The NAME PIERRE DAOUST is NOT a trust, it is kept in a trust, but since I am the only one that gives value to it, and I certainly can prove that, I can lien this NAME.....I have the RIGHT to its surety/security....it is written somewhere :D

I am trying to protect my property and persons: or ADMINISTRATE it the right way ? :D

Easy, "ME" have the right to this person's life, "ME" have the right to this person's liberty, and "ME" have the right to this person's surety/security......so "ME" will have to do some ADMINISTRATION shit :D

Yes, Pete, thank you. I want to be a good boy. :D I am asking questions to better understand trust law, and the process to properly administrate the Estate affairs.

It's ALL surety and accounting :D

I DON'T want to be a good boy, but I want to be the BEST EVER administrator :D

I've been a good boy too long :/

OK....last coffee and I stop after :D

Pete, have you started taking meth recently?

Does the govt not just have legal title ownership...which is 1/10 ownership? ..is it that when you lien the legal name, your "rights" cease as well, which means they aren't really being negatively effected...it all balances out the ledger? title. (15c) 1. lhe union of all elements (as ownership, possession, and custody) constituting the legal right to control and dispose of property; the legal link between a person who owns property and the property itself <no one has title to that land>. Cf. OWNERSHIP; posSESSION. 2. Legal evidence of a person's ownership rights in property; an instrument (such as a deed) that constitutes such evidence <record your title with the county clerk>. "Though employed in various ways, [title] is generally used to describe either the manner in which a right to real property is acquired, or the right itself. In the first sense, it refers to the conditions necessary to acquire a valid claim to land; in the second, it refers to the legal consequences of such conditions. These two senses are not only interrelated, but inseparable: given the requisite conditions, the legal consequences or rights follow as of course; given the rights, conditions necessary for the creation of those rights must have been satisfied. Thus, when the word 'title' is used in one sense, the other sense is necessarily implied." Kent McNeil, Common Law Aboriginal Title 10 (1989).

how can we have "rights" over something we didn't create, we were "granted" rights but we are not the authors, You may buy a book & read it but if you try publish it, you run into trouble imho :/

Mick, I think we are claiming EQUITABLE RIGHTS to what we put VALUE into. But, clearly, Weiss says something to the contrary here. Scott, can you impart some knowledge here?

FUCK YOU WITH YOUR EQUITABLE SHIT :D

Fuck you too

haha you two crazy kids :P

yeah lads, your rights... who granted you rights???? ;)

I get your point Mick, but these rights are not granted, they were earned by my adding VALUE, were they not?

The term's meaning depends very much on the context. In finance, in general, you can think of equity as ownership in any asset after all debts associated with that asset are paid off.

"Lien the NAME".....that is what Scott says. Great!!! Now my question is WHY?

THERE IS NO FUCKING EQUITY :D

Ok....so then what the fuck are we liening?

BECAUSE THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO CREATE MORE DEBTS with it :D

So, I perfect a lien for a lot of "money", fucking great. If there is no EQUITY how do I lien it?

The bonholders/financiers lend money on Govt bonds, iirc liening the name puts it beyond their investment & therefore none of their business ;)

if they are suporting/financing you, they have interest in your affairs ... No???

iirc?

if i recall corectly = iirc

Pete, So, I perfect a lien for a lot of "money", fucking great. If there is no EQUITY how do I lien it? 8 minutes ago � Like

who said you were perfecting a lien for a lots of money ? :/

iirc, we have to lien it for our projected value and it has to be enough to become first in line.

But Chris Schulte, there is NO money, only debts...

where can it be equity, if theres is NO money, but ONLY debts ? :/

HHEEELLLOOOsssss :D

There is ONE and ONLY one VALUABLE thing in this crazy equation......YOUR TIME and MY TIME.....nothing else... :P

I KNOW!!!!!!!!! In their system, EQUITY = DEBT!!!!!!! Now maybe I have this ALL wrong. Lien the NAME, great for what? My fucking well wishes??? No some MONETARY NUMBER

That monetary number = my value in their DEBT SYSTEM. Is that correct?

You VALUE the WRONG thing and THINK wrong :D HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

^ That is an incorrect statement. I do not value the wrong things although I may think wrong. :-)

Yes you do :P

NO I DON'T!

:-)

YYYEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSS>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok Pete, please explain to me how to perfect a lien then.........

Look around you Chris, take a good look, and see what is the MOST valuable thing you have......this is what you are liening.. :D

My time. And how does one lien their time. :-)

When you find the REAL WHY, the HOW comes naturally :P

Oh fuck is that ever fucking deep :#

And how does one lien their time: well, what VALUE you consider your time is worth ^ :D

As I stated earlier: "That monetary number = my value in their DEBT SYSTEM. Is that correct?"

Ask them !! :D

How? Who?

