Is there an update on the CN?
« on: Today at 3:46pm » by sammyconsults

 

Re: Is there an update on the CN?
« Reply #1 on: Today at 10:48pm » Andy©

 

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 7:52pm » by philjo

 

Re: What to do next?
« Reply #7 on: Today at 10:53pm » by Andy©

 

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 4:45pm » by golfnut2

 

Re: Eliminating Credit Cards
« Reply #9 on: Today at 11:01pm » by Andy©

 

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 8:28am » by Olias

 

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 11:12pm » by Andy©

 

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 Portland, most of those people up there were either doing their UCC 1's wrong or didn't know how to do them, so I had to spend time subjecting them to a lot of my excellent artwork here. I buried it over here because I thought we weren't going to get to that, because you're not at the point where you're questioning the UCC 1. But since it came up, let me show you something.

 

[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  Florida

Page 3

Part 3 Victoria Joy Seminar  Florida

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 2:42am » by Andy©

 

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 7:35am » Andy©

 

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 garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.”  Now if you look at the “flaming sword” as a light house of sorts it is clear that the objective is that it is to be seen from a distance far off.  Now consider the expression “to keep the way”.  What do we ‘choose’ to read into those four words?  Do they mean what they say as in “to maintain and do the necessary upkeep of the way”, or do we ‘choose’ to misconstrue these same words as saying “to close the gate permanently for travel”.  Who is doing the choosing in a world where the Creator is identifying Himself in terms of the God of free choice (cf. Gen. 2:16-17), or more specifically “I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage” Deuteronomy 5:6 (KJV)?  On which side of the flaming sword is the house of bondage located?  On what side of the flaming sword am I if and when I have chosen to accept the offer contained in the Covenant just quoted, i.e. to be “brought... [b]out of[/b]…the house of bondage”?

 

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...