Re: Question asked but never really answered
As always John Henry Doe©, I love your responses every time, thank you!
[b][u]Yes, but NO[/b][/u]
[b]Square One[/b]
The thought has been upon my
mind as a consideration, yes, but NOT as one to act upon until such time as I’d
feel I was clear upon the issue, which I knew I was not. Thus the question needed to be asked! After all, I thought, perhaps such action
would be proper, right, and honest. Perhaps,
any thought of mine to the contrary was only yet another thought of mine, a
preconceived idea, derived from the muddy waters within which I’ve been brought
up, and yet another thought which needed to be
unlearned.
When studying CTC2 and CTC3
the said question was raised in my mind but never fully resolved, thus I felt
it needed to be answered. Perhaps others
have had similar questions in their minds as well, and perhaps not everyone
would have come to the same conclusion as the one apparently reflected by your
last entry and that of Loud Lion? Thus,
again, I felt a need for the question to be asked.
Now that the question is
asked and the apparently obvious answer is provided, as reflected by the most
reliable source within this forum (yours), the avenue is not an avenue upon
which I’d consider traveling. Not unless
I’d find a stronger light of Truth than yours that would teach me
contrary. That, however, seems highly
unlikely, because I am well aware from my past experiences, and out of the lessons
I have learned, that: I am to “make no covenant with [the enemies of the true
Sons and Daughters of the Creator], nor with their [powers, e.g. their
governments]” (Ex.
[b][u]What are the
alternatives?[/b][/u]
[b]The First Principle:[/b]
But then again, if I am to
“make no covenant with” such entities, then how could I justify even using a
debit card issued by such entities and/or opening any kind of account in a bank
owned by such entities? After all, being
completely accountable, and having “unlimited liability”, doesn’t that also
include One’s control over One’s property, e.g. that of the STRAWMAN? How can I find a way of being so completely
in control of any banking tool of mine that none of my actions using such tool
contributes unto any of the evils upon our planet today? What is the answer? I am sure there is an answer!
Is the STRAWMAN a tool of my
very own, which like all other tools I know of can be used for good or for bad
depending upon the free choice of the user (me), or is it necessarily a tool
that when wielded by me, or by anyone, is always, at some level beyond my
perceptions, contributing unto the destructive and evil ends of the enemy of
Light, Truth, Life, Joy, Delight, Happiness, true Love, and the like.
[b]The Second Principle[/b]
And then there is the
following principle taught unto the true Sons and Daughters of the Creator:
“thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow” (Deut. 15:6
& 28:12). Is this instructive
principle applicable to the usage of my STRAWMAN sword? And if so, how do I apply
it without compromise? Indeed, how do I
apply it without inciting others to get themselves into, rather than out of,
bondage? After all “the borrower is
servant to the lender” (Proverbs 22:7).
[b]Defining the Boundaries[/b]
And isn’t that the dilemma of
every banker - including also those Bankers who are sitting at the very top of
that House of Bondage and Death, which is so beautifully represented by every
Pyramid, and which Bankers we may sometimes refer to as “the Legal Masters”? What are the limits of their
responsibility? What are the boundaries
of my own unlimited liability?
Clearly, I am fully
accountable for my own actions, but my accountability stops short of
controlling the actions of another whose actions are controlled by the same
principle. Thus if someone asks for a
loan from me, I may, if I am so inclined, become his lender, and in so doing I
must be careful lest I trespass upon such as should remain his/her private
domain… OR, do such by their very own choice become my property, my slave(s),
with whom I am free to do what I will?
How important is it for me as a lender to recognize the difference
between Slave Woman Borrower© and SLAVE WOMAN BORROWER© - when such difference
is not yet recognizable by Slave Woman Borrower©?
[b]The limits of communication[/b]
How can I effectively
communicate with her, my beloved Slave Woman Borrower©, when her language is
Babylonian, otherwise known as Confusionese or
Legalese or the language of the common people, and when her chosen source of
‘information’ is characterized by the demands of her and others, i.e. by such
as characterizes modern public media as is also controlled by the Legal Masters
upon this speck of dust, mud, and guano, which we know of as Planet Earth?
Or, should I perhaps not
even try to communicate with my beloved Slave Woman Borrower© - beyond such
plain and straightforward words as she does and must understand and which she
is able to adequately act upon, e.g. a statement of account and/or an invoice? Perhaps I should limit myself unto the taking
of full responsibility - unlimited liability - for such property of mine as is
now SLAVE WOMAN BORROWER©?
[b]Back to Square One – Who
is the Banker? And Who is to blame?[/b]
In so doing, how am I
different from the most powerful Bankers upon this planet? Are ‘they’, the other guys, the Ones hardly
known, the Ones poorly if at all defined, to be blamed, or should I, as the
user/borrower/’the one with the muddy face spotted by guano’, look at the guy
in the mirror to find the guilty party?
Whom may I “covenant with”, and whom should I “make no covenant
with”? Who is on ‘this side’ and who is
on ‘the other side’? And whose side am I
truly on? Where is my absolute reference
frame such that I may truly know Who I Am, and Where I
Am at?
And, how do I distinguish
between such evil actions as are upon the shoulders of Slave Woman Borrower©,
whether SLAVE WOMAN BORROWER© is property of mine or of another, or upon the
shoulders of Master Man Lender©? After
all, clearly the evil actions of Slave Woman Borrower© cannot be upon the
shoulders of Master Man Lender© any more than the actions of Master Man Lender©
can be upon the shoulders of Slave Woman Borrower©, right?
As always John Henry Doe©, I love your responses every time, thank you!
Part C
[b]What is the Nature of a Loan, a Contract, and a
Debt?
Reflections at the River Bank – Who, and Where, Am I?
Tools[/b]
Focusing upon the words
contract and debt:
It occurs to me that some
things have value, others do not, or have negative
value.
A tool has positive value
when used to create value. A tool used for destroying value may be considered a
thing of negative value.
A signature is a tool used
for confirmation, to create contracts, and debts.
A signature is a tool of
positive value when used to confirm a valuable fact in re to what is or has
been. A signature may also be used for
confirming something that does not yet exist and in so doing it creates a debt,
an obligation, a contract, and/or bondage.
Each of these, debts, obligations, contracts, and bondage, are desirable
things, and thus things of value, but only when fully in harmony with the
fundamental principles of our existence, e.g. commitment to One’s Creator,
family, life, and health.
A signature is a tool of
negative value when used for destroying value.