Where?

Call the Finance department in your government:D

And ask them....HEy...is it true that this monetary number is my value in your debt system ?....and wait for the answer :D

Do it Chris, seriously... :D

Pete, some of us are trying to understand HOW and WHY is that one liens the BC/NAME in the USA. If you have answers, I would love to hear them. The boat is sinking fast, and some of us are trying to hold on to what we can.

I am on the phone now

The Treasury just told me it does not have any value. :-/ They also said it is not leveraged against the printing of any papery currancy...:-/

your boat has been floated on the stock exchange & given a value. my understanding (for what its worth) is that liening the name removes it from that financing system. its yours again but dont expect it to have any more value in their system.... anybody else thinking like that ??

Thas what I think, but I am searching, S�il Eile.

Exactly what I was thinking.

so if it has no value, you cannot use "their" BoE in their system??

Chris Schulte.... There is ONE and ONLY one VALUABLE thing in this crazy equation......YOUR TIME and MY TIME.....nothing else... :D

you are accepting their valuation on your time in their system, sounds like a deal??

Pete Daoust, I understand!!!!! So, my time for the next 60 years is worth $100 mil FRN's, why because Fuck You, thats why. So I lien CHRISTOPHER EVAN SCHULTE for $100 mil. Correct?

I would say, 1.6666 million a year, just in case you live 1 year more :D

So you agree? then why would you post all that other crap up there ^^^^?????

uuuggghhhh....why? why? why? Mick, Maximiliano, Gail, Kirsten, is anyone not in agreement now? That was pain fucking full!!!!

Still think you are hilarious Pete!!! :-)

From my understanding, you are claiming interest in the CARGO (VALUE) of the VESSEL (NAME). This way it becomes a Maritime Lien if you word it that way.

You are the "ship" (Vessel). You are carrying a bill of lading that is actually YOURS. It only benefits the government when you don't claim it. A lien is your PUBLIC CLAIM to that BILL OF LADING, which means the government cannot use it - Scott

The Birth Cert.... It is the government's DeFacto CLAIM on the VALUE in the NAME. Lien it, and YOU get the value... ...but then you are your own creditor, and you have nothing the world wants. - Scott again...

we are the value, we get our lives back :) fuck them!!

We control the PERSON. I look at liening it as locking it in a room where no one else can touch it unless they wanna pay the fee... If one does have something the world wants operate privately...

But it should be a HOLDING company that liens it... not you.

thats why you create corporation & trust first?

beverly that answers the original question....geesh that darn attachment programming of mine

Quoting Scott again, I know we've seen it discussed plenty of times... You CREATE a corporation, then grant ONE SHARE. You are now the SOLE SHAREHOLDER (not an "owner"). You then ORDER (from the corporation, for which you are the CONTROLLING SHAREHOLDER) to LIEN your BIRTH CERTIFICATE. The corporation can then hold that asset IN TRUST To establish a trust, write it down, and have it witnessed and notarized. The end. Only shareholders of your corporation are recognized by the trust.

Eamonn O Brien, thanks!

Now, do we understand all of that...? :p

I'm not being smart there, the question is probably directed more at me than anyone :)

Taken from your nuggets Maximiliano!

ha!

Theres gold in them there words (Y)

And, YOU lien your SIN

http://www.cro.ie/ena/business-registration-company.aspx I'm sure you've prob looked at this already Mick...

who is YOU?

I too get confused when people type YOU as such... Dya mean me Beverly? Rather than the corp?

In the USA, if a corporation liens a NAME that did not created, to be HELD in TRUST, would this be fraud? If not, what Am I missing? Scott Duncan? I am trying to protect my property and persons, by applying what I have learned here.

lol Gail , yep Eamonn O i had a registered business before they harvested me lol

Well, my thinking is... Social Insurance is Insurance for your PERSON... so PERSON liens it... ya? no?

Sure we'll start another one, throw the PERSONS into trust and go boozin' on Grafton St... :p "No no Guard, our persons are protected in trust"... "Oh right, enjoy yourselves so"...

Claiming the Cargo on my Vessel that was put there by someone else = PRIVATEER!!!!! Claiming the extra Cargo on my Vessel that my Time created = Savvy

Original Question: In the USA, if a corporation liens a NAME that did not created, to be HELD in TRUST, would this be fraud? If not, what Am I missing? Scott Duncan? I am trying to protect my property and persons, by applying what I have learned here.

correct we did not create the legal title name. but if anybody government agent or what not says different. that we do not own it. we can then sue for damages because its fraud for them to have said for so many years that we did own it.

When did they say that?

is it or is it not my name is in the lien

Beverly Girl-Brain Braaksma Well, my thinking is... Social Insurance is Insurance for your PERSON... so PERSON liens it... ya? no? .... but if you benefit from it, you bear the cost? i want nothing from them or their system, just out!!

