Strawman

[palani]

Maxims in law are somewhat like axioms in geometry. 1 Bl. Com. 68. They are principles and authorities, and part of the general customs or common law of the land; and are of the same strength as acts of parliament

Quando duo juro concurrunt in und personÉ, aequum est ac si essent in diversis. When two rights concur in one person, it is the same as if they were in two separate persons. 4 Co. 118.

Rights are persons. Duties are persons. Think of duties as the lack of a right or a negative right. Multiple rights, multiple duties, multiple persons. And therein you will find a strawman.

[JohnQPublic]

Maxims in law are somewhat like axioms in geometry. 1 Bl. Com. 68. They are principles and authorities, and part of the general customs or common law of the land; and are of the same strength as acts of parliament

Quando duo juro concurrunt in und personÉ, aequum est ac si essent in diversis. When two rights concur in one person, it is the same as if they were in two separate persons. 4 Co. 118.

Rights are persons. Duties are persons. Think of duties as the lack of a right or a negative right. Multiple rights, multiple duties, multiple persons. And therein you will find a strawman.

Context? Implications?

"Rights are persons. Duties are persons."

Corporations are persons- Mit Romney

[midnight rambler]

Corporations are persons- Mit Romney Corporations ARE in fact 'persons' in the view of the court, i.e. 'artificial persons'.

What Romney said was: "Corporations are people." I sure what he *meant* was that corporations are made up of people as 'employees' (of course known as human resources in corporate-speak) and that people own shares in the corporation - but the fact is that corporations are legal fictions and therefore in reality do not exist. Legal fictions only exist in the minds of humans.

[Ponce]

Uffffffffffff, I am getting nervous......I don't understand the context but do understand the implications of this.......my mind eyes knows more than my eyes.

[palani]

Context? Implications?

Person(s) are created by actions, words or representation. Corporations ONLY exist by representation. First words in court: "Do you plan on REPRESENTING yourself." Interpretation? YOU are a corporation because you require representation ... cannot speak for yourself.

Multiple rights represent multiple persons. You might proclaim a right to two lots of land in separate areas of a county. Let the property tax slide on one and the tax liability on that property will be sold (separated) at a tax lien auction. Notice it is the tax liability that is sold not the land. The state can only sell what they hold and they only hold a bill for tax liability.

[ximmy]

My straw man is an artificial person created by law at my birth on September 1, 1948 via the inscription of an ALL-CAPITAL LETTERS NAME on my birth certificate/document, which is a document of title and a negotiable instrument. My lawful, Christian name of birthright was replaced with a legal, corporate name of deceit and fraud. I, Thomas-Joseph: Kennedy have been answering when the legal person, KENNEDY, THOMAS JOSEPH, is addressed, and therefore the two have been recognized as being one and the same. When, I, Thomas-Joseph: Kennedy, the lawful being distinguish myself as another party than the legal person, the two will be separated.
My STATE-created birth certificate with an all-caps name became a document evidencing debt the moment it was issued. Once the Federal Government of Canada registered my birth certificate with the Department of Industry Trade and Commerce, that Department notified the Treasury Department, which took out a loan from the private Bank of Canada. The Treasury used the loan to purchase a bond from the Department of Industry Trade and Commerce which investsed the sale proceeds in the stock or bond market. The Treasury Department then issued Treasury securities in the form Treasury Bonds, Notes, and Bills using the bonds as surety for the new "securities." This cycle is based on the future tax revenues of the legal person KENNEDY, THOMAS JOSEPH, whose name appears on the birth certificate. This also means that the bankrupt, corporate Canada guaranteed to the purchasers of their securities my lifetime labour and tax revenues with my birth certificate as collateral for payment. This device was craftily initiated simply by converting the lawful, true name of Thomas-Jospeh: Kennedy as a newborn into a legal, juristic name of a person, KENNEDY, THOMAS JOSEPH.
Legally, since September 1, 1948, I have been considered a slave or indentured servant to the various federal, provincial and municipal governments via my STATE-issued, STATE-created birth certificate in the name of my all-caps person. My birth certificate was issued so that the issuer could claim "exclusive" title to the legal person cteated thereby. This was further compounded when I voluntarily obtained a driver's license and a SIN (Social Insurance Number). The state even owns my personal and private life through my STATE-issued marriage license/certificate issued in the all-caps names. I have had no rights in birth, marriage, nor will I have them even in death unless I re-capture my straw man. (The names on tombstones in cemeteries are in all-caps.) The STATE holds title to my legal person it created via my birth certificate, until Thomas-Joseph: Kennedy, the rightful owner, the holder in due course of the instrument, that is myself, reclaims/redeems it.
The main problem is that I have voluntarily (though unknowingly) agreed to this contrived system of plunder by remaining silent and failing to assert my absolute rights. Therefore, the maxim of law becomes crucially operative: "He who fails to assert his rights has none." The legal rules and codes enforce themselves. There are no court hearings to determine if those rules are correct. Their "law" is self-regulating and self-supporting. Once set into motion, their "laws" automatically come into effect provided the legal process has been followed.
My straw man has a ficticious name written in a manner not provided for in the rules of English grammar. My straw man has a same-sounding name as Thomas-Joseph: Kennedy, but is artificial and exists only by the force of or in contemplation of law. My straw man is a distinct legal entity that benefits the creator - the Government of Canada - because the creator can then accomplish things in the name of my straw man that would not otherwise be permitted e.g. secretly acquire property etc. My straw man is: KENNEDY, THOMAS JOSEPH. The Government of Canada has been using my straw man for the purpose of siphoning off wealth from myself, an otherwise sovereign man and conveying the proceeds to its credtors, the private Bank of Canada and the IMF. It is my intention to now use my straw man for my benefit, rather than continuing to be enslaved and abused because of it.