A signature is a tool of negative value when confirming something that
does not yet exist and in so doing creates a debt, an obligation, a contract,
and/or bondage. Each of these, debts,
obligations, contracts, and bondage, are undesirable things, and thus things of
negative value, when not fully in harmony with the fundamental principles of
our existence, e.g. when causing slavery, servitude, and separation from One’s
Creator, family, life, and/or health.
Someone who is a lender of
value uses his signature as a tool of value.
Someone who is a borrower of
value uses his signature as a tool of negative value.
[b]Examples of Good and of Bad[/b]
If I use my hand to give you
an apple, I loan you my hand to give you a gift created by God. I do not give you my hand I only loan it to
you for a very limited purpose and for a very limited time. Said loan is not a
promise re future use. It is a promise, a confirmation, re past effort and re
present action. I do require my hand back on an immediate basis. You do not get
to keep my hand.
In giving you the apple and
loaning you my hand there is no intended purpose of creating on your part an
obligation of any kind.
Yet, I have no control of
your mind. Your mind is outside of my
dominion. If you choose to not accept my
offer on my terms, i.e. as a free gift with nothing expected in return, that is
your choice. If you choose to make
yourself a borrower on the basis of my free gift to you, that is entirely
outside of my control. If you choose to
loan me your hand in giving me an apple the next day I have no way of knowing
whether this is a gift on your part or the return of something you perceive as
having been borrowed. If you tell me
that you are returning my loan to me I may choose not to consent since loaning
you my hand in giving you an apple was a concluded matter with no intended
further obligations from you. Because
you are limiting my joy and my ability to freely loan you my hand, and also my
freedom to do business on my terms, I may choose not to do business with you
again. If I don’t turn your offer down,
I consent to your terms, and will be equally responsible for the bondage, co-dependency,
which will then characterize our unhappy relationship.
In giving you the apple and
lending you my hand I used my hand as a tool of positive value. I have power over my hand, but not over your
mind.
In receiving the apple you
used your hand as a tool of negative value by creating for yourself a debt and
making yourself a borrower. The choice
was yours not mine. You could have
chosen to accept my offer for what it was and by so doing create good feelings
on the part of both of us. In making
yourself a borrower you destroyed value for both of us. However, you did create bondage between the
two of us, a thing of negative value, co-dependency, an unhealthy relationship.
Suppose instead you had
accepted my gift/loan on my terms. Both
of us would experience a good feeling.
That good feeling would create mutual attraction. A healthy relationship
would be the result.
Part D
[b]May the above be applied to my relationship to a
Bank?
Let me think this through…
Who is the real Lender? Who is the real Borrower?
Who is the Pre-Tender? [/b]
Suppose I go to the Bank
intending to obtain a loan. In obtaining
a loan, am I expecting the Bank to give me anything at all? No, by becoming a borrower, my intention is
to create a temporary bondage, whereas the overall intent is that every last penny
borrowed is to be returned to the Bank with interest. As the borrower, over all, my intent is to be
the one providing the free gift.
Before I obtain the loan I
have to provide 100% or more of collateral as security for the Banker. Had the Banker provided me with something of
equal value we would have had an even trade.
Unbeknownst to me the Banker issued unto me a note of debt (FRNs are
worthless paper belonging to the Federal Reserve Corp being loaned out to the
users) instead of returning unto me a note of value, and thus I incurred a debt
and lost my collateral (my signature/land etc.), while the Banker gained my
collateral while becoming also the recipient of future capital and interest
(i.e. a growing number of Notes of Debt).
Thus in reality, I am not a
“borrower”, but one giving the Bank a free gift. Thus, in reality I am doing
something good. However, my intention is
to be a borrower. I think of myself as
an “honest” borrower while my intent is actually self-destructive, evil,
because my action creates bondage on my part.
The Banker who knows the
reality of the transaction is accepting the signature as freely offered by me
upon the documents set before me. To him
my signature and all my collateral, as well as any number of debt instruments,
is a gift freely received. He confirms
with me that this is really what I want to do.
He loans me his hand in receiving from me my free gifts unto him. If he had told me the reality of the
transaction I may not have believed him, thus he is restrained from sharing his
knowledge.
The Banker may think himself
the recipient of a free gift, while yet calling himself a lender of sorts. Neither is a bad thing, is it? He is not the borrower, is he? So he is not
doing an ungodly thing, is he? Well,
just a minute, now! The Banker just took
title to my collateral, perhaps my home.
His intent is to hold it until my “debt” (i.e. the Notes of Debt) is
paid back. That is a borrowed property,
isn’t it? He has given me nothing of
positive value in return, only some negative value notes of debt, thus he is
truly a borrower. By pretending that he
is a lender when he is in fact a borrower the Banker has voluntarily made
himself a liar. By using various means of violence, threats, intimidation,
propaganda, etc. the plot thickens and the Banker incriminates himself. Yet, everyone using his services is
contributing their power to the Banker’s institution.
But, wait a minute once
again! What is the nature of the FRNs
issued? The creator of the FRNs is the
Bank. Thus the Bank must be the one
owing the debt indicated upon the Notes of Debt, not the other way around. Thus, in effect, the more FRNs issued and in
circulation, the greater the confessed debt of the Banks to the holders of the
debt instruments. The question is: Will the borrower, i.e. the Bank, honor its
own debt instruments? Suppose I want to
release the Bank from all its debt to me.
So I take every last Note of Debt I own to the Bank for the purpose of
releasing its debt to me. Will the Bank
give me my valuable belongings, i.e. my signatures, land, &c., back, which
it once “borrowed” from me? No, it
won’t, not without more. The Bank will
freely give me an even exchange of unused FRNs in place of my used ones, but
that’s about the extent of it. Before
returning to me my original things of value the Bank will require that I return
unto them many, many more of the Notes of [the Bank’s] Debt than I were ever
issued in return for my loan to them.
Thus in effect the Banker wants me to cancel much more of his debt
[representing real value] owed unto me and others, than he is willing to give
me back out of that which the Bank owes me.
