amendment intended the word ``person'' to mean only natural persons, or whether the word
was substituted for the word ``citizen'' with a view to protecting corporations from oppressive state legislation.
As early as the 1877 Granger Cases the Supreme Court upheld various regulatory state laws without raising any
question as to whether a corporation could advance due process claims. Further, there is no doubt that a
corporation may not be deprived of its property without due process of law.

the 14th Amendment, Abandoned Property Act, Uniform Abandoned Property Act, USC 42, USC 40, Trust
Indenture Act and many more clearly reflect the Grantors legal rights to make property claims

Title 42 > Personal Property

Disposition of Unclaimed Property
The District of Columbia currently lacks statutory authority to act as custodian for substantial sums of
abandoned personal property within its jurisdiction. This chapter is intended to mandate the report and delivery
by holders and to authorize the receipt for safekeeping and fiscal growth by the District of Columbia of any and
all personal property which is abandoned, without regard either to the maximum length of time for which such
property was abandoned or to any statute limiting the right to sue to claim such property. §42-201
Unclaimed Property
In order to constitute "unclaimed property" within the meaning of most state laws, the following four elements
must be present:
o The property must be intangible. The only exception to this is tangible personal property held in a safe deposit
box or a different type of safekeeping depository.
o The apparent owner of the property cannot be located.
o The property must remain unclaimed by the owner for a period of time referred
to in the law as the "dormancy period".
o There must be a fixed and certain legal obligation of the holder to the owner.

Foreign simple and grantor trust. A trust is foreign unless it meets both of the following tests.
• A court within the United States is able to exercise primary supervision over the administration of the trust.
• One or more U.S. persons have the authority to control all substantial decisions of the trust.

In most cases, a foreign simple trust is a foreign trust that is required to distribute all of its income annually. A
foreign grantor trust is a foreign trust that is treated as a grantor trust under sections 671 through 679 of the
Code.

THE GRANTOR IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY

So the grantor must make the claim - but the claim must reside in a trust as all public entities are trusts (ships)
the grantor needs a ship to navigate the waters of commerce. Do we use the ship they gave us (BC) owned by
them (debtor) or do we create our own?

hmmm

Remember anything they can do - we can do as they get their GRANT of power from us (silent or otherwise)

Everything that has been done to you has been done by way of contract.

DO YOU REALLY THINK THE IRS HAS POWER OVER YOU? REALLY? hmmmmm

"It is no longer open to question that the general [federal] government [including its agents, the IRS], unlike the
states, Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 275, 38 S. Ct. 529, 3 A.L.R. 649, Ann. Cas. 1918E 724, possesses
no inherent power in respect to the internal affairs of the states, and emphatically not with regard to legislation".
[Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936)]

Constitution: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17

"To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as
may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the
United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the
state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful
buildings;"

The IRS lacks territorial jurisdiction. The current system of enforcement of the Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle
A and C is repugnant to and violative of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution and its implementing
statute, 40 USC 255. 40 USCS § 255 says: "In view of 40 USCS § 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to
enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United
States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized
government to take jurisdiction is immaterial. Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed 1421, 63 S
Ct 1122." (plaintiff's emphasis).
The IRS must establish jurisdiction or it will be sanctioning FRAUD: "Silence is a species of conduct, and
constitutes an implied representation of the existence of facts in question. When silence is of such character and
under such circumstances that it would become a fraud, it will operate as an Estoppel." Carmine v. Bowen, 64
U.S. 932

hmmmmmmmm

WAKE UP - CLAIM YOUR RIGHTS (like your right to your property) - THEN ENFORCE THEM - the law is
there.

Start with UCC 8, then UCC 9 then UCC 2 then UCC 3

Peace

#3056
A hint
peterpapoulias

Look at the names people use on this board.

hmmmm acronyms, handles, etc...

I am known by Peter T Papoulias. I am the grantor/owner and entitlement holder of the certificate of
indebtedness. I have registered my claim. I hold the highest claim over that certificate. as such I can set-off any
public debt.