http://www.cyberclass.net/strawman.htm

[Joe King]

Person(s) are created by actions, words or representation. Corporations ONLY exist by representation. First words in court: "Do you plan on REPRESENTING yourself." Interpretation? YOU are a corporation because you require representation ... cannot speak for yourself.Exactly. The fact that you cannot appear as yourself in Court should speak volumes to people, but it doesn't seem to.
Although they do seem to notice that their Common Law arguments are ignored in that same Court.

[palani]

My straw man is an artificial person created by law at my birth

Easy one to deal with. Lose the birth document. That is unless you really want to take advantage of the benefits offered.

Lawyers apparently hate these long-winded documents. They hate to read and hate to write even more yet these long affidavits must be rebutted point by point. Eustace Mullins (Rape of Justice) is said to have submitted briefs that extended 10-20 pages in length. He used latin, french, spanish or whatever he could cite. Lawyers would ask to judge to tell him to submit them in English only. He did it as a harassing tactic. It worked well.

[palani]

I don't understand the context but do understand the implications of this.
You create a person by asserting a right. You create a person by engaging in a contract or taking an oath. You create a person by issuing a word (libel or slander) or by an action (robbing a bank for example).

[palani]

...they do seem to notice that their Common Law arguments are ignored in that same Court.

Funny thing is the court cannot stand to be ignored either:

Quod non apparet non est, et non apparet judicialiter ante judicium. What appears not does not exist, and nothing appears judicially before judgment.

[ximmy]

bump...

Today I was able to explain to someone what a strawman is... i used the Matrix movie as a foundation for it... noting how we are plugged into it at birth and how our SS number was really like an individual plug in code...

[Joe King]

...and she scores! Way to go Ximmy! 808

[Twisted Titan]

when I was filling out the birth certificate for my daughter it was a full page.

the part that we as parents had to fill out was pretty small and straight forward.

but I saw a lot of information on there in codes with numbers.

some of those numbers were related to what ethnic group you were

I didn't understand it and I couldn't question. the filing clerk but I.was smart enough to take pictures of it with my phone

my wife didn't know what I was doing at the time and nether did I but it was really spooky when I finally went to get her certificate and they gave me a short form.

when I insisted on the complete one they said this is the only thing they have


I got a glimpse of the matrix and now they want me to forget I saw it

[7th trump]

when I was filling out the birth certificate for my daughter it was a full page.

the part that we as parents had to fill out was pretty small and straight forward.

but I saw a lot of information on there in codes with numbers.

some of those numbers were related to what ethnic group you were

I didn't understand it and I couldn't question. the filing clerk but I.was smart enough to take pictures of it with my phone

my wife didn't know what I was doing at the time and nether did I but it was really spooky when I finally went to get her certificate and they gave me a short form.

when I insisted on the complete one they said this is the only thing they have


I got a glimpse of the matrix and now they want me to forget I saw it
Did they try forcing the ssn application on you Titan?
If they have and you havent signed any paper work yet ask to take the application with you.
In this paperwork you should have a small pamphlet included in the packet that basically gives you a warning that the applicantee will be waiving some Rights (Bill of Rights). Take a picture of this rights warning if you can.
I seen this when they tried to force a ssn on my daughter before leaving the hospital. The only thing was they didnt include this warning pamphlet with the paperwork we took home (appeased them for not signing for a ssn before leaving the hospital which they said was mandatory). And they didnt know what I was talking about when I came back asking for it.
They told me I had to sign up for a ssn before leaving and I told them I wanted to have a lawyer involved if they were saying it was mandatory but yet needing my signiture. So they took the paperwork and came back later with what looked like the same paperwork after they said I could leave with my daughter. Thats when I noticed the warning pamphlet was missing.