In effect the Bank is not honoring its own obligations, or is it? The Bank is willing to issue ever more Notes
of debt, frequently in return for nothing but my signature. Or, whose signature? Aaaah, the authorized signature of the STRAW
MAN©, and I always thought it was the banker that issued the Notes of
Debt. How mistaken I was. And who is the STRAW MAN© if not my mirror
image. And the STRAW MAN© was the one
who made himself a Debtor unto me who was from the beginning the Creditor. So then, what happened was simply that I, the
Creditor, went to the Bank [of the river] where the current [or currency] was
flowing aplenty. I looked down into the
black [as in black gowns of priests and judges] water, and what did I see? I thought I saw a Banker, a Judge, a Priest,
and I was right, only the Banker, the Judge, the Priest, that I saw was not the
other guy across the dividing line [whatever it was], but it was me, or more
exactly, my mirror image, the STRAW MAN© on the other side of the black surface
of water. So, when I went to the Bank,
I, i.e. my mirror image, was the one who issued unto the real me, the Notes of
Debt as proof and as a memorial of his, the STRAW MAN©’S debt to me, the real
flesh-and-blood Man, the Creditor.
Part E
I have been pretty mixed up, haven’t I?
I have been pretty mixed up,
haven’t I, signing on as the accommodation party, accommodating the STRAW MAN©,
my own mirror image, as if he was I, all while blaming the technician across
the desk, the printer’s apprentice who was merely doing his job as ordered by
myself while I was telling him how big of a Debt I desired for my mirror image
to owe unto me, the lender, the Creditor.
Thus, the Debtor, the one who borrows, the one who is in bondage, the
bad guy, the evil one, is my very own mirror image. Not me!
No, I am the Creditor, the lender, the provider of value, the One who
volunteers and freely gives, the good guy, the Son of God. That is, provided I have learned to know the
difference between myself and my very own mirror image. Until then, who am I? What do I know? What exactly is the characteristic of my
knowledge? Mixed up as I am, or was,
thinking I was both the guy in the mirror and the guy in front of the mirror,
all at the same time. A mixture of
‘good’ and ‘evil’, a mixture of ‘value’ and ‘worthlessness’, a mixture of
Creditor and Debtor, all in one Tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. Even worse than that, I probably gave more
priority unto the STRAW MAN© me than to the real me, more priority to the
Debtor aspects of my life than to the Creditor aspects of my life, more
priority to bondage and servitude than to freedom and creativity, more
attention to death than to life, more attention to the traditions of my dead
ancestors than to the life of my children, my wife, my self, my family today,
more attention to the superficialities of the guy in the mirror, than to the
substance of the reality of life as lived by the guy in front of the mirror,
myself. So, why would I ever blame
another Banker, when the real Banker of my own life is none other than my very
own mirror image, my STRAW MAN©?
[b]How do I cancel a Note of Debt?
Thoughtful thoughts about the Foundations
Reflections upon Originations[/b]
So, how, really, do I go
about canceling a Note of Debt issued in effect by my STRAW MAN©, my very own
mirror image? In principle it should be
very easy. I withdraw my face from the
river-Bank [say the Bank of Riverside] and the mirror image disappears. How do I know? If I go back and look it is there. Every time!
I can’t confirm that it is gone by looking with my eyes,
it’ll be there every time! I must
understand it – using my minds eye, the light provided me by my Creator. So what is there to understand? Is there any real value in knowing, in
recognizing the futility of asking my mirror image to provide real value in my
life? Will my mirror image satisfy my
hunger – or even keep me from getting hungry?
I have to look for value some other place, won’t I? The Bank is not the place to go to for value,
is it? Well, at the very least, now I
know that the STRAW MAN©, the guy inside the mirror is not one who can provide
value. Well, the Bank, just like the
mirror, is a tool. Both may be used for
good or for bad depending upon the intent, choice, ability, and/or skill of the
user. If I can hit the nail and not my
thumb I won’t hurt myself and might accomplish something of value in accord
with my liking. Likewise with the
mirror, the river bank, the Bank! If I
can tell the difference between the real and the mirror guy, as the difference
between the nail and my thumb, then maybe I can use it for constructive purpose
while not hurting myself.
[b]Options[/b]
So what can I do about the
debt of my Debtor? What are my options? In principle?
Part F
[b]The Creator’s Power of Will[/b]
So what was the nature of
the debt of my Debtor? He owes his very
existence to me, doesn’t he? (Or does
the river Bank have a valid claim upon my mirror image due to the fact that it
provides the water-surface? Perhaps the
ALL-CAPS distortion of my name is due to the waves distorting the appearance of
my Given Name?) So the more I value my
mirror image the more credit I’ll be willing to give him, and the greater his
debt to me will become. I am free to
choose at will the value of my mirror image, and likewise the size of his debt,
am I not? And then there is the
relationship between ‘superficiality’ and ‘mirror images’, both of which are in
contradistinction to that which is real, genuine, honest, solid, life, and
value.
Anyhow, the key is that the
debt is created at will, so is the size of it.
There is nothing unlawful in doing what I will with my very own mirror
image. There is nothing unlawful in
creating for it a debt of any size – as long as it is between me and him
alone. Different story if I identify
with the public at large… But that’s another story.
[b]STRAW MAN – Debtor or Creditor?
[/b]
So then, if I were to create
at will for my private STRAW MAN©, not a debt, but a credit. Let’s say I share with him some of my
wealth. Let’s say I give it to him. I still have plenty. It would be inconceivable for me to make
myself a debtor unto my very own mirror image.
Thus, both of us become positively charged. No longer any attraction
between the two of us. Yet, there
will be attraction between my positively charged STRAW MAN©, and the STRAW
WOMEN of others still negatively charged.
This attraction is of a very different character than the repulsion
between two or more negative charges all of which will yet have inherent forces
for equalization. Perhaps we may compare
one to the other by comparing love to jealousy, or even charity to jealousy?
Again, there cannot be
anything unlawful in sharing that which is mine to share, real value, with an
entity which is wholly mine own, my STRAW MAN©, my mirror image. If I, by an act of will, make my STRAW MAN© a
Creditor he is no longer a Debtor. If he
has but one account then he cannot be both Creditor and Debtor at the very same
time. And then again I can choose to
have two of them, one STRAW MAN© Debtor, and one Straw Hat Man© Creditor, each
with his own account.
In fact, I could decide, at
will, to make one the mirror image of the other. One’s account would be the mirror image of
the other. One account would be a
credit, the other a debit, by the same a-mount.
One would always mirror the other.
When a mountain of debt is added onto one, a mountain of credit is added
onto the other, and vice versa.
Either way, a mountain of
debt or a mountain of credit, or both may be created at will. My will! And thus these words would become
literally true in a very powerful way: “For verily I say unto you, That
whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into
the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things
which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.” Mark
Part G
[b]What is a Promissory Note? [/b]
So how do I do it? Isn’t a Certified Promissory Note a note
issued in satisfaction of prior Notes of Debt issued in the name of the Debtor. Thus the said
Certified Promissory Note must have an opposite, but equal in a-mount, charge
as the prior Notes of Debt. One will not
balance the other, better yet, one will eliminate the other! If the size of the Certified Promissory Note
is greater than the size of the Notes of Debt, then the former Debtor will
become transformed into a Creditor. It
would stand to reason that this newly created Creditor could now himself issue
Credit, as in Credit Cards.
