Hi BTM, I do not wish to argue with anyone my friend. CW's information and links are widely available on my previous posts where he gives his success and views in his audios. He has been involved with creditor/debtor for many many years and now sees why there is little remedy being achieved, in his words he has left Creditor/Debtor behind for good. He states it should be 'Grantor/Beneficiary' and I think you will see his theories expanding and gaining popularity rapidly.
FMOTLAKAMICHEAL has had some great success and I have never said he hasn't or even said that the method is flawed. Michael has been an inspiration to me in fairness and his knowledge has been widely spread to assist others in their plight against the Banksters. I have simply said that there is new information available that I found valuable and others do to. It is worth looking into for sure. I am not seeing the results from the debtor/creditor approach that when I set out on the journey I thought I would, and I reckon there are many here that would agree with that statement. However, I am still using the approach until I can apply Trust education which I feel has got to be the way forward.
I know there has been mention of the Trust Act 1925 but we have to remember, that is a Statute, as is the Bankruptcy Act 1869, in the public, but we should approaching the trust angle completely in the private as a realman not a 'Strawman'. Everything in the Trust education and approach is in the private, from your real man/woman with NON UCC filings. In relation to there having to be another Beneficiary, well that is only partly true, but in the context of remedy it is outrageously innaccurate. If you wish to continue the Trust then yes but if you want the trust to terminate (like in a mortgage for example) then you can merge the titles (from the private) and as Grantor you can move these titles with the aim of terminating the trust so that the proceeds go to the Grantor (in the private). Then again, you may not want to terminate the trust, you may want to change the titles around to your advantage and leave it running, it all depends. The point is, you only need 2 Beneficiary's if you want to maintain the Trust, which you don't. There are many different solutions and remedies using trusts, it all depends what you want to achieve. Bearing in mind I am new to Trusts but can see the potential.
I have discovered that if you seek remedy by using PN's in the public and Bonds all in the public via your UCC-1 etc then you are in fact increasing the public debt, we do not want to do that. We should go completely private where we can issue non negotiable debt instruments in the private and reduce the public debt. Don't get me wrong, I am seeking remedy either way but I would prefer to do it the private route.
I am not misleading anyone as suggested, that is bunkum, please research and judge for yourself. I believe my research to be sound and will not allow it to be destroyed by an argument that is half baked. Some of my understanding may be slightly innaccurate but I have no ego to protect so please feel free to politely tell me where I have gone wrong. I will research your critisisms and always get back to you with my thoughts. You do the research with Christian Walters first, listen to at least 10 of his audios, read about trusts and trust law (not just a Statute Act) then, if you still think creditor/debtor is the right way to go, come back and insult me, at least you will have a platform to do it from and I will happily accept your opinion
with evidence, and I promise not to be rude.
Everthing is a Trust, it is overwhelmingly obvious to me and therefore we should be looking at anti-trust law etc for our remedies. Trust Law operates under the colour of contract law. You just cannot escape that IMHO.
Rob Menard has stated recently that you cannot lien your Strawman (I agree), you cannot be the agent for your Strawman (I agree). This is debtor/creditor and it is now becoming old information to me, which is getting results for the few but not the many. If you disagree thats fine because at the moment I am using this approach myself and will report any positives I have. I have been a Winston Scholar for over a year but I no longer agree with much of what he has to say.
Let's face it as well, there also seems to be a thousand ways of doing the creditor/debtor approach. Some use Copyright infringement, some think thats incorrect, some have different ways of doing A4V and argue their way is better, some say you can only A4V a real 'Bill' some say you can A4V a statement as well, it is all quite confusing. With Trusts it certainly seems much more straight forward. But, you only ever go the private route.
It hurts me to have been studying Shrout and creditor/debtor and then find there is a different direction that to me seems the right way to go. Trusts have been used for thousands of years to amazing affect, why not in everything now?
I urge everyone, as I have done for a few weeks now to research Trusts with Christian Walters. Especially if you are not getting the Creditor/Debtor results you are looking for right now and are wondering why. Yes, it maybe that your paperwork and filing etc are flawed or it might be as CW suggests, that creditors/debtors are being deliberatley led down a blind alley where there is some success to tempt others to follow it. You be the judge but please don't let others detract you from keeping an open mind about everything and at least looking into what is being offered. You might just be very surprised at what you find.
I conditionally accept that creditor/debtor is the only way forward, on Proof of claim that Trusts and Trust Law is completely irrelevant to achieving remedy
In politeness and Peace
HS :)