Is there an update on the CN?
« on: Today
at
Re: Is there an update on the CN?
« Reply #1 on: Today at
It was posted by John Henry Doe© probably early
January. Use the Search tool above to
find the post in this forum. ;)
Re: What to do next?
« Reply #6 on: Today at
Re: What to do next?
« Reply #7 on: Today at
The VOD includes a SOO of sorts, never a DOO! Search and you’ll find JHD posts on this if
you need to. :)
Re: Eliminating Credit Cards
« Reply #7 on: Today at
Re: Eliminating Credit Cards
« Reply #9 on: Today at
Golfnut2: Maybe I missed it, but I did not see in your
above posts anything about having sent either the company itself, or the
CEO/president of the company a NbWC and/or VOD. If you have only sent such to an employee,
then the only ones you should invoice is that employee or anyone employed by
that employee him/her self in his/her private capacity. Other employees of the
company, and the company itself, should not be invoiced until they have
received each their own NbWC!
Re: Conditional Acceptance
« Reply #30 on: Today at
Another idea on "proving" your claims.
I was advised to use a custom "Certificate of Mailing" form, which
actually lists each party being mailed, and what is in the package. When
the postal employee stamps the certificate, they are also witnessing which
documents were sent to whom.
In addition, the documents stated that any response be copied
to the Notary, so the Notary just has to attest to whether they received
anything and what it was.
Here's an example:
____________________________________________________________
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
____________________________________________________________
MAY BE USED FOR DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL MAIL, DOES NOT
PROVIDE FOR INSURANCE – POSTMASTER
____________________________________________________________
The foregoing redraft was sent using Certificate of Mailing, (Postal Code
S914.O-914.2.3) Regular U.S. Mail on March 23, 2002.
From: Olias Xxxxx
P.O. Box 88888
Mytown, California 99999
To: Joe Blow, dba Tax Agent
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service - ACS
P.O. Box 24017
Fresno, California 93779
Enclosed are items of mail including:
1. Conditional Acceptance to Joe Blow, Internal Revenue Service - ACS,
dated March 23, 2002 2 pages
2. Affidavits of Negative Averment, Certificate of Service
2 pages
3. Letter Letter 1058(LT-11) from Joe Blow,
Internal Revenue Service – ACS, dated March 2, 2002
conditionally accepted for value 2 pages
4. Certificate of Mailing 1 page
_________________________________________
POSTMASTER STAMP/SIGN
PS FORM 3817, Mar. 1989
-----------------------------------------------------------
This doesn't format too well here in text-mode, and there's some extra wording
in the upper right hand corner about affixing the postage. So if anyone
wants a formatted version, send me a personal message with your email address.
-------------------------
This could lower the notary costs (I found one that only was charging me for
witnessing my signature, no extra charge for just witnessing if/what/when
something was received).
Any one else have thoughts on this? Not good enough?
Re: Conditional Acceptance
« Reply #31 on: Today at
Olias: Thanks, that’s an interesting tool.
I doubt that it is strong enough to replace a AoM, but it certainly adds weight and strength. If you do a search of the forum, perhaps
using 'postal clerk stamp witness', or parts of that, you should be able to
find a thread on a very similar subject with input from JHD, LL, and others.
Private message to Olias:
Yes, please.
I’d love to have you send me a copy of your file with the “custom "Certificate of
Mailing" form”.
Sent it to PowerOfChoice@gamaliel.intranets.com
Thanks!
Andy©
Private Message to Jason W:
Dear Jason,
Victoria Joy claims that filing a UCC FS on your
TRADE NAME without first redeeming the pledge is like raising the pirate flag
upon one’s ship. (See
quote of entire passage from her transcripted lecture
below. Most specifically the highlighted text in
yellow and red.)
[b]QUESTIONS:[/b]
1. Is her claim applicable to someone who is
doing the CTC3 procedure without more?
2. If it is NOT applicable, then why not? Does the CTC3 procedure somehow include the
removal of the pledge, and if so how?
I thought it would be best not to raise this
question in the forum without first addressing either you or one of the
authors.
Thanks for being you, and for doing all you do!
Andy©
[u][b]Quote out of passage by Victoria Joy:[/u][/b]
VJ: Yeah, yeah, but you've got to do you can't just go and put it on your UCC 1.