[b]Will anyone get hurt? [/b]
Does anyone stand to lose
due to excess credit to any degree? In
other words is it bad for anyone when someone else issues credit? And if so, who is getting hurt?
To answer that question,
let’s go back to our original situation (see Part C above) and apply it there.
If I issue credit by freely lending you my hand for giving you an apple grown
in my garden, am I hurting you or anyone else?
If I do so every day of your life while you never grow to expect it, nor
feel indebted in any way, yet full of gratitude while I have the joy of giving
and sharing, is anyone the worse? I can
issue credit to no limit without hurting anyone, can’t I? Pain and suffering comes only when bondage,
obligations, anything contrary to the most fundamental principles of our
Creator, comes into being. But such
bondage is always at the power of each participant – at least to some degree,
and usually, if not always, it all depends on effective communication, first of
all with the One who provides the ultimate in understanding, secondly also with
every party involved in a transaction, a contract, an agreement, whether by
consent or otherwise.
[b]One Ancient Example of Credit Freely Given[/b]
Let’s consider one grand
example: Nehemiah and the rebuilding of the wall of
[b]Credit without Consequences?
[/b]
Does this mean that I should
issue credit aplenty and make it freely available to anyone and everyone? Freely available to any
Credit Card issuer? Freely available to any consumer? By so doing, do I shoulder my own unlimited
responsibilities for me and my neighbor?
Hardly.
How can I effectively shoulder my responsibilities for the optimal use
of my resources, of my powers, by delegating said powers to others, by taking
those responsibilities off of my own shoulders and laying them upon others less
prepared for acting in a responsible manner in regards to self and others? I can’t, can I?
Part H
[b]Wisdom[/b]
Thus I need to use wisdom in
all things I do. I can freely spend for
me and mine. There is no limit, except such
limits as are defined by the principles of my Creator, so well defined within
the ten Articles of the Covenant, even within the first two Chapters of
Genesis, yet so well hidden against the cognizance of the sleepers hiding under
the protection, graces and social benefits of the Dragon, aka. the ladies named in Revelation 17:5.
[b]Responsibilities upon Using a
Bank? [/b]
Does this answer my question
as to how and if I should use the facilities of other Bankers than myself? Are such merely a tool entirely under the
control of my own powers as given me by my Creator? Or am I lending the Dragon my strength by
contributing my private powers, my private credit, and my wealth, into an
account which by its very presence is making the Bank a more powerful tool for
others, perhaps less responsible ones, as well?
To what extent can I control how my resources at the Bank are being
invested for good or for bad? I am at
the helm, am I not? If I am… that is the
question!
[b]The Source of Value -
The Source of Power[/b]
Per chance if I remember
always while at the river Bank to look up, and not down, in order to perceive
the real things of value? What will I
see? I might see myself. I might see other living beings. I might per Revelation 22:2 even perceive the
reality of the Trees of Life growing along both sides of the river. But it is up to me. What I perceive is in the eyes of the
beholder. That’s me. If I have a will to blame another, perhaps,
and very likely, the blame is upon my own shoulders? How do I rectify the situation? Perhaps by correcting myself first and
foremost? Perhaps the other guy I used
to blame will see the light in what I am doing and become my faithful
follower? Who knows? The responsibility for that is upon him, not
upon me as long as I do my part in tendering and caring for that which is
within my domain.
[b]Me and Mine -
merely a Reflection[/b]
And yet, it is well to
remember the fact of my own nature and being.
I myself, and my family which my Creator has provided me, is merely a
reflection, a mirror image, of my Creator.
If I look to myself for power I’ll certainly fade into nothingness as
quickly as my mirror image fades upon my leaving the river Bank. The real power is not to be found in the
current/cy flowing underneath, nor is the source within myself. It is above me,
in the infinite and ultimate Source, in the Wisdom of the Creator. Perhaps I may gather some of it upon
reflection?
“And Noah looked into the eyes of ‘I Shall Be Whom I Shall Be’ and found
the mirror image of his very own name” Genesis 6:8 (Private translation from
the Hebrew).
All Rights Reserved. Without Prejudice. Andy©.
A "citizen of the
John Henry Doe©: I’d love to see your comments in re to the
below questions. Thanks!
Jason: Thanks for your info on service of process. You probably have valuable insight that may
shed light upon the questions below as well?
A couple of questions re the
thread “Re: Getting "Served" papers....
« Reply #15 on: 2002-11-02 at
1. In re to:
“The person mailing the papers also includes a copy of the Proof of
Service form. The Proof of Service form will be complete [b][u]except[/u]
for the signature[/b].”
I always did have such Proof
of Service signed before the mailing, and said original I understand is
supposed to be mailed to the Respondent. I do not understand this
statement. I figured that a Proof of
Service written in present tense could not be considered an
impossibility, though potentially one written in past tense could,
though as long as the Service is in fact completed that same date the Proof of
Service is a true statement upon the act of perfecting the actual service, i.e.
delivery into the mail. Would you please
comment and clarify upon this quote from Jason’s entry?
2. In re to:
“If the party to be served by mail does not sign the Return Receipt
Requested form, you [b]do not have good service[/b].”
Seems to me the phrase “do not have good service” is
quite vague, and probably misleading. Any comments?
Re: Getting "Served" papers....
Loud Lion:
In re to your post: « Reply #19 on: Today
at
Seems to me that “a Notice of Deposition” is a Presentment
of performance, i.e. a commercial offer/trade where the Offeror is asking for
your presence in return for their “services”.
The choice then is Consent or Not to Consent, in other words To Be or
Not to Be, that is the Question.
To put it slightly differently: Will the STRAW MAN© consent to come into
being for the requested occasion? Will
someone sign on as an accommodation party or not (in order to give shape, life,
and value unto the constructive/fictitious being)?
Under “Notice” in Black’s 6th I found many
interesting considerations which may or may not apply to the question as to
whether or not STRAW MAN© has been served.
Perhaps Black’s is a more generally applicable
reference than the one out of
The Filing of a Response (or Answer)
It is not necessary to prove that you have formally served the Summons and
Petition (or Complaint) [b]if the other
party files a Response (or Answer) [/b].