Chris, if you appoint yourself sole shareholder of the corporation then you can place in trust whatever property you have control of no?

if it is my name then I can lean it. if its not my name then why did you attach surety to it. what you said that the man I am responsible for???

but its not our name, we are not the author, we only have exclusivity of it??

I concur Mick! Agreed Eamonn, but what standing does me or a corporation have in the matter. That is the question Weiss raised and Maximiliano I am guessing wanted to raise the question here.

exclusivity = usufruct

the Govt is not a person so who can oppose or make a counter claim is the trick here i think

You're the only party with standing... You're the lawful holder in due course to do what you want with the financial instrument... Or you don't have to do anything with it, have your corporation hold it in trust for a rainy day...

If you are the only one adding BENEFICIAL CONTRIBUTIONS to this PERSON, as in the only one adding VALUE, then you have STANDING.

Yup....and I see that....so what exactly is Weiss referring to in this article as the OP stated?

but YOU don't lien it yourself....before the idea of a corporation liening it was introduced, if I remember correctly, Scott suggested that you have someone you trust lien it?

Yes....and I TRUST any corporation I DIRECT!

The quote from the book says it's fraud to lien a trust... ?

<<Filing a lien on a trust you did not create and did not act as trustee for is inherently fraudulent because you�re demanding a debt from an entity that owes you nothing.>>

the govt is the trust...we aren't liening the govt?

You guys are going in circles now...

the trick here is they cant say its your name and then its not your name f***

ohhh what a tangled web we weave hahaha.

it either is my name are it is not my f****** god damn name

it cannot be both

Claiming equitable interest in the CARGO... of the VESSEL

Chris I'd say no to your original question. Weiss' quote refers to liening a trust not a name... You have control of the name... Lien away....

$20 is thought of as positive when really its a negative

because money equals debt

a $20 bill cannot be a negative and a positive its not f****** possible to be both a positive and a negative

and this is why you all miss the bills of exchange buck O five

Well there ya are Chris, Jons answered your question... :p

the reason 0 is half of the equation is you need a point of origin to have a point of destination

I HAD to block that guy/thing. How annoying. http://www.operatorchan.org/n/src/137694157589.jpg

But Chris Schulte, YOU WON'T never see these millions :D,

I know....I dont care about them...I only care about being free, BUT, they care and that is how we have to hit them!

"Jeff", most of us understand the Buck o Five, but this thread isn't about Buck o Five. It was a very specific question on a very specific topic. :-)

Bill of Lading A document signed by a carrier (a transporter of goods) or the carrier's representative and issued to a consignor (the shipper of goods) that evidences the receipt of goods for shipment to a specified designation and person. carrier n. in general, any person or business which transports property or people by any means of conveyance (truck, auto, taxi, bus, airplane, railroad, ship), almost always for a charge. The carrier is the transportation system and not the owner or operator of the system. There are two types of carriers: common carrier (in the regular business or a public utility of transportation) and a private carrier (a party not in the business, but agrees to make a delivery or carry a passenger in a specific instance). Regular transportation systems are regulated by states and by the Interstate Commerce Commission if they cross state lines. CONSIGNOR, contracts. One who makes a consignment to another. 2. When goods are consigned to be sold on commission, and the property remains in the consignor; or when goods have been consigned upon a credit, and the consignee has become a bankrupt or failed, the consignor has a right to stop them in transitu. (q.v.) Abbot on Sh. p. 3, c. 3. The consignor is generally liable for the freight or the hire for the carriage of goods. I don't get it.....Who is the CARRIER and who is the CONSIGNOR? I assume those are the 2 signatures on the BC....

My take: You're not liening a trust You're liening property held by a trust. The name is the property. You didn't create the name, it's not yours but you are the lawful holder in due course/administrator etc etc. You can lien the property from the (government) trust Why? Because you're the only party that adds any value/equity to the property/name. You have not been paid for it or for adding value to it, so you're now claiming (ownership of) the property (name) until you are paid for it. So what value does it have? What value has been created so far in that name & what is a reasonable estimate of its value in the future? The reason I have not yet liened the name into the private, company held trust yet, is because I'm waiting to perfect a few liens that will add value to the name & consequently raise the dollar value of the lien. What are the consequences of liening the name? The government (or any other entity) cannot extract any dollar value from the name until the first in line lien (the corporation's lien against the name held in private trust) has been fully satisfied/discharged. This takes the name out of the public domain. However, the value of any liens held in the private trust become part of the corporation's book value. This value can be borrowed against by the corporation, enabling it to trade in the public domain ie: commerce. The protection is that you are not acting in the public, you (the corporation holding the private trust) have the superior claim over the name, and as sole shareholder of the corporation, you have a controlling interest as to how the property held in trust is to be managed. If there are any errors or shitstains, feel free to give me an educational slapdown Scott Duncan :D