Oh, I thought we were never going to get to this one today. In
[color=yellow][b]We've
got two little boats on the ocean of admiralty here. Here's the pledgor giving this house, car, microwave, whatever, to USS
GRANTEE. You've just granted it to them and you said, "Take care of this.
I'm going to give you temporary title," sort of like the pawnshop broker.
Take care of this house, car, microwave, whatever it is, that you've pledged to
them, until I want it back. And they said, "Okay." So they've set all
these guns up around there called laws, codes, statutes. That's their big guns.
Now, you come over here and say, "I got real smart, real fast. I decided
I'm going to do my UCC 1. Now I want that stuff back." Zip, zip, and you
start bringing this stuff back by putting it on your UCC 1 automatically. Does
anybody know what you've just done? You've put up the pirate flag, you numb
nuts! You just stole it. If you walked into that pawnshop where you put
Grandma's silver candelabra and you just took it, could you be arrested, even
though it's yours? It was in your family for 90 years? You bet. Why? [/color][/b]
[red][b]The title is not clear. You didn't redeem the
pledge, did you? [/red][/b] [color=yellow][b]So you
cannot take your house and zap! put it on your UCC 1.
You cannot take your car and zap! put it on your UCC
1, until you redeem the pledge. [/color][/b] [red][b]How
do you redeem the pledge? [/red][/b]
AM: Pay your house off.
VJ: [color=yellow][b]You
don't have to pay it off. You do fulfill it, okay. [/color][/b] [red][b]I conditionally accept your offer to continue to hold
my property upon proof of claim that once I cancel this pledge you are not
obligated to return it to me. [/red][/b] Now you send that in to the DMV for
your car, you send it in to the county. What can they do when you send them
that conditional acceptance for value? [red][b]I conditionally
accept your deed on this house that I recorded. I conditionally accept your
certificate of title on this car that I registered upon proof of claim that
upon my withdrawing my pledge or redeeming my pledge or canceling my pledge
that you are not obligated to admit you have no title. [/red][/b]Oh, that's a
good one. I should have written that one down. Okay, do you understand what I'm
saying? [color=yellow][b]What can they do?
AM: One of four things.
VJ: One of four things! One of these days that's
going to be everybody's answer! They can do one of four things! Goody! We
already know what they're going to do, one of four things. Is forewarned
forearmed? You bet. So if they accept and carry out, what will you get?
AM: The title. [/color][/b]
Part 3 Victoria Joy Seminar
Page 3
Part 3 Victoria Joy Seminar
Page 4
VJ: [color=yellow][b]Title.
If they accept and redraft, what can they say? I'm glad you're saying nothing,
because that's the correct answer. There's not much they can say. You don't
have a right to cancel your pledge? Go take a look at UCC 9 103 and tell me
that they didn't incorporate that into the law.[/color][/b] Do you have a
question?
Re: Business Name Copycat
« Reply #9 on: Today at
Tomo: You can put as many names as
you like on one UCC FS. The additional
names are put on the ADDENDUM form as page 2, 3, 4, 5... etc..
See page 231 in CTC3.
And yes, your understanding of my
"nutshell" is correct.
However, notice that the "nutshell" is a question in my mind
as well. I do know that it illegal for
someone inside their jurisdiction to use those extensions, at least in some
countries, without first registering them under the State, but I am not sure
that it is illegal to use those same extensions for someone outside of their
respective jurisdictions. Thus it is
possible, even likely, that it is NOT illegal for a Sovereign CTC3 Redemtor to use them, but I don't know for sure, though I'd
very much like to know. However, even were it legal, the question still remains as to whether
another party can claim a successful 1st lien upon such a name.
Re: Reality and Fiction
« Reply #24 on: Today at
Kaos: I enjoy this dialogue. It adds value to my understanding as you help
me jog my memory and make me think further.
No I am not a pastor nor am a student in any Seminary established by
man. However, considering the real
meaning of the word seminary, I may well say that I am a perpetual student in
the seminary established, and forever maintained, by YahWeh. What’s the difference? That which counts is
not any title recognized by men, but rather the truth value inherent in my
thoughts and actions, isn’t it?
1.
Did the sentient living being known by the
appellation YeHoShua know all things from the time of
conception, from the time of delivery, or from any time in particular? 1. What is the answer as
reflected by Luke 2:52? 2. Is the
character description built into the name YeHoShua,
as discussed above, consistent with the idea that there was nothing ever for
him to learn that he didn’t already know before? 3. Ditto
for his favorite name “Son of Man” as likewise analyzed above? 4. Does YahWeh
support the idea of false witnessing, as in misleading labeling or naming, upon
any creation, being, or thing? 5. If YeHoShua was by nature in all things like us, then how
could he at the same time be so fundamentally different? Wouldn’t that contradict logic and reason and
the most fundamental principles established by the Creator?