By filing the Response (or Answer) [b]the
other party shows that he/she[/b] knows
about the legal action and [b]agrees to
the Court hearing [and taking over the
rights of deciding[/b]; Editor’s note] [b] the case.[/b]
A General Appearance
A General Appearance acts like the service of process because the other party,
or his or her attorney, comes into court or files papers with the court in a
way that shows consent to the court hearing the matters in the law case.
[b]In this situation the other party
waives his or her right to object to the way they were told about the case or
the court that will hear the case. [/b]
(Note: if the person makes a "Special Appearance" to object to
the court hearing the case, the person is not waiving their right to proper
service of papers.)
The other person does not waive his or her right to object to the orders you
request.
I don’t know whether or not
the above has anything to do with John Henry Doe©’s
always so much to the point entries, but perhaps there’ll be something of value
in it for someone?
John Henry Doe©: Would the entry ‘Voidable contract’ in
Black’s 6th be a topic of interest in regards to your suggested term
for study, i.e. ‘Invalid service’. In
looking up those words in Black’s there was a reference to ‘Voidable’, which
term gave reference to ‘Voidable contract’.
If so, it would make some sense to me, in terms of my original
contention in my first paragraph above.
Loud Lion: Re “.........unless you made up the bit about special visitation.”
The link to the exact
reference is posted at the very bottom of Jason’s Part F. Check it out for yourself… I’m not the source of the quote, thus the
only way to give power to my quote is by giving the best source reference
available.
[Cf. Article 5 of the 10 in
the Contract previously referenced in another thread. Kind of goes with the Force principle… aka. HaShem,
meaning The Name, i.e. the meaning is built into the name, every name, but
that’s one of the very most important names.]
xx
Loud Lion:
Here is my two bits rebuttal
as twice requested by you:
Although your suggested
additions per the above may – (or may not) – be technically correct, I feel
that:
Part L of Becoming Oriented to Person
[b]Unto Whom or What does the Name Mark Thing belong?[/b]
Let's focus upon the following definition:
“[b]Res.[/b] Lat. The subject
matter of a trust or will. In the civil law, a thing; an object…” Black’s Law
Dictionary, 6th Edition.
Of what is the 'Res', e.g. "STRAW MAN",
STRAW MAN©, Your Given Name©, Any Name©, Any Mark©, Any Trade Name©, Any Trade
Mark©, "the subject" per the above definition?
It, i.e. "the subject matter", "the
subject... thing", is being defined as a Thing [b]of[/b],
i.e. property of... of what? Of "a trust or will", right?
So that is the answer to our title question: The Name Mark Thing belongs to "a trust
or will"!
[b]But Which "trust or will"?[/b]
Who is endowed with the power to do the 'trusting'
and/or the 'willing'? Unto whom is given
the Power of Choice? The
Power of Will, or Will Power?
Unto whom is given the Freedom of Choice? And who determines whom to trust and whom not
to trust? Ditto for ‘a Trust’ or ‘a
Will’.
Has anyone been forced to accept the offer, presented
freely unto each of us, of Freedom of Choice, of Power of Choice, of Will
Power, of Responsibility for Each Our Own Destiny, OR does each of us have to
volunteer? Does each of us have the
opportunity of accepting the said presentment willingly, knowingly, and
intentionally before it is truly ours to use, or not?
When someone refuses the said offer, what is the
default? Consider this carefully! If I
do nothing in this regards, the result by default is NO CHOICE, which is the
same as BONDAGE, isn't it? It's the same
as no power, no freedom, no choice, limited liability, isn't it?
So, Whom or What does someone
refusing the said offer "trust"?
And Who or What is then shouldered with doing
the "will[ing]"? Is the Offeror of the said presentment of a
trust being "trust[ed]"? Is
the "will" of the Offeror of the presentment of free "will"
being accepted?
Does it make sense to say that such unclaimed
"will" and such unclaimed "trust" is freely available unto
the first claimant, unto the highest bidder, unto the most powerful claim
presented for ever? Until the offer is
accepted by someone the exercise of the said trust and will is in limbo, is
nonexistent, is void, is in a state of void, is in the State of Void, is in the
State of Blank, is in the State of Nothing, is in the State of .........., is
in the State, is in 'this State'.
So some Trustor(s) made a choice of accepting some or
all of the excess, not yet accepted, trust and will floating around in the
Universe. Said Trustor(s) established a
trusteeship for the benefit of each beneficiary as named upon each presentment
continually being freely offered unto each beneficiary. Realizing the impossibility of retaining upon
the shoulders the Trustor(s) the immense task at hand, the said Trustor(s)
delegated their responsibilities unto a fictitious Trust, i.e. an imaginary
Trust, a Trust in the Wizard of Oz, i.e. a false Trust, i.e. a no-trust Trust,
i.e. unto nothing, nothingness, non-existence, and death. The Trustor(s) used a variety of names and
labels in reference to this said Trust, e.g. bank, system, democracy, socialism,
social security administration, communism, corporation, and more specifically:
"this State", "United Kingdom", "United States",
"Federal Reserve corporation", "Central Bank",
"SSA", "SS", "the Legal Masters", etc..
[b]Accepting the Presentment of Will and Trust[/b]
However, the Universe does exist in my own experience
- and probably in the experience of others.
This existence is real to me. I
perceive an orderly design of the highest order in the Universe and in my
existence. Everything that is comes from
somewhere, has a source, has a Source, and has a Creator. So to me the Creator, the Source, is as real
as my very own existence.
I 'trust' the Source of my own existence, and the
'will' that caused my existence. I have
no reason not to.
Thus I accept the presentment of 'trust' and 'will' as
freely offered unto me by the Creator.
Upon acceptance it is mine, because I am the One and Only Trustee named
upon the said presentment. The Beneficiaries are not only all my offspring
forever, but my own generation as well.
I have the Highest Right of claim unto the trusteeship. All I have to do in order to accept the said presentment, is to consent. I consent by becoming the user
of said 'will' and by making myself the user of said 'trust'. So I trust the Creator of my existence, and I
am willing to be willing to will... i.e. to use my will-power in accordance
with the principles of the Creator, principles of which I am forever becoming
more and more aware, principles which grants me free access unto ever more
choices, joy, happiness, and delight.
[b]Where do I find the Trust document, the Will?[/b]
It Is Where It Is.
It Will Be Where It Will Be. It
is not at, but within, the Source. Within a most specific Source. Within every specific source. But most specifically it is forever within
the Ultimate Source - and I do not mean the "
But that is another story. It does not belong under the title Becoming Oriented to Person.