[palani]

I know a man who has been attempting to get his original application for a marriage license from the recorders office. He says it will show he was not given full disclosure when he applied and can therefore be cancelled ab initio for that reason. For some odd reason the recorder cannot seem to find his application.

[po boy]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/37727029/Understanding-2-Strawmen-2-Trusts

[Twisted Titan]

yes they did try to sneak her into the SS. sytem

in the middle of all micro babble was a small section that said WANT SSN ?and the box was checked yes I told the clerk we are not doing that now we will wait

a third eye almost came out her head and she then proceeded to explain about how easy it would be if I just did it now and I can save the trouble off having to make a. trip to the SS Office. I could just conveinetly have it mailed to us when i further declined her " generosity" she had to do the whole form over( she wasn't pleased about that)

and then I noticed something.

on the second form I saw that one of her numbers changed by a factor of one . I guess signifying something was ammened or alterd trom the original

I wanted to question her on it but it was the end of her shift and a new clerk took over and I wanst able to gleam anything else except the photo documentation that I had.

I know it wasn't a ss number

[jbeck57143]

Did they try forcing the ssn application on you Titan?
If they have and you havent signed any paper work yet ask to take the application with you.
In this paperwork you should have a small pamphlet included in the packet that basically gives you a warning that the applicantee will be waiving some Rights (Bill of Rights). Take a picture of this rights warning if you can.
I seen this when they tried to force a ssn on my daughter before leaving the hospital. The only thing was they didnt include this warning pamphlet with the paperwork we took home (appeased them for not signing for a ssn before leaving the hospital which they said was mandatory). And they didnt know what I was talking about when I came back asking for it.
They told me I had to sign up for a ssn before leaving and I told them I wanted to have a lawyer involved if they were saying it was mandatory but yet needing my signiture. So they took the paperwork and came back later with what looked like the same paperwork after they said I could leave with my daughter. Thats when I noticed the warning pamphlet was missing.

Is that pamphlet online anywhere?

[jbeck57143]

This is from
http://olyblog.net/how-cancel-your-social-security-card

How To Cancel Your Social Security Card
Sat, 02/14/2009 - 3:44pm — socialchangeolympia

How to Terminate your Social Security Number.............. http://www.dailypaul.com/node/79492

Interesting call to the Social Security Administration today Posted January 17th, 2009 by juliusbragg

So I've been contemplating turning in my social security number, in order to stop being a Federal United States employee, so I called the SSA today just to see what they would say.

SSA: Hello this is Dorothy, how may I help you?

ME: Hello Dorothy, I recently learned that Social Security is a voluntary insurance program, and that I may terminate my SS number at any time and get out of it, my question is, do I get all of my money back that I payed in when I turn in my number?

SSA: (pissy) No

ME: So I'd probably have to file suit for that?

SSA: Probably

ME: one more question, is there a SSA form that I fill out to cancel my number?

SSA: hold on let me check... (2 minutes)

SSA: sir?

ME: I'm here

SSA: we don't have a form for that, you would have to send in a letter and your card. (much nicer attitude for some reason)

ME: O.K., I was surprised to find out it was voluntary, I always thought it was mandatory to have a number.

SSA: Are you in the United States

ME: do you mean in the United States as defined as the District of Columbia, or do you just mean one of the states?

SSA: one of the states (no hesitation or surprise in her voice)

ME: oh, one of the states

SSA: yeah it actually is mandatory to have one if your not paying into another pension program to the federal or state government.

ME: Oh, you mean if I'm a state or Federal Employee?