Yeah...tell him to fuck off with his buck-o-five :P

Of course, reserve the right to recalculate the value of the lien periodically against the price of gold, oil, bitcoins etc, just in case the (perceived) value of the paper currency gets progressively whittled away by inflation and or QE infinity ;-)

Derek Moran Derek Moran: WHOA..... have i just figured-out that my/the Birth/Stock Certificate is waiting for me to claim as soon as i show them the RECEIPT my mommy and daddy were given for it 2 weeks after i was born? (Scott clicked Like on this) Scott Duncan: Derek Moran RE:"...as i show them the RECEIPT my mommy and daddy were given for it 2 weeks after i was born? " - It's even simpler than that. A sworn affirmation is all you need. Who's to challenge it. 3 witnesses and/or notarized, and that pretty much covers YOUR obligation. Derek Moran: AFFIRMATION OF Derek Moran I am Derek Moran, and 42 years ago you guys gave my parents a Revenue Receipt for DEREK MORAN, to wit, i now claim it for Derek Moran. ..simple that simple? Pete Daoust: what rigths should I claim ???? Scott Duncan: The PERSON (DuuuH!) Scott Duncan: The government is not a PERSON. You have a PERSON and YOU are responsible. You contracted with a TRUST, not a PERSON. The signature PROVES you UNDERSTAND. There's ONLY ONE PERSON INVOLVED, YOURS! THE PERSON (There IS only one in the transaction) is ALWAYS responsible. GOVERNMENT is a TRUST. Scott Duncan: BIRTH CERTIFICATE = BILL OF LADING Glad I could help Scott Duncan: Parents were the GRANTOR (one of the parties that created the bill of lading). Listen up and pay attention. YOU ARE THE CARRIER! A Truck ACTING AS CARRIER is NOT "120,000 RonCo Turnip Twaddlers"! IT IS, IN FACT, A CARRIER THAT HAS "120,000 RonCo Turnip Twaddlers"! It's delivering it to YOU (The Beneficiary). It just hasn't arrived yet. You don't know that YOU own the CARGO. If you OWN the cargo you are transporting you are no longer in commerce. You are transporting PROPERTY. Derek Moran: OWN the cargo = TRANSPORTING, TRANSPORTING = no longer in commerce. . . . .CARRIERing cargo = engaged in commerce Scott Duncan: The NAME is the CARGO, and the BIRTH CERTIFICATE is the BILL OF LADING. It's valueless on it's own. Hence the term "Sold a bill of goods". Scott Duncan: You are letting the world know that the cargo is in fact YOURS. Nobody has the right to presume your cargo is for commerce now. Scott Duncan: That is ALL a Lien is. Cara Small Atherton: has the queen taken on the protector of the trusts and must make sure they answer? Scott Duncan: No. the keeper is just the placeholder "person" for the trust.

But, the definition of BoL says that the carrier signs the document....I never signed the document

You were probably an infant, incompetent to sign for yourself, so your responsible guardian or the state (that you are a ward of) signed on your behalf, no? That's just me trying to logic it out...not based in any 'fact'

Once we came of age, used the BC and gave our signature, understanding that we were then carrier was presumed?

EVERYTHING is presumed in this legal world...

<<Derek Moran: WHOA..... have i just figured-out that my/the Birth/Stock Certificate is waiting for me to claim as soon as i show them the RECEIPT my mommy and daddy were given for it 2 weeks after i was born? (Scott clicked Like on this) Scott Duncan: Derek Moran RE:"...as i show them the RECEIPT my mommy and daddy were given for it 2 weeks after i was born? " - It's even simpler than that. A sworn affirmation is all you need. Who's to challenge it. 3 witnesses and/or notarized, and that pretty much covers YOUR obligation. Derek Moran: AFFIRMATION OF Derek Moran I am Derek Moran, and 42 years ago you guys gave my parents a Revenue Receipt for DEREK MORAN, to wit, i now claim it for Derek Moran. ..simple that simple? Pete Daoust: what rigths should I claim ???? Scott Duncan: The PERSON (DuuuH!) Scott Duncan: The government is not a PERSON. You have a PERSON and YOU are responsible. You contracted with a TRUST, not a PERSON. The signature PROVES you UNDERSTAND. There's ONLY ONE PERSON INVOLVED, YOURS! THE PERSON (There IS only one in the transaction) is ALWAYS responsible. GOVERNMENT is a TRUST. Scott Duncan: BIRTH CERTIFICATE = BILL OF LADING Glad I could help Scott Duncan: Parents were the GRANTOR (one of the parties that created the bill of lading). Listen up and pay attention. YOU ARE THE CARRIER! A Truck ACTING AS CARRIER is NOT "120,000 RonCo Turnip Twaddlers"! IT IS, IN FACT, A CARRIER THAT HAS "120,000 RonCo Turnip Twaddlers"! It's delivering it to YOU (The Beneficiary). It just hasn't arrived yet. You don't know that YOU own the CARGO. If you OWN the cargo you are transporting you are no longer in commerce. You are transporting PROPERTY. Derek Moran: OWN the cargo = TRANSPORTING, TRANSPORTING = no longer in commerce. . . . .CARRIERing cargo = engaged in commerce Scott Duncan: The NAME is the CARGO, and the BIRTH CERTIFICATE is the BILL OF LADING. It's valueless on it's own. Hence the term "Sold a bill of goods". Scott Duncan: You are letting the world know that the cargo is in fact YOURS. Nobody has the right to presume your cargo is for commerce now. Scott Duncan: That is ALL a Lien is. Cara Small Atherton: has the queen taken on the protector of the trusts and must make sure they answer? Scott Duncan: No. the keeper is just the placeholder "person" for the trust.>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/tenderforlaw/permalink/524698220899448/