It belongs under the title Becoming Oriented to Place…
Loud Lion:
[b]Re “res-ident”: [/b]
You asked for a
reference. The connections between the
parts are based upon what makes sense [to me].
The definitions of the particulars may be found in dictionaries, e.g.:
“[b]Res.
[/b] Lat. The subject matter of a trust of will.
In the civil law, a thing; an object…” Black’s 6th.
“[b]ident[/b] n –s
[by shortening]:IDENTIFICATION” WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY
UNABRIDGED.
“[b]Identification.
[/b] Proof of identity…” Black’s 6th.
“Identity. [/b] Evidence.
Sameness; the fact that a subject, person, or thing before a court is the same
as it is represented, claimed, or charged to be…” Black’s 6th.
Cf. :
“[b]in-dent[/b]… […fr. OF, fr. En- en- + dent tooth…]
1b: to draw up (as a deed or contract) in two or more exactly corresponding
copies” WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY UNABRIDGED.
[b]Re my definition of "Thing
marked by its creator":[/b]
Your items #1-3 may be a different aspect of my
definitions, I don’t your definitions so I can’t tell, but I would phrase it
differently, and it is possible that our focus may not be upon the same
Things. Thus, my items #1-3 in the above
Part A (Reply #24) are in and of themselves the best
definition I could come up with at the moment:
Res(1)-ident(1) = res(1) of ident(1)
= you of ‘the Creator of Man’
Res(2)-ident(2) = res(2) of ident(2)
= LOUD LION® of ‘US Inc. aka. Beast’
Res(3)-ident(3) = res(3) of ident(3) = Loud Lion KingInTraining©
of ‘your parents”
Let me attempt some further definitions of the above:
‘you’ = the living, sentient,
flesh-and-blood Man [Not any name used for it.]
‘the Creator of Man’ = a descriptive term for who or
whatever designed and built Man out of nothing, [i.e. including also the
creator of time, space, every elementary particle, life itself, including also
every function and entity within Man, whether such be called Ego, mind, psyche,
body, feelings, soul, spirit, etc.].
LOUD LION® is the name “LOUD LION” [a “creation”,
actually merely a minor modification made by reshaping the name Loud
Lion]. It does not represent anything
but itself, but may be used for marking, naming, identification purposes,
etc. Whomever
did the reshaping performed a very limited act of creation based upon stolen
property of another. By so doing it
modified the characteristics of the pre-existing English name Loud Lion, while
making it into the shape of such ALL-CAPS names as are being used upon vessels
such as ships.]
Loud Lion KingInTraining© is
the name “Loud Lion KingInTraining” [the creation of
a name as designed, shaped, and established by the parents of ‘you’. The name “Loud Lion KingInTraining”
as here used does not represent anything but itself. It is what it is only. An intangible thing with no attachments. Once created it later
became given to you and associated with you, but it is not you ever.]
[b]I don’t need to define the word
‘characteristic’ for you. Look it up
yourself if need be. [/b]
‘You’ may be characterized: You are what you are. You
shall be what you shall be. There are many characteristics that may be used to described who ‘you’ are.
One mark inscribed within each and every cell of your body is the DNA
code. Another characteristic is your
facial appearance. A third is your
fingerprints. A fourth is your way of
doing things. A fifth is your voice. A sixth is the kind of life you live, the
kind of food you eat… Etc. ad infinitum.
Everything can be characterized.
A characteristic of the STRAW MAN supposedly is that
the name is an ALL CAPS NAME.
[b]A few comments in re to my
definitions above compared to your items #1-3 below: [/b]
“1. The thing (soul-man) is
marked by the Spritual Name God gave him (not known
to us in our current lives) or perhaps God marks his children by a spiritual
frequency or something else.”
I am convinced that God does things in a perfectly
orderly way. He first creates the name. Then He creates the Thing. Not the
other way around. Consider Gen. 1:1 “In
the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. I find the following translation of mine even
more meaningful: “In the beginning God created the names and the firm
Things.”
‘Name’ in Hebrew/Chaldee is the same as ‘character’,
‘characteristic’, ‘authority’, ‘title’, etc.
You may look at the name as a blueprint of the created thing. A blueprint is made before the Thing is made.
Living things carries the blueprint within each cell in the form of a genetic
code. Time may have eroded the original
blueprint, but it is still there.
”2. The thing (hu-man) is marked by the True Given
Name from the creator parents“
Perhaps this is the same as I expressed as:
You, the ‘I am a Man’ of Loud Lion KingInTraining© ?
”3. The thing (fictitious juristic strawman) is
marked by the TRADENAME given it by the State.”
No. The TRADENAME comes first in time. It is itself a
fundamental element of the existence of the “fictitious juristic” being. The fictitious juristic being has its
starting point, as a being within the governmental jurisdiction, in the
TRADENAME and is from then on growing by acts such as are being defined under
the word ‘constructive’, e.g. in CTC3 Glossary. Not the other way around!
However, the name did exist prior to being transferred into the jurisdiction of
the government, which reshaped the name and in so doing also ‘gave’ it a SSN.
Hope
that helps.
Loud Lion:
Sorry for not being
sufficiently clear and to the point. The
error is on me. Not on you. You know what you know. I may think I know some things I don’t. There are many things not very clear to me, even many of the things I presently think are
clear. I have no wish
do share confusion. Thus I try to be as
clear as I can. If I were to wait until
every concept was totally clear to me I would fail in communicating, and in so
doing it would be a foregone conclusion that I’d fail to learn. Thus I choose to participate in the dialogues
of my choice and according to my interest in the same. If I perceive you as not understanding some
part of my communication it is most likely because I am not
understanding your definition of some key terms.
A
case in point. In your last entry you are using the word
‘believe’ several times. From my analysis of the etymological roots of the word etc.
I am convinced that the word means – as used in the Holy Scriptures especially
- ‘being fully convinced of something, as based upon repetitive experiences and
a solid understanding’. The common
understanding of the said word is about as close to the diametric opposite as
one may come, isn’t it? For instance,
consider the closely related word ‘faith’ as used in Hebrews 11:1, KJV, while
applying that text upon the force of gravity.
Please never forget that
this is very much of a learning process for me as I am sure it is for you
too. What I am sharing is a mixture of
such as I have known already, and such as I am learning presently. I learn as I write by focusing upon the
subject matter under my consideration, i.e. in view of the facts I am
continuously being made aware of out of the various sources I am presently
considering. Thus what I am writing is
intended as much for my own edification as for anyone else who might find it
valuable for such purposes as are in harmony with the directives of the
Creator.