SSA: Yes ME: Oh, ok, yeah, I'm not a State or Federal employee, ok, thanks for your time. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For anyone else interested in doing so, the SSA can be reached at 1-800-772-1213. Edward, ID Number DELETED, my SSA customer service rep looked into the termination section of their manual to verify the procedure for terminating my social security number. He gave me the office address and number of my local office and told me to send it in with a letter describing the fact that I wish to terminate my number as it is voluntary. He asked why I wish to terminate my number and I stated that I wished to stop contributing to the program voluntarily. "Well," he said, "You can just tell your employer to stop withholding the money from your paycheck. That way you can still get the benefits that you have paid into so far. " I explained to him that I tried to do so with my employer, but my employer believes that he is required to continue withholding. He then went on to say that if I did terminate my social security number through the process he described that I would receive a letter stating that I have terminated the number and withholding can terminate as well.

Brilliant!!!! Absolutely brilliant.

*********************************************
Unfortunately there's no follow up on whether or not it worked

[palani]

Apparently (I have not researched this nor have any interest in doing so) when the SSN is cancelled then benefits may immediately start. If the period paid in is less than the requisite 10 quarters (or whatever interval) then payments are limited to around $600 a month. If you have paid in longer then there is a formula for higher monthly payments.

When you do this I guess the Social Security people do not look kindly upon you.

[horseshoe3]

Given the last two posts, what would be the remifications of getting SSNs for my children and letting them cancel later?

My children currently do not have SSNs, but the tax credits are tempting. I figured better safe than sorry and did not get them. I really believe that they will apply when they want a job and then I will have gained nothing and lost the potential tax credits.

If jbeck's post is true, it looks like I could take the money and they would still have the ability to get out of the system with no penalty.

???????????

[horseshoe3]

Also, can anyone tell me what the PRACTICAL drawback is to getting the SSN. I have always been wary of it because I am wary of all gov't programs and especially enumeration programs. But I can't see the practical value of being SSN free.

I have heard the argument that if your kids have an SSN, they are the property of the gov't and can be taken at any time. My response to that is "Does that mean that if the JBTs break down my door, I can simply tell them that the kids have no SSN and therefore must be left alone?" Somehow I doubt that, and have never received an answer from a hardcore anti-SSN advocate.

[Joe King]

Also, can anyone tell me what the PRACTICAL drawback is to getting the SSN. I have always been wary of it because I am wary of all gov't programs and especially enumeration programs. But I can't see the practical value of being SSN free.It's more of an "in principal" kind of thing in that you are surrounded by sheep who are under the impression that it is mandatory.
Therefore, you will likely have a harder time trying to conduct your business.
...but no one ever said freedom was easy.

It's also not easy to not do something we are 4 generations into. Again, the reason we have today what we see is a direct result of those first generations just going along to get along.
ie they took what looked like the easy path otherwise known as gov benefits.



I have heard the argument that if your kids have an SSN, they are the property of the gov't and can be taken at any time. My response to that is "Does that mean that if the JBTs break down my door, I can simply tell them that the kids have no SSN and therefore must be left alone?" Somehow I doubt that, and have never received an answer from a hardcore anti-SSN advocate.Think about it like this. They only know about that which is applied for and/or reported.

[po boy]

Also, can anyone tell me what the PRACTICAL drawback is to getting the SSN. I have always been wary of it because I am wary of all gov't programs and especially enumeration programs. But I can't see the practical value of being SSN free.

I have heard the argument that if your kids have an SSN, they are the property of the gov't and can be taken at any time. My response to that is "Does that mean that if the JBTs break down my door, I can simply tell them that the kids have no SSN and therefore must be left alone?" Somehow I doubt that, and have never received an answer from a hardcore anti-SSN advocate.

Here's one drawback,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlCs7u1ihws&feature=related

[horseshoe3]

Thanks po boy. That leads me to another question. When the time comes to reposses the collateral, will they make a distinction? Will my children and their property remain safe because they were not signed up for the card, or will they confiscate ALL property regardless of social security status?

[palani]

what would be the remifications of getting SSNs for my children and letting them cancel later?

Since you asked there are several principles involved. First and foremost


Leviticus 18:21 (King James Version)

21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech

Second, doing business with a foreign potentate places you (and your children) in a domestic relationship with that foreign entity. While you might not view the United States as foreign the Supreme Court does (5 Pet 1 Cherokee Nation vs Georgia). Prior to obtaining the birth certificate and SSN from the government you (and your children) do things by Right and Lawfully. After obtaining these documents you do things by permit and legally.

[horseshoe3]

I had always understood that verse to be more literal than you use it. I will study on it some more.


Second, doing business with a foreign potentate places you (and your children) in a domestic relationship with that foreign entity. While you might not view the United States as foreign the Supreme Court does (5 Pet 1 Cherokee Nation vs Georgia). Prior to obtaining the birth certificate and SSN from the government you (and your children) do things by Right and Lawfully. After obtaining these documents you do things by permit and legally.