giddy up...

"my/the Birth/Stock Certificate is waiting for me to claim as soon as i show them the RECEIPT my mommy and daddy were given" what if mommy and daddy are deceased (litterally), what is the receipt? how does one identify it? can it be discovered (maybe a copy?) or is the receipt the birth certificate?

The receipt is the Birth Certificate, David Johansen.

so i only hold a copy of the receipt as evidence of the legal person existing, and like pierre said I am the ONLY party who can administrate for it, therfore I HAVE to be responsible (remain in honor) for everything communicated to it. ah, i got it now. In those immortal words of the token french guy, "Administrate the shit out of it".

Yes, there would be a RECEIVER`S CERTIFICATE, which would be the other half, is what I understand...

Listen to the David Wilcock thing below I just posted. Winston makes a lot of sense to me.

He echoes much of what Scott has said...

There is only one "small" problem. Unfortunately in REALITY, we do not own the NAME. Using a NAME that is not OURS is FRAUD. That is why Scott says he created ANOTHER PERSON (which could be a corporation) to be able to act in commerce for the man (a proxy), is something you created, therefore you CONTROL, while you avoid FRAUD, and have "limited liability" for the actions of the new PERSON. So, the best position to administrate from, would be a position in which you control everything, but owe nothing, while reducing liability to almost none.

so you ask them (court/gov.) is this my name to use as i see fit? it is just a coincidence that the name they created is almost the same as the name I use... ahh, so simply say, let me see that name your looking for... well, (autograph's) well thats not mine, mine looks like the autograph, nothing at all like that what you have. am i free to go?

nobody would typically think like that, they would all say, yes thats my name...

Yep, Mackximus

AH, so whenever you write a document, allways leave the name blank, NEVER typ it in. Bev, remember the document that sayd to the clerk not to accept any pseudo freeman logic, dismiss it for one of the following ... well, when you type documents never type in the NAME anywhere... yah... original thinking...

but is still a security interest of yours

I don't comprehend your question, David. Can you explain?

oh i am going to be so brutal when i write the secretary of state.

Not necessarily... NON ASSUMPSIT, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

David, may I ask, what are your intentions on writing to the Secretary of State? I'm curious.

If I sign as administrator on behalf of... Girl Brain... whatever... I understand any signature should be QUALIFIED... When I registered my vehicle, I signed with `beneficiary`underneath. Nuff said.

(remind myself to go look up non assumpsit)... Max i intent to remove any presumption that I am a U.S. citizen by calling the State out for comitting fraud. neither ME nor the legal person named on the birth certificate were given the opportunity to comprehend/understand the scope of the situation. I dont just want to do what scott wants, take the value away from them, I want to kill it right off.

do not assume/not up for presumption

David, send an acknowledgement of the Security Interest and Indenture that Trust. Rather than call FRAUD. It is what it is and, actually all of this COMMERCE IS FRAUD. But you don`t have any choice do you... but to use their fake money...

"But you don`t have any choice do you... but to use their fake money..." Beverly Girl-Brain Braaksma, you are SO WRONG! You have missed the WHOLE POINT of TT4L.

how do you live without their money, huh? I don`t know ANYONE who can function without their stupid money... PLEASE TELL!!!

If you are referring to some FUTURE EVENT... well I guess we have some years to watch that unfold but if you are referring to that we don`t need this`"currency" ti function... then that is clearly a LIE

David, you sound like you don't know what your doing. But hey, go gun-ho crazy with it. :D Beverly, this very page showed exactly how to use YOUR OWN money, in the present, in the NOW, and how to stay away from "theirs" as much as possible.