I can also claim back any security.

Why is everyone hiding?

What is everyone afraid of?
I am who I say I am. Let he who casts any doubt or accusations prove up their claim.

NOTHING IS PRIVATE IN THE PUBLIC - Peter

#3061 re. #3060

Re: FOCUSING
peterpapoulias

By the term YOU I meant that its easy to float around and claim no ownership to your words/deeds. So Some
Dude, take some ownership.

Name is NOT a franchise of anything, unless you can show me the law (not statute) otherwise. NAME is just
that, INDENTIFIER of a vessel in commerce. Which, in the end, is what this board is supposed to be all about
"COMMERCE".

All you are doing is taking people astray from their main goal/desire.

It is of course your right to expound on anything you wish. But in the end YOU, at least to me, have yet to
provide anything of REAL value here.

Trust law is very simple.

YOU can be the following:

Grantor, Beneficiary, or Trustee

Grantor/Beneficiary

But if you are trustee YOU cannot hold any other office of the trust.

THEY are borrowing our commercial energy. The debt owed is expressed as the PUBLIC debt.

WE must setoff that debt or it grows. Collapsing an express trust (court case) just extinguishes that claim.
THEY can always bring it back. Why? Because the CHARGE must be DISCHARGED (at least in their eyes)
Be we must set it off, GROUND it out. and the only way to do that is to claim it back (back to the principal
SOURCE). Get the books balanced.

The rules of usufruct only applies if the property remains unclaimed (escheated to them for safekeeping and
monetary growth). The issue to tackle first is establishing your claim of right (you were cast out into sea on
their ship. The BC).

Although I do not claim that what you say is not valid. I do claim it is irrelevant and immaterial. It serves no
purpose, accomplishes no end and seems, to me at least, to be a distraction.

#3062 re. #3945

Re: Putting a common law copyright notice/putting a notice in the paper?
peterpapoulias

www.peterpapoulias.com

you register a federal copyright on your signature (artwork)

you register a federal trademark on your name (FULL BC NAME)

#3064 re. #3063

Re: FOCUSING Treasury
peterpapoulias

I will do my best to help. I am not sure what Bill is referring to exactly.

You endorse the front. I don't know if that creates a new security. It does create a new security interest - the
grantor's. Followed by a maritime lien(ucc1) then a trustee's lien(UCC3).

Once that is done we loan them (Bond for setoff) some value. This value is what we use to setoff any claims
(charges) against the estate. they are claiming to be tenants on our land (estate).

I know this is valid as I have seen the bond ledgered and blocked.

#3071 re. #3069

Re: Hypothetical Question
peterpapoulias

That's a great question.

Let's look at it from two perspectives.

1. Let's say that the promissory note is from the Federal Reserve (legal tender) all federal reserve notes are
promissory notes. And they are negotiable. Why? because both parties to it endorsed it. So in this scenario you
can't enforce it per say but you can negotiate it (disposition) for goods and or services from any merchant
willing to accept it for exchange.

2. Let's say you found a promissory note for a mortgage. Firstly its a cognovit note (conditions precedent) in
other words a mortgage (death pledge) note is the product of the execution of a contract (contract?) secondly the
conditions of the note are found in its reference to the mortgage lien( deed of trust, security deed, varies state by
state). Therefore a mortgage note is not "An unconditional promise to pay a sum certain upon demand or fix
time in the future". Furthermore the mortgage note is only signed by the trustee of the maker trust (BC).Thus
further making it non-negotiable. Now some banks will claim they endorse it in blank. Really? Show me the
law.

Now remember how the "law" works (statutes)

The law tells us what we cannot do. How do I know this? Well show me the law that says I am allowed to
breathe, eat, sleep, walk, etc..

As far as ens legis (legal fictions) - the law describes what they CAN ONLY do.