And the practical difference is...? It is becoming more and more clear to me that in the future, you will do things neither by right nor by permit. Rather you will do things in secret or by force of arms.

[po boy]

Thanks po boy. That leads me to another question. When the time comes to reposses the collateral, will they make a distinction? Will my children and their property remain safe because they were not signed up for the card, or will they confiscate ALL property regardless of social security status?

I'm not quite sure as I'm not privy to who owns all the collateral I suppose that is one reason Paul wants to audit the FED.

One thing is for sure just as privacy of your PM is or should be kept on the DL children the most precious gift one could receive should protected as well.

[palani]

When the time comes to reposses the collateral, will they make a distinction? Will my children and their property remain safe because they were not signed up for the card, or will they confiscate ALL property regardless of social security status? The private property of foreign neutrals is generally recognized during wartime. If you voluntarily join a communist system why would you believe you actually had any private property?

[palani]

And the practical difference is...?
It has to do with ignorance believe it or not. From Bouviers 1856 Law Dictionary


Ignorance of law, consists in the want of knowledge of those laws which it is our duty to understand, and which every man is presumed to know.

Ask yourself ... if it is a foreign law where is my duty to understand this law? If it is a domestic law then your duty is well established to understand all laws. With congress adding volumes to the laws each year how can any one man (or anyone in congress) understand all of them? Instead your domestic laws might be contained in the bible (the ultimate lawbook) or you might decide you need some attachment to a state government that will protect you from all other governments (and in 50 state governments NONE will do this). Bouviers goes on to state that ignorance of a foreign law is ignorance of a FACT and there can be no ignorance of FACT that is criminal.




It is becoming more and more clear to me that in the future, you will do things neither by right nor by permit. Rather you will do things in secret or by force of arms. You will ALWAYS do things by consent. Further, you will always do things by CONTRACT. Very few contracts are actually written. Ordering a slice of pie from a waitress is a contract. Learn to deal with contracts and understand consent (and withholding it) and you will sleep a little easier. Make the contract to your liking and the system won't need a gun to deal with you.

[ximmy]

Popular news gets the sheeple ready for life without social security... (easy come, easy go)

Not to worry... aid to Israel, war funding, bank bailouts to remain unaffected...

WASHINGTON (AP) — Laid-off workers and aging baby boomers are flooding Social Security's disability program with benefit claims, pushing the financially strapped system toward the brink of insolvency.
Applications are up nearly 50 percent over a decade ago as people with disabilities lose their jobs and can't find new ones in an economy that has shed nearly 7 million jobs...

New congressional estimates say the trust fund that supports Social Security disability will run out of money by 2017, leaving the program unable to pay full benefits, unless Congress acts. About two decades later, Social Security's much larger retirement fund is projected to run dry, too, leaving it unable to pay full benefits as well.

http://news.yahoo.com/social-security-disability-verge-insolvency-090119318.html

[horseshoe3]

Ask yourself ... if it is a foreign law where is my duty to understand this law? If it is a domestic law then your duty is well established to understand all laws. With congress adding volumes to the laws each year how can any one man (or anyone in congress) understand all of them? Instead your domestic laws might be contained in the bible (the ultimate lawbook) or you might decide you need some attachment to a state government that will protect you from all other governments (and in 50 state governments NONE will do this). Bouviers goes on to state that ignorance of a foreign law is ignorance of a FACT and there can be no ignorance of FACT that is criminal.

I see what you are saying here. A man is only liable to understand and follow the laws of his own country. A man without a SSN (among other things) is not a citizen of the United States corporation. That's fine. But what happens when that foreign government decides that it doesn't care whether you are morally subject to them, it will make you subject by force?




You will ALWAYS do things by consent. Further, you will always do things by CONTRACT. Very few contracts are actually written. Ordering a slice of pie from a waitress is a contract. Learn to deal with contracts and understand consent (and withholding it) and you will sleep a little easier. Make the contract to your liking and the system won't need a gun to deal with you.

In a civilized society, with decent human beings, this is true. But TPTB have shown that they are not decent. They are willing to ignore the rule of law and use violence when it suits them. I guess the point I am trying to make is that the things you are describing are the way things shoud work and would work in a just society. The way things actually do work is at the point of a gun.