The whole reason why Scott has continuously said THERE IS NO REMEDY.. is because this is the monetary system we cannot function without... Yes, there are ways to use an entity other than ourselves... but there is only the possibility that WE CREATE our own currency and contract with each other therein... which is CURRENTLY not in any way established...

RIGHT NOW, we still use THEIR TENDER FOR LAW to function...

So tell me, how to I get a Drivers Licence in some fake name?

Cause when I want to rent a car in another country they will ask for this? Create a FRADULENT ONE? How?

How to I get a passport in a non registered name?

I wanna travel...

Tell...

Can a Corporation get a drivers license and/or passport?

you would get a passport, yes, with a uneversal drivers license, just the same as any brazillian does to go to school or work 'legally' here. only I was born here, they cant expatriate me somewhere else.

Whether you use an entity other than yourself, the tender for law is still a contract in itself. You can exchange your value into Bitcoin... but it STILL needs to be exchanged back into TFL`s or FRN`s before anyone else will accept as consideration...

BUT YOU STILL NEED LEGAL TENDER TO FEED YOURSELF... at this time

I was really looking forward to thetenderforlaw.com to really explain everything from the ground up... but then, as Scott went on, I was really looking forward to the EXCHANGE LAYER platform he was referring to. Therein be able to create our own value and having a platform of exchange for it, instead of buying Bitcoins with debt money and having to exchange it back to debt money in order to exchange it with...

The probability of Scott `bucking out` of facebook likely is part of his impatience with the things he was interested in years ago in trying to get us to SEE, and other argumentative/theists/cops, etc and continue his plan for an out of this legal enslavement...

I understand where you are coming from, Beverly. Hell I don't have "the answers" (although you seem to be mixing some stuff), but I sure can tell you that we all do things, not because someone put a gun to our head, but rather because we chose too. It just takes REAL balls to take care of our own. You can TRAVEL without a passport, using YOUR OWN boat, or YOUR OWN plane, with your OWN private runway. You don't need "licenses" or "permits", but WE certainly need what we have been stripped off, and that is HUGE BALLS to take care of our own, and do things ourselves. Same thing with money. We can have our own RIGHT NOW, but it takes some HUGE BALLS to do it. And we have been programmed with tons of excuses WHY we can't/won't do it. Government is a freaking service, nothing else. They have guns, then you get own guns. They have laws,; hell you have your own Laws. They have "money", hell you have YOUR OWN. I still don't have THE BALLS to completely do without government services. But hell I KNOW now what the fuck to do to get away from that shit, and that is growing some fucking balls! Who is with me?

i am trying to get businesses to accept silver/gold for goods, and when i work for people, they buy silver from me to pay me with, like carnivals sell tickets as ride coupons.

Yes Max, exactly right... but I do not have a plane or my own runway, or can explain to everyone that we should just run away from this crap... but many `like the comforts`of where things are at... So when I am trying to enjoy a living, but require of my guests to give me something interesting that I can use to feed my brats and get things I need... its seriously not doable.

when i need fed notes, i exchange silver with the local coin/stamp exchange.

The platform Scott was referring to was horribly interesting though... I was actually thinking of getting a bitcoin exchange machine installed in our store...

Its really about eliminating the EXCHANGE controllers (banks). If we use bitcoin, and can exchange with `normal people`into bitcoin and back out... this would be close.

yep. bitcoin is good, except its priced itself out of the market. if you support it now without mining, your just feeding the ones holding big numbers by raising the value. but, if you wanted to move value, bitcoin is weightless, so you exchange your metal, move it and then buy it back wherever you go.

Its the IDEA! :D

Let`s look at this monetary system as in place. The SECURITY CERTIFICATE is based on our time, energy and ideas based on... well I dunno about that. But when then could WE OURSELVES not create the same thing?

yes, remove the banks and eliminate their ability to steal your value sinse they insure the banks, they can steal your wealth. they cant if they can not get at it.

YES

This system SHOULD ACTUALLY work well... UNTIL IT IS SOLD to PRIVATE banks (elites) to control...

there is allready in my state birkshirebucks traded in that community, and banks exchange dollars for it and accept it from retailers who need a bank. i have a big safe and a canon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vRmMIiqGhc

besides, if the government comes after me i'm dead. thats the point of getting clear from there jurisdiction.

So don`t bother with letters, David... If the BC is a TRUST, then send an acknowledgement to the registrar of receipt of a SECURITY INTEREST

And you have BENEFICIAL INTEREST in it

With regard to the whole currency thing... Whenever any entity engages in commerce with the corporation, the corporation automatically acts as a currency exchange, converting FRNs (Fed Reserve Notes) into your corporate currency eg: Beverly Bucks...same way as when you go to the funfair & exchange FRNs for tickets/coupons... The corporation is not accepting FRNs, it is exchanging them for its own domestic currency. It has not been 'paid' in FRNs, so is not liable for the tax (or other statutory rules) on FRNs... The liability comes from ACCEPTING 'legal tender' (accepting a tender for law), not from your personal currency exchange/corporation disposing of FRNs...this was a principle discussed/described by Scott probably as far back as April this year. Disposing of/spending FRNs has no liability attached, but ACCEPTING them as income/payment does. If I can dredge through my notes & find the original comments, I'll post them on here...

