Affidavit served today..

Re: Affidavit served today..

Postby Dreadlock » Sat Aug 17, 2013 12:56 pm

Hi Rongo,

Earlier you said,

In numerous places you have stated "my legal person" or "my legal fiction" thereby claiming Crown property as your own..


I used to be of this opinion also though I now believe it to be an error. It is true that the Crown has legal title to the trust but we have equitable title due to the fact that our parents were the initial grantors and we the sole beneficiaries. Equity is king therefore the trust does in fact belong to us. Legal title simply puts the Crown in the position of trustee to the trust.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Affidavit served today..

Postby Rongo121 » Sat Aug 17, 2013 9:00 pm

Hi Dreadlock

I think this is a tricky one, still trying to get my head around it.

Firstly I agree that the Crown is the trustee, and we are the beneficiary, but I think there’s more going on here that we need to understand.

On the birth certificate they must be claiming exclusive ownership of some thing. (By the words CROWN COPYRIGHT and “not to be used for identity purposes”). I personally think its MR JOHN DOE the strawman (their own creation) that they’re claiming ownership of.

I think this is how it works:

Let’s say you buy a copyrighted DVD, you can play it in private to your hearts content, but if you try to use it in public it’s a big no no. (Unless of course you pay big bucks for the privilege)

Now what if you try to use MR JOHN DOE in the public, or you answer for MR JOHN DOE? On the private side it would not be a problem.

Interesting to note here, whose name is on your bank account, or your title deeds? Do we really own anything at all?

Squark posted an excellent link to “servant king” a guy named Marcus, and his attorney told him he didn’t even own his socks.

And just to complicate things further, as I understand it there are two things to deal with here, an “estate” and a “trust”.

I heard Frank o Collins say once that when asked for your name in court your response should be: “I am the occupant of the office of general executor for the John Doe estate. He stressed that it’s important to include the word “estate”.

If the judge starts huffing and puffing, then you ask if he’s claiming to be “executor de son tort”.

Blacks 8th edition: “Executor de son tort”:

A person who, without legal authority, takes on the responsibility to act as an executor or administrator of a decedent’s property, usu. to the detriment of the estate’s beneficiaries or creditors.

As always I appreciate your thoughts and comments.

Best of luck mate.
Rongo121
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 6:51 pm
Location: Stoke on Trent

Re: Affidavit served today..

Postby bustachemtrails » Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:28 am

When I state "my legal fiction" I am acting as a third party representative to the legal fiction/person under duress of circumstances as a defensive act.

I have withdrawn my consent and have made clear that the crown has no authority and that they have no claim against my legal fiction nor my sovereign being.

I do see where the double think is in my address and thank you for making the point.
bustachemtrails
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:19 pm
Location: Devizes, wiltshire

Re: Affidavit served today..

Postby Dreadlock » Sun Aug 18, 2013 12:53 pm

Hi Rongo,

I think the copyright simply applies to the actual physical birth certificate. I don't think it in any way confers any kind of title to the trust itself. They are claiming the right to reproduce the birth certificate, that is all.

From various websites:
"Copyright definition, the exclusive right to make copies license, and otherwise exploit a literary, musical, or artistic work, whether printed, audio, video, etc."
"the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (as a literary, musical, or artistic work)"

Our bank accounts form part of our estate and are part of our trusts and so we have equitable title to them. However, they are also used in conjunction with title and so are subject to statute hence a bank account will have for e.g.
JOE BLOGGS, the trust name, preceded by "MR." which is the consent to apply statute to the trust property, in this case the bank account.

Title deeds, to houses for example, are different. The deed will state, "proprietor: JOE BLOGGS"
Note that a proprietor is not an owner. A proprietor has use of something but does not necessarily own it. As the Crown has legal title to all land in England this makes sense (There may be exceptions such as Churches. Not sure.)
However JOE BLOGGS, being the trust, has equitable title to the house and as beneficiary Joe Bloggs gets to use it. No one can kick Joe out of his house, not even the Crown, at least not without a very good reason and compensation.
Also note that on title deeds it is not assumed that the trust consents to statute - title is not used. Why?