[po boy]

I see what you are saying here. A man is only liable to understand and follow the laws of his own country. A man without a SSN (among other things) is not a citizen of the United States corporation. That's fine. But what happens when that foreign government decides that it doesn't care whether you are morally subject to them, it will make you subject by force?





In a civilized society, with decent human beings, this is true. But TPTB have shown that they are not decent. They are willing to ignore the rule of law and use violence when it suits them. I guess the point I am trying to make is that the things you are describing are the way things shoud work and would work in a just society. The way things actually do work is at the point of a gun.

In some ways I agree violence gets attention.
The laws work both ways and certain principals change slowly, with that said the argument is that the ship is sinking so no time to learn to swim.
Well when is the ship going down ,who knows and will government change overnight or will it be a drawn out event?
This is where each individual has to make a choice for themselves and weigh the cost/benefit.
The choice is really to take up a subject that has far reaching implications of responsibility no more blaming .gov or accepting benefits and being able to defend you legal or lawful positions knowing your rights and duties in your particular status with .gov. I look at it as something I should have learned from my parents and they from theirs.
The slacking off on these subjects of money and law has led this great country to demise. Today so many are ignorant that violence is looked upon as the only remedy and that is very sad.
The idea that it is too late in the game I see as flawed as .govs are never going to go away so starting the task now is preparing for the future.

[Glass]

horseshoe3 The way you deal with the violence is like this:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/law-enforcement-corruption--abuse/savage-cops-crooked-da.html

from this thread: http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?53352-Fullerton-Ca-Murder-Inc-(this-is-unbelievable (http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?53352-Fullerton-Ca-Murder-Inc-%28this-is-unbelievable))

Lets hope this becomes the norm. It's called rage and when the people get it there's no holding them back.

[palani]

In a civilized society, with decent human beings, this is true. But TPTB have shown that they are not decent. They are willing to ignore the rule of law and use violence when it suits them. I guess the point I am trying to make is that the things you are describing are the way things shoud work and would work in a just society. The way things actually do work is at the point of a gun.

That is the way government has always worked. You have been trained since birth to be a consenting corporation. The ruling maxim is: Quod necessitas cogit, defendit. What necessity forces, it justifies. Those in authority know what is necessary for their own well being. They justify force because they tend to rationalize that what is viewed as good for them is good for society (their society).

Life is full of choices. When presented with an offer to contract having a good counter-offer immediately available to place on the table comes in handy at times. Start recognizing these things as contracts and start treating them as such. Contracts establish rights (persons) and duties (persons). Use the same maxim they use (Quod necessitas cogit, defendit) to do what is necessary for your own survival.

[Bigjon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

If you read the blurb on the Wayne Paul video, you will find a link to the Obama Deception.

Here it is:
This video is Ron Paul's brother Wayne who explains how the Federal Reserve has bankrupted our country.

This video is an excerpt from the new film "The Obama Deception"

View it here in it's entirety http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw


The appointment of a Secretary of the Treasury is just that, an appointment to a position which is NOT a cabinet position in any administration. The S.o.T. is the [governor] appointed to the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF). He is not an officer of the United States, is not a cabinet member and does not represent the interests of the United States. His position is as liaison between the federal government and the IMF. His obligation is to the IMF, not to the United States. The secretary of the Treasury is not sworn into office as cabinet members are, and take no oaths to the United States.

Just this week, the subcommittee hearings on AIG and how the bailouts had been constructed, were held. Repeatedly, Geithner uses the term your government when responding to questions from committee members. He never says our government or the government. Geithner uses the term your government to distinguish himself as an employee of the IMF/World Bank, and to make clear that he is NOT a cabinet member working on behalf of the US government. Geithner repeatedly alludes to the central bank which is neither a US agency or organization but rather a privately owned and regulated banking cartel.

[Hatha Sunahara]

I recently did some searching for information about my 'straw man', and I ran into this article:

http://freedom-school.com/aware/are-you-free-or-are-you-a-slave.html

I'm not quite sure how the government collateralizes our labor. Does it mean that if the government defaults on its debt, the bondholders have the right to sell the people as slaves? Or can they confiscate everything we have of value because the government own us as slaves? We (the people) are collateral for the national debt?

I am only encouraged here by the constitutional right we have to bear arms, and I hope when the time comes we will all assert that right. Where does the government get such hubris to use us a collateral for their loans? And to claim that we grant consent because we take responsibility for some fictional legal entity that is us, only in CAPITAL LETTERS?

I'm going to look into this apostille feature of the 14th Amendment, and find out what is required to get out from under this burden of straw manhood.

