Birth Certificate Estate-Two Birthdates Exposed!!!

another great contribution of nothing from a fuckwit.

and Fellow man asks:



We have been effectively enslaved to a system of bondage that is Biblical in nature. This system dates back to Babylon.

So, of course I use fed notes (I do need to deal with my fellow slaves in terms they comprehend) and I have accounts and a debit card.

Knowing these things doesn't actually set me or anyone else free. My advice is rooted in deep libertarian philosophy.

Thus, the bureaucratic system IMO could be circumvented with an alternate monetary system. But it requires a critical mass - numbers of participants to render a new model viable. So, it appears that for this segment of time I am limited to blogging in an effort to get people thinking outside the box (boxes).

thx Levi

you will like the data dump i mentioned earlier.

KW, from what i gather so far, uses that angle youve just mentioned. (slavery basically)

gets into trouble with the gov intentionally (not hard to do these days) and then he says that name is not his but he uses it by necessity.

effectively he is putting the burden of proof onto them to prove he is that name.

im still reviewing all this so this is just what i comprehend of it so far so bear with me.

he then uses the declaratory judgment act to force the judge to rule on what is the mans rights duties and obligations relating to the BC.

judge has to make a decree and he gets that in writing.

he says it ends up being one of three things (the BC)

a state agency, an estate, or a trust.

in KWs case the judge decreed he was operating an agency but in other cases he says they have decreed that it was a trust or an estate.

seems it can only be one of the three and from there the man has more options. he can resign and get a new name decreed or he can use the decree to then force them to pay the man for operating the agency.


thats the gist of it anyway. well worth looking into IMO and by far the best "solution" to this mess that I have come across.


comments from anyone other than the psychopathic poster? redtext guy will be ignored (for obvious reasons)

You are supposed to ignore my posts already yet you reference my posts or my process in every single post you make.

You are a fucking idiot and anyone, anywhere who would do anything your theories espouse it also a fucking idiot.

You cannot even answer basic questions about law, process, standing and jurisdiction and you set yourself up the court and judge of others.

Please, get another hobby because you are pathetic at your current one, unless being the thread clown is what you are going for.

I ask again, can anyone of the thread experts/shills and talkshoe/youtube process apologists point out even ONE (just one) downside of demanding lawful money redemption (remedy) from 12 USC 411?

I will answer that since you cannot, there is NONE.

Next, can anyone, anywhere actually show real tangible results from authenticating, endorsing, recording or redeeming any COLB or BC?


Anyone....?

Yet you suppose to teach others the path, please.

thx Levi

you will like the data dump i mentioned earlier.

KW, from what i gather so far, uses that angle youve just mentioned. (slavery basically)

gets into trouble with the gov intentionally (not hard to do these days) and then he says that name is not his but he uses it by necessity.

effectively he is putting the burden of proof onto them to prove he is that name.

im still reviewing all this so this is just what i comprehend of it so far so bear with me.

he then uses the declaratory judgment act to force the judge to rule on what is the mans rights duties and obligations relating to the BC.

judge has to make a decree and he gets that in writing.

he says it ends up being one of three things (the BC)

a state agency, an estate, or a trust.

in KWs case the judge decreed he was operating an agency but in other cases he says they have decreed that it was a trust or an estate.

seems it can only be one of the three and from there the man has more options. he can resign and get a new name decreed or he can use the decree to then force them to pay the man for operating the agency.


thats the gist of it anyway. well worth looking into IMO and by far the best "solution" to this mess that I have come across.

Reposted since the clown above is trying to bury relevant questions without relevant answers from the irrelevant debtors looking for a BC that is not and never was "theirs".

bumping for real information and not theoretical youtube wannabe information with no lawful or legal standing.

"12 U.S. Code § 411 - Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

US Code
Notes
prev | next
Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

(Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, § 16 (par.), 38 Stat. 265; Jan. 30, 1934, ch. 6, § 2(b)(1), 48 Stat. 337; Aug. 23, 1935, ch. 614, title II, § 203(a), 49 Stat. 704.)"
quoted from: [link to www.law.cornell.edu (secure)]

"Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy."
[link to www.treasury.gov (secure)]

I have already provided the links for the actual laws, statutes and codes backing why nobody can "redeem" anything that is not in accordance with the laws covering redemption.

I will post this again, absolutely nothing but your own confession attaches your body to the BC/COLB. There is no reason to endorse, record, authenticate or otherwise attach your living body to that record of a decedent, abandoned by the parents to be claimed by the State.

There is no law that compels anyone to assume the debt owed by another, you do so voluntarily every time you use, endorse or transfer "Federal Reserve Notes" in any form, real or electronic.

Anyone who says differently is a liar.

bump back on topic

some, in the lawful money movement have been promoting the idea; that by stamping on the check a demand for lawful money, as per us code 411, eliminates a tax liability onat money...

is this your approach as well?

i like your thinking...

a new system is badly needed, as the only one's who benefit from the current system are those who belong to the club...

in the meantime, we have to use the current system to the best of our abilities, as we continue to hone and perfect our knowledge...

Redemption from the debt system is spelled out clearly in title 12 AND the Canadian banking acts.

