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. 23:32 & Deut. 7:2).  In essence that means to me that I would have to be shown quite clearly that those “criminals” and “charlatans” are only falsely so accused - by me - while in reality without any spot of “mud” and without any spot of “guano”.  That, of course, seems highly unlikely, if not impossible, considering the apparent unwillingness of the Legal Masters to teach the Light that brings each of us “out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Ex. 20:2), while promoting instead, by force, intimidation, and teachings characterized by a mixture of truth and error, such actions as will bring anyone consenting into the very opposite direction, i.e. into bondage.

 

 

 

[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?

 

  1. Being the sole Creditor of my private Debtor I could easily cancel his debt at will, right?

 

  1. Recognizing the difference between him and me I could simply decide that I couldn’t care less if the private debt of my private debtor keeps on building for ever.  After all, my mirror image owes his existence to me.  When I go away from the mirror he ceases to exist.  Likewise his debt to me balances my credit to him.  Thus, the size of the loan is immaterial, whether zero or infinity, it cancels out in the balances.  However, the bigger the size of the debt, the greater the charge, the larger the affinity between the two oppositely charged entities, and the more difficult it is for me to separate myself in my own mind from my very own mirror image. Remember, opposites attract! Thus in principle it would be wise not to keep a charge at all, to keep the balance at zero.  Or, perhaps better yet, I could give both entities like charge.  Then they would repel and not attract!

 

 

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 11:23.

 

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 Jerusalem.  Was there plenty of money as issued by the king of Babylon, or not?  Not so!  So what was the credit that made it happen?  Nothing but the willpower of the participating families who each had a personal interest in making it happen, wasn’t it?  Was that credit bad for anyone?  Only for the suppressors, right?!  Only for those who wanted to maintain co-dependency, inter-dependency, social welfare systems, SSA, SS, and the like, wasn’t it?!

 

 

 

[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 United States" TRADE NAME has residence somewhere, and it will be a single jurisdiction; there cannot be more than one place of (legal) residence.  

 

 

 

 

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 3:45am » by Jason W – Part C, last paragraph” on some of the details:

 

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 6:23am »

 

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 San Diego posted by Jason above, but I do find Jason’s post very enlightening.  In particular I find these last couple of paragraphs in Jason’s Part F (copied here for emphasis of an important point):

 

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:

 

  1. The language and wording, necessary for delineating the desired accomplishment, is too cumbersome to read, and may therefore give an impression of unprofessionalism, and, as a consequence, diminished power to the documents containing such language.  In addition such cumbersome language is subject to misunderstandings and misinterpretations.  Quite possibly this problem could be overcome.
  2. The effect, as I see it, of what you are suggesting is, that you are formally consenting to, and volunteering, every variation, but one, of your name as a free gift unto the Owners/Titleholders of the STRAW MAN©, whomever they be, and unto such as continue to use the name of your Debtor without your authorization.  True, Secured Party has now perfected his security interest in the STRAW MAN©, but the ownership is apparently held by another.  And yes you have the Right to charge for usage of the secured collateral of Secured Party, but it’s upon your own shoulder to collect. [Who are the owners? I don’t know for sure. Perhaps you, the ‘I am a Man’, perhaps the Creator of Man, or perhaps another secret and hidden Thief?]  (Cf. Black’s 6th definition of ‘Interest’: “any right in the nature of property, but less than title…”  Just discovered this one myself! :’).
  3. I find our recent in-depth study re ‘res-ident’ has provided considerable insight into some important particulars pertaining unto the nature of the names referenced in your above referenced suggestion.  Said study could provide some important considerations touching upon a practice such as you’ve suggested (Cf Re: UCC LICENSE PLATES, entries #20-34 and probably more to come):
    1. Compare my comments in re to a name as original property of its creator in said thread.
    2. Compare my comments in re to the ident/indentures/characteristics of the creator of a name in said thread.

 

 

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 "U.S.", at least not as the latter term is commonly defined!

 

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 [Ill-]Legal Masters.  LOUD LION© no longer has an obligation of conforming to that part of the statutes, which pertain exclusively unto the public domain. LOUD LION© cannot conform to the wishes of more than Master.  That would be impossible. Neither can LOUD LION© be at the same time within both the public domain and the private domain.  The statutes of FL/DC recognizes the private domain, but does not attempt to control it, and consequently has few if any words in it pertaining unto any jurisdiction/domain outside the public domain.  Thus in effect, from the point of view of another Slave who is still within the Public Domain, LOUD LION©, is no longer “obligated to obey statutes”.  To such other Slaves there is little or no recognition of the laws and regulations controlling entities outside of their own awareness.  Thus, to them the answer to #3 above would seem to be No – not Yes!  But such a No answer is incorrect, though seemingly correct from the quite superficial point of view of an uneducated Slave.