Hey, Stuart Stone, forget about it. It's not "doable". :D

Yes, that is the theory, absolute! :D But where is the assumption proclaimed? In the Charter of the corp?

Maybe in your charter, put one of the roles of the corporation as 'currency exchange'...whenever I hace registered a corp in Australia or UK, you need to put primary business eg: healthcare...you can also amend the list at any time...have it written in the minutes of a company meeting as to the change in policy & proceed from there. Re passports & drivers licences etc: once the 'person' is liened into the private trust held by the corp, the drivers licence & passport etc become trust property. Write into the trust charter that the trustee of the private trust has exclusive use of trust property (part of your compensation plan fro agreeing to act as trustee)...you are now exclusively entitled to use that trust property, but you also have evidence to demonstrate that it is trust property you are using...demonstrating that you are using the person, but are not the person...

Yes, and those happy accounts with some charter the banks don`t care about are attached to registrations with govt corporations... so yah... blow me away...

When dealing with any current commerce, is still based on FRNs.. and also registered (applied to, presumed a contract with)... well you know

Hence Scott says THERE IS NO REMEDY

yes the only thing you can do is INDENTURE any trusts, like I was saying to David Johansen

I always thought that Scott's reference to no remedy was with regard to the courts not following their own rules...maybe I missed something :/ I also recall an argument he had with Trent Goodbaudy explaining that he hasn't used bank tender for many years because roguesupport has its own currency. Anyway, much more to learn here, so I'll keep reading & studying :D

Yes, the no remedy is because no matter what happens, you are attached to the tender for law... whether you exchange it into your own, they ignore that... etc.

And they ignore their own rules by force.

The courts rules are based on commerce, and justices are OPERATING AS The province of... state of... whatever...

And, lets not forget the thugs

its ALL BASED ON NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS all of it

If you ever land up in court, ask them if you are there to EXTEND CREDIT?

cause that is all it is...

Scott never mentioned ANY of that "remedy and FRN's" thing. It was never in reference to that.

Because FRN`s are negotiable instruments. This is what the TENDER FOR LAW is...

Beverly, you missed the whole point of TT4L, and missed the whole point of "Money as Debt III: Beyond Evolution". I'm just sayin'.

CASH OR CUNT... either or (will pay) is dragged into court based on a negotiable instrument they drum up against you. This is why remedy is a struggle.

No I did not.

This would be easier verbal...

it's firewalls and safety nets: Trust property puts you the woman at arms length from the person. The corporation provides its directors with limited liability... the currency exchange limits your exposure... But yes, if thugs wanna take your shit, they're going to do it regardless...just look at Afghanistan as one example & most of South America as another. It's like a guy robbing a house...with enough time & determination, he'll get in...but put bars on the windows, alarms on the doors, a couple of rottweilers & a big alarm system & he's more likely to go n rob your neighbour, not you. The aim is to become difficult prey so 'they' go after the low hanging fruit first.

But, it's too difficult, Stuart. Let's just suck-it-up! :D

Yes, first... If you also recall, Scott`s biggest beef is where they CLAIMED his home via thugs by gunpoint. So, remedy relies inevitably in changing the monetary trade.

No, I just see the End Game with what he was working on here... Its not that I disagree with you Max and Stuart.. I can see the future remedy...

I don't think the Admiral has bugged out & disappeared...just in the process of changing venue ;-)

Nope, I think he`s pissed about starting up a `celebrityship` thingy... and has been threatened

and not interested in continuing this forum on that basis

Actually I wish he would have let thetenderforlaw.com run as it was... cause then we could have this conflab with voices, to let quicker understanding of said conflab :D

My understanding of Scott saying we have no remedy, it's because MOST have not realized that we are, LITERALLY, SLAVES (some motherfuckers have CLAIMED ALL EARTH, US INCLUDED, Hellos?), and that there is a group of men that have FAR MORE KNOWLEDGE than most of us will ever dream of, and that the whole system thing is just an ILLUSION to try to hide what is truly our REALITY. That's what I've got so far.

We should maybe start our own skype talk thing? We could record it for record...

Yes but Scott is very annoyed with losing his home, that was paid for... which he explicitly shared... One shares more of their own struggle... which would become their reasoning for, let`s say starting a FB page or something...

Look at Dean Clifford... his own struggle is his compulsion to what he is doing...

I wouldn`t be here if I wasn`t annoyed via something...