Hatha

[Glass]

I recently did some searching for information about my 'straw man', and I ran into this article:

http://freedom-school.com/aware/are-you-free-or-are-you-a-slave.html

I'm not quite sure how the government collateralizes our labor. Does it mean that if the government defaults on its debt, the bondholders have the right to sell the people as slaves? Or can they confiscate everything we have of value because the government own us as slaves? We (the people) are collateral for the national debt?

I am only encouraged here by the constitutional right we have to bear arms, and I hope when the time comes we will all assert that right. Where does the government get such hubris to use us a collateral for their loans? And to claim that we grant consent because we take responsibility for some fictional legal entity that is us, only in CAPITAL LETTERS?

I'm going to look into this apostille feature of the 14th Amendment, and find out what is required to get out from under this burden of straw manhood.

Hatha

It all comes under the umbrella of commerce. Commerce involves contracts. Contracts can be explicit or implied. I think palani posted something with respect to signatures. A signature was known as a sign. e.g. The Royal Sign. That document refers to contracts as well. What is an explicit sign of a contract being joined? A hand shake or a signature.

A plackard with a corporate logo and a corporate name in text is a corporate sign or signature.

A contract can occur by aquiescence. Someone proposes an arrangement with you and you say or do nothing. That is aquiescence. Most govt contracts occur this way.

Next bit. Most professions have their own lingo. Carpenters, boiler makers, plumbers, accountants, lawyers. Words used by those professions might be spelt the same as for other professions or even the general public but they have different meanings for different groups. There are different definitions for words.

Q. Are you a person?
A. Yes I am.

Q. Why?
A. Because I am me and I'm a person. I've always thought of myself as a person. Everyone is a person.

Q. What is a person?
A. Huh? (really means I don't get it, you are a person and so am I. Thats an end of it.)

People operating with a set of data that is incorrect but they never care to correct it. It works for them, why change it. They have the General Public definition which is incomplete.

Legal definition used by legal people. "A person is a legal fiction"

Definition used by someone who understands commerce and law. "A person is a legal fiction utility created for the purposes of conducting commerce". It is a some thing not a some one. Most people don't know there is a difference. The think they are the person. I like to think of the person as a persona.

Default: yes as can be seen in ireland and spain.

Burden: yes you want to be over the strawman not under it. You want to control it, not it control you which is the current scenario for most people.

If the Govt is using you as collateral/chattel what does that mean? Full faith and credit of the United States. Where does the US get this credit? Is it from bankers? No. They get "funds" from the bankers, but where did they get the "funds"? They used the same credit the US has. They use your credit.

What does that make you? It makes you a creditor. What does that make the US govt? It makes them the debtor. Thing is they prefer to make you the debtor. Can they, the US Govt make you the debtor? You are already the creditor, can you be debtor as well? Why can't you be?

What if they didn't tell you, you were the creditor? Would you know? Could they convince you that you are just a debtor? I think they could.

What about all the stuff you have? Is that yours if you are a debtor? You can posses it as long as the bank (pretend creditor) allows you to posses it, but if they want your stuff they can come and get it.

What if you were the creditor? Could another creditor come and take your stuff?

How much of your credit do you think they have used? Would it be a couple thousand? Could it be more? What about all the stuff you have? Its' clear you don't own it because your a debtor. A lot of your stuff is registered as well. This gives the registrant an equitable claim in your stuff.

If you are really the creditor can't you just go and claim the stuff in your possession as yours in settlement for your credit that they have been using? See before where I said, you can keep stuff as long as the creditor allows it? If you are the creditor, how long are you going to allow you to possess your stuff?

So basically the implied contract is that you are the debtor, the explicit contract is possibly there through tax returns etc. Change the contract to change your status from debtor to creditor.

[palani]

I'm going to look into this apostille feature of the 14th Amendment, and find out what is required to get out from under this burden of straw manhood.

Hatha

An apostille is an statesmen issued by the Secretary of State that the notary used had a valid commission. The certification makes the document so notarized valid in another country. You have to tell the S of S which country you want the certification to be valid in. This is all done under a treaty the U.S. engaged in with other countries in the early '60s.

As the UCC is no part of my law I prefer to not engage in it by filing UCC forms. To use the UCC would appear to make the conflict (termination of the strawman) entirely commercial. Essentially you are creating another strawman to conclude the affairs of your present strawman. Out of the frying pan and into the fire.