For example without the Federal Reserve act, the Homeland Security Act those entities cannot exist. Those
entities bound to their enabling act are limited to those powers/duties enumerated in the act.

So now think about the IRS - where is their enabling Act?

Look at 4 USC 72, 40 USC 255

So show me where it says banks can lend ANYTHING.

#3092
Re: Classes available: summary
peterpapoulias

Here it is in plain English

You setup a private irrevocable cestui-que trust

You register the trust's business in the public. What does that mean?

You get an EIN for the trust. You are not registering the trust into the public. Only its public transactions.

Think of it this way.

You sail a private (foreign) ship into the harbor in Washington D.C

You tell the harbor master you intend on doing some business in their jurisdiction and that you will adhere to
their laws concerning that business (26 USC 671-679)

The harbour master gives you an account number (EIN) to track those transactions

SO NOW WHAT DO WE HAVE

Private vessel bringing in evidence of commercial energy into the public (unloading cargo) through the trustee
ledgering into the public books. Then claiming back the evidence of commercial energy (loading the cargo)
through the trustee.

THE PARTIES

Grantor (fictional representation of the real man)

Beneficiary (fictional representation of the real man)
Trustee - SSN (legal fiction already created in the public)

Remember the SSN is the beneficiary of the BC

HOW DO WE KNOW THIS?

Look at your paycheck - SSN on the stub

IRS publication 6209 (I think) states W2 = tax return for gift

The SSN receives the gift of your labor and pays the tax on it.

The 1040 was meant to claim back the withholdings (gift)

1942 congressional record - read it - its quite enlightening.

So we make the SSN trustee (neutral in the public) and stop using it for anything else

Since we now have a public ledger for all public transactions of our private trust (EIN) we don't need to use
anything else in commerce

We can now show the source (private trust) and can claim back all principal to the source(private trust)

THIS IS AT A HIGH LEVEL

There are steps and procedures to undergo

WE are playing in their domain - so their rules

The only thing they deal with are the transactions. The trust remains private and out of their jurisdiction/control
- they are not a party to it!!

NOW GO FIND THE STEPS AND PROCEDURES. There are no shortcuts. - Peace.

#3093
Re: Classes available: summary
Posted By: peterpapoulias

This is all I am willing to post on this public forum. This is the foundation for EVERYTHING commercial.

Be careful. This is powerful stuff - as in you will be operating on your FULL commercial liability. IF you do it
correctly - you will be rewarded

What is the reward - well for one thing reducing the public debt - for every dollar you take out about 10 dollars
of public debt gets setoff.
Secondly the rightful return of your commercial energy.

side note

STOP CALLING THE BC "The Strawman" - go look it up in black's law

A strawman is a corporate veil - the BC IS NOT A CORPORATE VEIL

It is a trust, the debtor, holder of the evidence of the estate (you)

Certificate of indebtedness (financial side) issued by the debtor

IT HAS NO VALUE - IT HOLDS VALUE (like a battery)

It borrows from the battery (you)

There is more but not here.

#3096 re. #3096

Re: traffic ticket Court date more than a year later
Posted By: peterpapoulias

Remember their rules/statutes only apply to you if you agree. NEVER TESTIFY only ask questions.

So if they claim you broke their law ask them to show you the LAW that says you HAVE to have a DL or the
paperwork you signed expressly agreeing to get one.

Ask them to show you the paperwork you signed agreeing that their laws apply to you.

Ask them to show you the law or paperwork you signed agreeing to be the surety.

Ask them to show you the paperwork signed by the OWNER making them agent/beneficiary.

Their status is by operation of law only.

REMEMBER THEY ARE ONLY the safe keepers and cannot do anything without your consent (silence is
consent)

So question EVERYTHING they do in there.

If they try to ignore you - "Objection your honor, are you trying to deny me my right to due process of law?" or
"Objection your honor are you trying to rush me to judgment?"

If they still ignore you then at the end you simply state "I do not understand, I do not consent to anything stated
herein this court and I will not sign anything"

PEace