Knowledge without meaningful results is useless, unless you just want to be the most educated buy in debtors prison. I will take self governance any day.

bump for truth, not BC propaganda from the debtors seats in the back of the bus.

bump for actual standing US law and not some dumbass theory with zero results.

Income tax in the US is a voluntary use fee for the endorsement and use of FRN private currency. There was no "income tax" before 1933, the exact same year that FRNS where released to be used by private Citizens. Federal employees where the first to get FRNS in place of United States Notes (31 USC 5115) and were the first to be charged the "income tax".

In fact ALL income taxes that actually survived SCOTUS rulings were ONLY on Bank Notes issued by private Banks.

United States currency (title 31) have NEVER been taxable as income as they are debt owed by the Treasury and not TO the treasury.

So the Springer v. US (1881) income tax on wages. The Springer case was actually a twofer. It gave legitimacy to the income tax on wages. However it also started the movement towards the 16th amendment as the other part of the case dealing with taxes on rents,and investment income was eventually struck down in Pollock as a direct tax and then made legal again with the 16th amendment.

So the income tax on the wages part of the case actually got its footing from a case 12 years earlier. Veazie Bank v. Fenno (1869). Reading Springer doesn't tell you anything without keeping this case in mind. The holding as follows (my bolding and hints included)

"It cannot be doubted that under the Constitution the power to provide a circulation of coin is given to Congress. And it is settled by the uniform practice of the government and by repeated decisions, that Congress may constitutionally authorize the emission of bills of credit. ... Having thus, in the exercise of undisputed constitutional powers, undertaken to provide a currency for the whole country, it cannot be questioned that Congress may, constitutionally, secure the benefit of it to the people by appropriate legislation. To this end, Congress has denied the quality of legal tender to foreign coins, and has provided by law against the imposition of counterfeit and base coin on the community. To the same end, Congress may restrain (TAX), by suitable enactments (26 USC), the circulation as money of any notes not issued under its own authority. Without this power, indeed, its attempts to secure a sound and uniform currency for the country must be futile." Jknoph from Thread: Pay No Taxes legally -End the FED -synopsis page 8-Why are waiting for someone to do it for us like Ron paul (Page 102)

Oh, whats that, actual case law?

thats something fuckwitfellowslave has not provided even ONCE on this entire thread.

that guy with dishonorable motive is trying way too hard to get off the topic..

Bump for actual case law and not bullshit from the BC shill who has not even done the process he claims is the answer.

Bump to counter the deceiver on the thread.

Repost again because these questions need answers and the intent of fuckwitfellowslave cant answer them.

Anyone else?

imo, and from what i have heard, trying to not lay claim to the name is a slippery slope...

in the past, i was charged with a minor criminal offence, that could have put me in jail, as it was $2,000 and/or 6 months in jail... at the time i was just learning, and decided to do the afv route... when i was served with the summons at my home, i immediately took both copies, signed them, marked accepted for value, and gave one copy back to the serving officer...

i did this on a whim with very little knowledge, however the issue completely disappeared...

in hindsight, now that i have much more knowledge, i can explain what occurred...

when a summons is issued on a criminal charge, they are drawing on public credit to bring on the charge, and when it does not have a value attached, it is open ended, and assessed by the court system... when afv is put on it with your signature, you are applying your private credit which is also open ended and equals the public... It is important that both copies of the summons is signed, as the two copies indicate the debt has been divided, and you need to settle both sides...

in the case of a ticket with a dollar figure attached, and note - the dollar figure is always whole with no fractions, you have to pay the ticket,,, I would advise you pay that ticket by going to the bank and have a money order drawn for the amount, as a cheque only creates a discharge as it is still public debt and will remain on your financial record...using your private credit, which a money order will be is payment in fact...

yes, it is spelled out clearly in wording, and there is redemption... but no where in these acts are you going to find the gap percentage that has to be added in order to bring about redemption... there has to be a reserve put up that started the fractioning to begin with...

the canadian bills of exchange act clearly states the flow; the bill, payment converts to a note, and the statement gives rise to the note... you see, rise has been given when you get your bank statement, which means the notes are ready for redemption, but no where is it indicated - the reserve requirement...

Excellent work and results! That is faith in action! I too have used and contintue to discharge bills via endorsement and return (in some cases for 30,000 "$" and in every single event, it was never an issue with the process!

thanks for your other post as well, Canada issued silver and gold coins issued for public use before, are such coins still being issued to the public?

the kate of gia method of not claiming the name surely is but thats not exactly what KW is doing. he seems to be using that to put the courts in a position where they have to make a declaratory judgment/decree on how one is obligated to the name.

its brilliant!

iamsomedude seems to have the A4V angle honed out to the max though. thats more in the black card direction though.

i may go that direction later but KWs method seem the best strategy to put the system in a box to start with.

i am not an expert, but here is my two cents...

i am glad information stated appearing about lawful money, as it started me looking in to getting my credit redeemed...

but, the premise of by putting a stamp on a cheque demanding lawful money, makes the money not taxable is flawed...i believe it is the receipt you get from the merchant that is redeemable when rise is given by your bank statement...

i believe the redemption is through the irs, because the income tax you pay is not tax on labour, it is on the receipts that are eligible for redemption... The tax, is the reserve requirement...

just hearsay, but its interesting
[link to savingtosuitorsclub.net]