The nature of the U.S. is communist. They own all property. The exchange of property by using a federal reserve note is an impossibility. Using a UCC form to remove property from this communist society accomplishes little although it might give you the mistaken belief that your property is now yours.

[midnight rambler]

The certification makes the document so notarized valid in another country.The current Apostille I have is oriented toward the The Netherlands (location of the origin of the treaty regarding apostilles, i.e. the Hague). What country would you suggest using if not The Netherlands? (They always ask which country the Apostille is for, and if you hesitate or otherwise act you don't have a location you may not get your Apostille.)

[7th trump]

It starts with the 14th amendment and ends with the 14th amendment.
The 14th is the only amendment having a jurisdiction clause in it.
You fall within this jurisdiction clause when you sign under penalty of perjury to being this 14th amendment "US citizens".
Participation in Social Security is where you give up your status as the "People" for government privileges.... See www.state-citizen.org for a little insight how the courts look at Us citizens.

[palani]

What country would you suggest using if not The Netherlands? (They always ask which country the Apostille is for, and if you hesitate or otherwise act you don't have a location you may not get your Apostille.)

The apostilles I got for my travel ID were Mexico and Canada. I suppose if I ever went elsewhere I would have to have one for each country visited. The cost is not prohibitive ... $5 per apostille.

Any document you would like to be valid in another country requires an apostille for that country. The only document I could ever foresee a need for would be travel ID. Maybe if a foreign relative died while in the U.S. and you needed to straighten out his affairs at home you might need a death certificate that would require to be apostilled. Maybe if you got married in another country and wanted to make the foreign documents official in the U.S. you would need that apostille on them.

The idea is to have an easier method of legalizing a foreign document without having it done at a foreign embassy.

[Glass]

$5 is cheap. Costs about $150 here. Most of Aussie Notary Publics work is this stuff. They don't generally do much paperwork authenticity work that is moving internally. They do it, just not much call for it. Very tightly controlled here as well. All lawyers. I've had interesting discussions with them about process. They do like to sabotage the process if you're not careful though. They know whats what.

[Hatha Sunahara]

I think I got sidetracked looking into the apostille feature of the 14th amendment. What I really wanted was to find a way to deal with the legal system as a free human being rather than as an indentured servant or a slave. And that means reclaiming my sovereignty. There seem to be some very interesting videos about this. I am now watching this first of a series:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7LAfm3f-XA

And I am downloading this whole series as a single video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdybGEfAWK0&feature=fvwrel


Hatha

[Hatha Sunahara]

I watched Dean Clifford's YT videos called Making it Simple. There are two of them, and they are each a bit over two hours long. Here is a link to the first, and an embed of the second:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwK5Byt8QQY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjLmJHvscEo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjLmJHvscEo

The meat of what he has to say is in the second video--inserted above, starting at around 48 minutes into it until the end.

The first video, and the first 48 minutes of the second video, he explains jurisdiction, quite well I would say. He explains it in terms of the legal fiction created in your birth certificate belonging to the 'statutory' jurisdiction. This is your strawman in the US. The other jurisdiction is what he calls 'inherhent' which is Common Law jurisdiction in the US and in Canada as well. This is your natural self. In the US we do not have a 'Live Birth Record' officially recognized by the state. All we have are Birth Certificates which create the legal fiction that is our strawman.

He gets to the heart of the matter when he explains what a Trust is. It is a title that is 'split' into a legal title and an equitable title. I believe our Constitution,which is a Trust, did that for us. It made us (individuals) the sovereigns and the beneficiaries of this trust. It made the government the Trustee, whose obligation is to manage the country for our benefit.

When the government creates our strawman, it creates a Trust in which the roles are reversed. This is where the strawman is the Trustee and the government is the beneficiary. The strawman is taxed and has to obey all the statutory laws, in exchange for privileges. Clifford does an excellent job explaining this.

The crux of it is how to stay out of the statutory jurisdiction and remain in the 'inherhent' jurisdiction.

I admit the two videos are very long--more than 4 hours, but well worth the watch because he is entertaining, and presents the information clearly and succinctly. It appears to be exactly the same in Canada as it is in the US, but the Canadians got to where they are from a different history. Watching this, you might pick up some of Canada's history.

He makes a few statements about the legal status of 'illegal aliens' --Mexicans--in the US, and how the US does not tax them, but extends the best education and health care to them. They get this loving care because they are not citizens. Interesting. The whole thing is an eye opener. It's helped me to understand jurisdiction which is what Palani emphasizes a lot because it is the way the government affects our lives.


Hatha