Even Winston Shrout was getting wages garnished apparentely/possibly regarding a divorce before he started figuring out what the fucks going on...

text is better, just needs the fluff edited out.

nope, I think more better UNDERSTANDING is always held face to face... ie, verbal will do

I will start a talkshoe thing... long as it is not public... I actually would like to meet you all at least this way!

The Admiral is a very intelligent man & a computer geek of the highest order...I would be very surprised if he doesn't have at least half a dozen FB accounts floating around here so he can keep a finger on the pulse...he probably holds more than one of the silent accounts in this forum, so he may check in on proceedings at any time, anonymously & without commenting ;-)

Just started watching this series...uses Weiss as one of/the main reference fortrust law: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF1cOpRGU8w

Nice Mackximus Minimus :-)

Everything can't all be done in one day... :-D

Weiss trust does not cover .... operations of a corporation when forming a trust. The magic is created at the inception of the trust by covenant or agreement, the corporation is the Actor... The charter of the corporation is an act that includes statutes- law... sound familiar? An ACT is Law. In the context of corporate charter in the private domain. And it is PRIVATE.

Act Something done; usually, something done intentionally or voluntarily or with a purpose. The term encompasses not only physical acts�such as turning on the water or purchasing a gun�but also refers to more intangible acts such as adopting a decree, edict, law, judgment, award, or determination. An act may be a private act, done by an individual managing his or her personal affairs, or it may be a public act, done by an official, a council, or a court. When a bill is favorably acted upon in the process of legislation, it becomes an act.

A Bill = Tender For Law... Evidence (proof) of a contract or chargeable offence... a fine, for failure to comply after agreement has been made.

Or a charge for meeting the terms.

<<When you understand what money is, you can construct money through VALUE. If it exists in the real world, it has VALUE. Any currency used to track that VALUE, when exchanging goods, is MONEY OF EXCHANGE. Bitcoin, on the other hand, does not exist in the real world. Only its mysterious creators have any COPYHOLD on the VALUE. That's the thing about Bitcoin - in the end the guys that created it, get all the money. They get this because people volunteer to take alpha-test-grade, proof-of-concept code, and open their computers up to the Internet. They then give hardware-level access to their memory, processor, GPU and hard drive, to a rogue, autonomous process that their empty, little heads couldn't even dream of understanding, with no one paying attention to its original intent -- which is to prove that it could be done. Don't get me wrong, there are people who are doing this on purpose, because the VALUE is returned almost immediately. For Bitcoin has all the properties of gold, without the liabilities. Bitcoin is but one cryptographic currency. AQUILAE has its own cryptographic currency. It cannot be counterfeited, and is a near-perfect accounting mechanism. AQUILAE is not even a PERSON, it's a TRUST. If a TRUST can have a currency, why can't you? What I am building for everyone here, is a method to remove the middle-man. If you have your own currency, you don't need a bank. If cryptographic currencies can't be counterfeited, then it's trade cannot be regulated. It remains within the private realm and the ease at which you can convert your currency to MONEY OF EXCHANGE anywhere in the world, is directly proportional to your VALUE. In the current economic framework, backed by debt-based FIAT currency, the only legitimate path to wealth is to produce, to make something in the real world that didn't exist before. >> Scott Duncan

Ah... I missed that...

ah, just to note, i saw somewhere (in law) that the mere act of keeping a ledger, even if it were a scrap of paper and not a pretty notebook, the ledger in and of itself is proof of a party performing banking, and they are liable for collecting taxes on sales. i have also heard through the movies that cops are trained to recognize such a thing if/when performing a search of a premesis for any evidence. the ledger for bitcoin is public without any names attached UNLESS one admits to a knowledge of such thing existing.

tricky that ledger, if i were to have one it would be to remember who owes me that i credited and not what i transferred. once an account is ballanced the ledger closes and can be discarded.

Man, has this group gone forward! So many stayed behind. Is there anything more important out there, other than Scott Duncan, and The Tender for Law? :/

Have I made any comments on this thread? :/

Oh yes! :D We all did. I cry sometimes reading my old self.

Quite right. so you should :P

We're crying and we aren't even you! :D

I know, right? :/

Lou, what is your actual rank, in the Aquilae Navy? :D

Depends on which of us is typing.

I even use it sometimes!

:D

Oh fuck, that could confuse some in here :/

People outside of the trust use this account too. The Fender was often on here.

There has been more activity on this account in the past 48 hours than there has been in its entire history :D

Yes, I wonder why? :D

Holy shit, we've covered this! OK, one more time... https://youtu.be/5Blf073f2Lc

:D

You had me at "Shut the fuck-up, and do what you're told!"

...YOU are a mouse, in a maze.

Don't fuck his mind, he thinks he is a canary in a mine.....all these animals... :/