I’ll attempt to give a brief
and to the point, i.e. “simple yes or no”, answer to your statement below:
“What I don't understand is whether or not you believe
that the strawman (copyrighted and secured) is a
resident or a non-resident and whether or not the strawman
is obligated to obey statutes.”
In order to do that I’ll have
to pick your statement apart. Thus:
1. [Do] you believe that the strawman
(copyrighted and secured) is a resident[?]
Answer: Yes.
2. [Do] you believe that the strawman
(copyrighted and secured) is… a non-resident…[?]
Answer: No.
3. [Do] you believe that… the strawman
is obligated to obey statutes.” [?]
Answer: Yes.
But DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND ME HERE, please!
I little clarification may be in order here:
Re #3 above:
STRAW MAN©, hereinafter LOUD LION©, Slave, now Debtor
of, and unto, Secured Party, obeys the statutes of FL etc. by obeying his
Master, Loud Lion KingInTraining©, Secured Party.
LOUD LION© is now officially, i.e. by the SoS and the FL/DC jurisdiction,
recognized as being within the private domain of his lawful Master, while no
longer in the public domain managed under the “Legal Masters”. LOUD LION© no longer has an obligation unto
his former [
Prior to Loud Lion KingInTraining©
having claimed title to, and perfected his security interest in, LOUD LION©,
LOUD LION© was a Slave in the public domain, and considered, by the Legal
Masters, and their managers of the public domain, a subject unto the statutes,
which pertain more or less exclusively to the public domain.
Re #2 above:
As previously explained the
word ‘resident’ can be derived as meaning a Thing marked by its creator. When the Thing is changing hands, that mark
is not removed, indeed cannot be removed, because it is a characteristic of the
very nature of the Thing. Thus when the
Thing is being sold or reclaimed by someone with a higher claim than its former
Owner, e.g. when such former Owner is himself the Slave of a Higher Being, then
the Mark, the ident/indenture/characteristic remains.
Consider for instance the characteristics of the ALL-CAPS name LOUD LION©.
It occurred to me that this
concept is more easily understood by considering the concept of a mathematical
function. A mathematical function
describes an irreversible process. Thus
the Son or Daughter has come out of his/her Father and Mother. No Father or Mother ever comes out of his/her
own Son and/or Daughter. To put that in
other words: Every creation has its
source in a creator, but no creator ever has its source in its own
creation. There is a most important, and very significant difference between the
Creator of a Thing and the creation known as the Thing. That’s what a function is.
[Another important
application in this regard is the nature of a church, a society, a government,
a nation etc.. Each of these are
creations created by its creator(s).
E.g. every church is created by its constituent members. No church/government/state ever created a
constituent member who partook in its original creative event. The fallacy that any Church ever created, or
is/was the Mother of God, is a logical impossibility. Such dogma are
typically derived out of a desire for such powers as cannot possibly, by the
nature of things, be had.]
Likewise, no created Thing
has one iota power in excess of the power given it by its creator. If the Thing has been given certain limited
created powers, such powers cannot ever possibly exceed the powers of its
Creator.
Why is issue of a
mathematical function important in re to Question #2 above?
Well, this question occurred
to me: How could it be possible for a non-resident [to the DC jurisdiction] to
have within its dominion a Thing that is a Resident of [the DC
jurisdiction]? Wouldn’t the former
Resident of DC become a non-resident by being transferred into my
dominion? Or else, wouldn’t the dominion
of the nonresident be contaminated by, as in assuming the [residential] color
of, such a Resident of DC? Wouldn’t my
dominion be another rock stained with guano?
Then I realized that the answer is in being cognizant of the very clear
distinction between cause and effect, Creator and created Thing, both of which
are mathematical functions, irreversible events. If and when I choose to be at Cause,
consequences will follow according to natural law. If and when I fail to be at Cause, I will
have no choice, but will passively succumb to the forces and powers surrounding
me. Thus I am given the power to be
victorious not only over “STRAW MAN” but also over “TIN MAN”, i.e. SSN, namely
by authority of the words translated in KJV “them that had gotten the victory…
over the number [b][red]of[/b][/red] his name…” Revelation 15:2. When I choose to act upon that authority, I
will become ever more successful in making those words a reality within my
dominion, whereas someone without a conviction in that one particular,
would not likely attempt that which to him or her is an impossibility and thus
a waste of time and effort. Thus I can
learn, little by little, and starting at the source, how to take anything and
everything, derived out of my own original dominion, out of such activities,
and out of such jurisdictions, as I have no wish to partake in. Once having taken full control, I am free to
do with such Things as I will and according with the powers and limitations of
my own Creator.
It also occurred to me that
my unlimited liability as a Sovereign might encompass every action of property
within my domain/jurisdiction, e.g. any and every action attributed unto my
STRAW MAN© slave, and/or unto my own flesh-and-blood offspring. However, noting that such entities may at
times take actions upon their own volition which are beyond my control, because
my powers of controlling are limited by my Creator unto that which is totally
my own creation, i.e. even unto the very first thought about, or desire for,
such a Thing as my own creation.
However, in my present state of mind at least, I have no unlimited
powers of creation, but am instead for all my creations dependent upon
preexisting matter, information and the like, all of which is Created by and
has its Source in someone outside of my own Being. My own input, and that of my wife’s, in
giving life to our offspring is of course extremely miniscule, requiring hardly
any brains at all, and thus it would certainly be presumptuous of either of us
to claim ourselves as being the Creators of our own offspring.
When a Thing within my
dominion, e.g. STRAW MAN©, takes constructive action for committing a crime, a
fictitious act construed by a
Thus the object of my
existence must be forever to learn to detach, and to detach, myself from such
actions, of my own as well as those of others, as predictably will cause for me,
and for coming generations, undesirable consequences. By so doing I may contribute – albeit in a
small way and even that only as granted by my Creator - to a higher order of
existence not only for me but for all others in the Universe.
Hope
that helps.
Re: UCC LICENSE PLATES
« Reply #15 on: Today at
By John Henry Doe
Part
A
John
Henry Doe©: I love your communication
every time! Thank you ever so much! Perhaps you will consider the questions posed
within the text below, some of which are in re to your above « Reply #15 on: at
[b]More
on the nature of the UCC filing office[/b]
I
find the words "notated", "notates”, and “repository” very
enlightening, and would be most interested in knowing your basis for said usage
(That’s [b][red]Question #1[/b][/red], hereinafter Qx), which usage does indeed make a whole lot of sense all
things considered! Again, thank you!