 

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 US Judge, I have no responsibility in the matter, thus I have no liability in the matter, because the act is not a function of me but is an act of the US Judge.  If a US Judge desires to do business with me by using my STRAW MAN© without my authority that is the responsibility of the US Judge and the liability is solely upon him for any consequences of so doing.  However, if I do not hold the US Judge, or whomever the unauthorized User is, accountable for his/her actions as defined by our contract, e.g. a Security Agreement, I fail to take such action as is within my given power to take, and consequently I do become co-responsible and liable.  However, even there I am given a limitation as to time, resources, and ability, etc..

 

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 2:33pm »

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 2:33pm », and let me know your thoughts accordingly?  I thank you in advance!

 

 

[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:

 

  1. There is a lot of very bad advice floating around in every society I know of, in the form of general attitudes and so called wife’s-tales (which too many men also partake of).  Men and women are both severely affected by such attitudes, but I am convinced women more so.  You see…
  2. One of the strong points of women is their ability to listen and communicate with their neighbors. In a true God fearing society this ability of the women is a very powerful tool for keeping every one in line with the most fundamental principles of a happy coexistence among us all.  When the wife’s-tales are contrary to said principles this ability of women turns into a curse for all of us, but…
  3. One of the strong points of men is their ability to be, on the average but not in every specific case, more selective about what they take in than women are.  I believe this is based upon their ability to search for and perceive fundamental principles of our existence in a way that women rarely if ever can.
  4. One of the sad things about us men is that we tend to listen too much to our women while failing to use our God given abilities as referenced in #3 above.  Thus in effect the responsibility for the evil wife’s-tales falls back upon us men.  This is one important area where we men need to take back our power.  We must learn not to consent to or partake in destructive talk, attitudes, and “do good” helpfulness, as is contrary to sound and fundamental principles of our existence, e.g. …
  5. The Family was created Man and Woman in the image of the Creator.  When a family is falling apart, as in a divorce, the effect is, especially in our children, that the only image of God we have ever been provided with is being destroyed.  But that is in effect teaching our children that God too is being destroyed… !  The kids lose hope, lose security in life, because there is little if anything they can do about it.  Their take on it is that the most important problems in life cannot be solved, so its no use trying!  So they quit trying.  So they lose… in many, many things they pursue.  They start relying upon men, and governments of men, rather than upon the most fundamental principles of our Creator…  Likewise there is a desire to run away from it all, from their own memories, to alcohol, drugs, any kind of abuse…
  6. There are some powerful things we can do as neighbors and friends of families who are falling apart… 
  7. We can take back our power by not giving anyone, neither ‘them’ nor ourselves, any kind of moral support for self-destructiveness!  We can stop agreeing with, stop showing sympathy for, stop strengthening, such attitudes as are in effect diminishing one parent’s trust and admiration for the other – regardless of how terrible the accusations may be, because you are absolutely right…
  8. The problem is entirely their own!  No third party can ever see the truth about the nature of a private relationship between two other parties. (Remember the wisdom of Solomon in re to the two fighting ladies?) Consequently it is impossible ever for a third party to determine which one, if any, who is right or wrong.  No third party has any right ever to impose any action, be it ever so slight, “do gooder”, subtle, against the will of either parent in the sacred relationship we know of as Family.  The Family is the truly sacred cornerstone of any healthy society.  We must leave every(!) responsibility to them.  We must never trespass upon anyone else’s family relationship.  Not in any way shape or form!  Isn’t that why its so important to stop giving our power and support to our lawless government Agents, who are cooperating unto wholesale family destruction in every way shape and form imaginable?
  9. There is tremendous power in taking back our power by helping to build trust, confidence, admiration, etc. where such seems to be falling apart in the worst way.  Don’t ever give up in doing this!  Don’t ever agree nor consent with anyone who is giving up on their own family relationship, nor on the family relationship on any other.  Regardless of how far it may have gone and regardless of how hopeless it may seem. Yes, it may look bad and hopeless, but when you share that attitude with anyone, even with your own beloved wife or husband, you lend your strength to those who are looking for help to destroy themselves along with their own families! Rumors and attitudes are spreading faster than wild-fire, remember that always!  Help building trust and confidence!  That’s the attitude that needs to dominate the wife’s-tales – not the ‘most everyone today is getting a divorce’ kind of attitude!  You see, women rely on, and are impressed with the importance of acting upon their God given strength as described in #2 above!

 

 

Dear John Henry Doe©:

 

In your above entry Re: Passport Procedures.. « Reply #16 on: Oct 21st, 2002, 5:12pm » you stated [bold emphasis mine]:

 

 

“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... ?