I am not sure what your expression “the eventual
son of Adam” might mean. Seems to me
that each and all of us can truthfully lay claim to that expression in a purely
biological sense, couldn’t we?
As to the idea “that He knew all things”, where
do you suppose that originated? Do you
see any parallels in the Papal claim unto the titles “Vicar of Christ”, “Vicar
of God”, “Vicarius Filii
Dei”, and the motto of the Roman Catholic Church “Saemper
aedem”, meaning “Always the same”? And
ditto for the Luciferian jealousy in what regards the
one true sonship of YahWeh? Indeed, what is the true meaning of the title
‘Son of YahWeh’ and under what circumstances is such
claim a false claim? Ditto for the title
‘a child of God’, or even ‘God’s children’?
2.
I like the concept of a fish in a fishbowl. All of the concepts you stated makes a lot of
sense to me. Let me throw this one out:
“But Noah found grace in
the eyes of the Lord” Genesis 6:8 (KJV).
A paraphrase of my own which is actually much
closer to the Hebrew original text is this: “And Noah looked into the eyes of YahWeh and saw a fish in a fishbowl”. Remember Elohim created Man in His
image. Thus it is not farfetched to
consider “the eyes of the Lord” as a most truthful mirror, is it? So as you see Noah recognized himself as being in a very real sense a fish in a fishbowl,
didn’t he? Not only that but the word
‘grace’, i.e. ‘the fish in a fishbowl’, is actually the mirror-image of the
name Noah, i.e. it’s the same two letter Hebrew word in reverse. Naturally, you could also apply the same
concept upon the idea of ‘Noah in the ark’, or ‘Noah being in a problematic
situation with no openings other than by looking up’, and how possible is it
for a fish to fly out of the water for any length of time and survive? Let’s assume that Noah somehow, perhaps as an
astronomer and scientist of considerable acumen, was able to predict that 120
years down the line something very predictable was about to happen. Then he had a choice, didn’t he? He could have chosen to drown with all the others, or he could do what he did in spite of what every
one else might have thought was possible based upon what had been thus far…
Perhaps you can perceive a very similar
situation in regards to Adam and his wife being forced out of the Garden as
described in Genesis 3:23-24. Part of
that text is “And [YahWeh] placed at the east of the
Which brings us back to
your statements from Luther, Edwards, and Spurgeon. Who, indeed, does determine what exact limitations we’ve each submitted
ourselves under? If YahWeh
continually stands at the ready to bring each of us out of bondage, out of the
fishbowl, who is doing the choosing as to whether or not to accept?
To put it slightly differently: Do we, you and I, choose to blame someone
else, e.g. Adam and Eve, for the trouble and suffering we are in? How much control do any of us have over the
past actions of those two first parents of ours? Or do we choose to accept full responsibility
for each our own actions and position in life?
Isn’t it true that I have, potentially at least, 100% control over my
own thoughts, words, and intentions in life - regardless of what others may
think and believe, not excluding Luther, Edwards, Spurgeon, my most intimate
friends and neighbors in life, and, not to forget, the whisperings of the
neighbors?
And yet a little differently: Do I choose to consider something impossible
based on the fact that I am not yet familiar with anyone who have ever heard of
such a problem being solved, OR do I choose to venture out into the unknown in
accord with the best principles I can ever make myself aware of? Am I a futilist, or
what kind of an ____–ist am
I? What kind of an ISm,
beingness, existence, do I identify myself with in my own pursuits? Is my God “I Am Who I Am”, or “I Shall Be
Whom I Shall Be”? Or perhaps my motto is
“Saemper Aedem” – always the same, status quo? What meaningful meaning do I choose to
perceive in the words of YahWeh? Is there a limit to what is possible and what
is not? On which side of such a limit is
the concept that “We shall all die anyway, so therefore, does it matter if I…”?
In whose interest is it that we all keep
thinking that it is all 100% hopeless on this side of death anyways?
3. Pending
yours...
4. You
are most welcome. I am glad we are all
blessed by this dialogue, this action symbolized by the Cherubims...