In
studying the word ‘notate’ I find that it is very closely related to the word
‘notary’ and that both words are related to and derived from the word ‘mark’
(as in ‘Mark of the Beast’). Clearly the
last three words are being used, and very powerfully so, for keeping track of
proper ownership of Things. No wonder
the Notary Public and his ‘notation’/’mark’ is so important and powerful, these
things considered.
Once
said notations/marks are properly filed with the UCC filing office (See ‘Filing
officer’ under ‘File, v.’ in Black’s 6th [[b][red]Q2:[/b][/red]
Will you help me understand the reference under said entry in Black’s 6th to
U.C.C. §9-401? I don’t find anything related in said reference.]) such notations/marks are Public Records. ‘Public Record’ [as understood by subjects of
statuary law – or at least understood by assumption] means: “…Elements
essential to constitute a public record are that it be a written memorial, that
it be made by a public officer, and that the officer be authorized by law to
make it…” (See ‘Public Record’ in Black’s 6th).
This is so because the Notary Public is defined as “Notary public. A
public officer…” (Black’s 6th) and because “A “certificate”
by a public officer… is by law made evidence of the truth of the facts stated
for all or for certain purposes” (See ‘Certificate’ in Black’s 6th).
As
you say “The UCC filing office is a repository for public notice”. Looking up
the definitions of the words ’public’ and ’notice’, particularly the latter
word, the answer to my question below becomes ever more obvious to me, though
for some reason I do not understand you don’t seem to agree. I’ve posted the question in a separate thread
(i.e. “Questions from a user”), and I’ve receive ample response from John Henry
Doe© which have been most helpful and enlightening, however I am not yet
totally clear upon this particular question (Please, cf. also the thread
“Registered Mail – What, and whose, is it?”
I know, it’s way too lengthy. Sorry, but
there’s a lot to consider):
Part
B
[b]When
is Notice of Public Records received?
- Re e.g. a UCC FS, a Notice bWC/SA, or a CopyrightNotice?
“Notice.[/b] …Notice
[[b][red]Q3:[/b][/red] E.g. a Notice of Registered Mail which may contain
another Notice, e.g. a NbWC/SA, i.e. a notice of a
notice, i.e. by reference, agree?]… is information…
and is regarded in law as “actual” when the person sought to be affected by it
[b]knows thereby of the existence of[/b] the particular fact in question… [[b][red]Q4:[/b][/red]
E.g. knows of the existence of the particular fact that Registered Mail from a
certain sender is being offered to the addressee, don’t you agree?]
“[b]Notice may be… (b) where there has been a designed
abstinence from inquiry for the very purpose of escaping notice…[/b] [[b][red]Q5:[/b][/red] I believe this
particular would apply in a situation as described elsewhere, mostly under the
thread “Questions from a user”, but compare also the recent entries by In A.
Quandary. Why wouldn’t it apply?]
“Commercial law. A person has “notice” of a fact when… (b) he has received a notice or
notification of it; or (c) from all the facts and circumstances known to him at
the time in question he has [b]reason to know that it exists[/b]… “Discover” or
“learn” or a word or phrase of similar import refers to knowledge rather than
to [b]reason to know[/b]… A person “notifies” or “gives” a notice or
notification to another by taking such steps as may be reasonably required to
inform the other in ordinary course whether or not such other actually comes to
know of it. [b]A person “receives” a
notice or notification when:[/b] …(b) [b]it is duly
delivered at the place of business through which the contract was made[/b]
[[b][red]Q6:[/b][/red] Any reason I should not consider USPS such “business
through which the contract was made”?] or at any other place held out by him as
the place for receipt of such communications…
Under the Uniform Commercial Code, the law on “notice,” actual or
inferable, is precisely the same whether the instrument is issued to a holder
or [b]negotiated to[/b] a holder… [[b][red]Q7:[/b][/red] Registered Mail is always negotiated to
a holder of a SSN, right?]” (Black’s 6th).
“Constructive notice. Constructive notice is information or knowledge of a
fact [b]imputed by law[/b] to a person ([b]although he
may not actually have it[/b]), because he [b]could have discovered the fact by
proper diligence[/b], and his situation was such as to cast upon him the duty
of inquiring into it. Every person who has actual notice of circumstances
sufficient to put a prudent man upon inquiry as to a particular fact, has constructive notice of the fact itself in all
cases in which, by prosecuting such inquiry, he might have learned such fact.
“Constructive
“notice” includes implied actual notice and inquiry notice…” (Black’s
6th).
Mongoose:
When there’s offspring in a
Family, there is no end to the evil consequences of every divorce. I’m glad for you that it’s not your
family. It might seem a little out of
place to enter too much of this subject matter into this forum, but I am sure
that somewhere along the line people will learn how to use CTC Redemption
effectively for countering this cancer of our society, so I will not hesitate
with a few Redemption related suggestions which I believe have a lot of
inherent power:
CTC Redemption is very much
about taking back our Powers upon our selves. In that regards I’ve found:
Dear John Henry Doe©:
In your above entry Re:
Passport Procedures.. « Reply #16 on:
“Andy: Any document requires
only one signature for execution (unless you are dealing with a
multiple-signatory checking/savings account).
In such circumstance the signature can be that of the all-caps TRADE
NAME or [b] it can be the hand-signed, red-ink signature of the True Name
signing as authorized representative. In
both cases the Secured Party man/woman is indemnified/free of liability.
[/b]
”Depending on the
circumstances SKYGZR is faced with, he/she has more than one option. Such signature can also be done like any of
the examples on page 319. [b] The
only way the Secured Party can invoke liability is by signing anomalously,
without claiming agency status. [/b]”
My QUESTION:
Do I understand you
correctly as follows?
The signature “[b][red][i]John Henry
Doe©[/b][/red][/i]” [u]without more[/u] [b]does invoke liability[/b],
because it is “signing anomalously, without claiming agency status”, whereas…
The signature “[b][blue][i]JOHN
HENRY DOE©[/b][/blue][/i]” [u]without more[/u] [b]does NOT invoke
liability[/b], because it is not “signing anomalously”; and
The signature “[b][red][i]John Henry
Doe©, Authorized Representative[/b][/red][/i]” [u]without more[/u]
[b]does NOT invoke liability[/b], because it is not an anomalous signature, and
because it is claiming agency status, or... ?