Ok this is an educated guess. The Crown has legal title to the property and also legal title to the trust which has proprietorship of the property. The Crown is a corporate sole, it does not act within statutory jurisdiction but within ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Hence Crown property is exempt from statute. I'm fairly sure that all statutes have exemption clauses for the Crown where necessary. E.g. the vehicle and excise registration act and the Local Government Finance Act both have exemption clauses for the Crown. Crown vehicles do not need to display a "road tax" disc and vehicle excise duty does not need to be paid for them and Crown property is not liable for Council Tax (useful maybe for those fighting council tax?). The Crown may of course consent to statute and regularly does. The Duchy of Cornwall for example (ok not the Crown but similar) pays income tax by consent, not because it has to. I repeat, this is conjecture on my part.

I totally agree with Frank O Collins on that point.

I don't agree that I don't own my socks. I have the bill of sale.

In short we do own our trusts, houses, bank accounts and even the country and all its natural resources. We have equitable title to all of it which trumps mere legal title.
The problem we have is consenting to statute - which is designed to screw us over - and being tricked into acting as trustees when we aren't.

Interesting shit huh? :grin:
Last edited by Dreadlock on Mon Aug 19, 2013 12:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Affidavit served today..

Postby bustachemtrails » Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:11 pm

@ Dreadlock

" As the Crown has legal title to all land in England this makes sense" Actually the crown has no legal title to anything in the country as it is a treasonous enterprise.

"Ok this is an educated guess. The Crown has legal title to the property and also legal title to the trust which has proprietorship of the property. The Crown is a corporate sole, it does not act within statutory jurisdiction but within ecumenical jurisdiction. Hence Crown property is exempt from statute. I'm fairly sure that all statutes have exemption clauses for the Crown where necessary. E.g. the vehicle and excise registration act and the Local Government Finance Act both have exemption clauses for the Crown. Crown vehicles do not need to display a "road tax" disc and vehicle excise duty does not need to be paid for them and Crown property is not liable for Council Tax (useful maybe for those fighting council tax?). The Crown may of course consent to statute and regularly does. The Duchy of Cornwall for example (ok not the Crown but similar) pays income tax by consent, not because it has to. I repeat, this is conjecture on my part."

The crown act without any jurisdiction as previously stated.... it is a criminal offence to pay council tax and support a treasonous administration of injustice in these times, lawful rebellion is specific in this area, with respect therefore, much of what you surmise is actually double think.

The crown may consent to statutes but statutes are unlawful as is the crown. Lawful rebellion makes things very simple for us as we simply cannot support the crown or its minions in these times.
bustachemtrails
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:19 pm
Location: Devizes, wiltshire

Re: Affidavit served today..

Postby Dreadlock » Mon Aug 19, 2013 12:22 am

@Busta

I was writing under the assumption that the Crown is legitimate.
However I pretty much agree with what you are saying about it being a treasonous enterprise so I totally understand your position.

On one point I disagree with you. Statute is not unlawful. It is simply a body of rules/regulations. If they are applied to people with their consent, and by this I mean knowing consent rather than the trickery which is almost always used, then they are not unlawful, after all we are free to consent to pretty much anything we want to.

The way statute is currently applied to people is without doubt despicable. I'm sure we agree on that.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Affidavit served today..

Postby pitano1 » Mon Aug 19, 2013 9:04 am

If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.
Henry David Thoreau
ALL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS RESERVED -AB INITIO - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
pitano1
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: on the land

Re: Affidavit served today..

Postby bustachemtrails » Mon Aug 19, 2013 9:43 am

Sadly bro we don't agree because we have no lawful right to consent to unlawful statutes when our government and crown are treasonous mate.

Its actually a criminal offence to consent to any statutes since the 1911 parliament Act. Its also a crime not to be in lawful rebellion at this time. I'm sure we would agree on that point. Peace.
bustachemtrails
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:19 pm
Location: Devizes, wiltshire

Re: Affidavit served today..

Postby Dreadlock » Mon Aug 19, 2013 1:41 pm

I think we are mis-communicating which is easily done. I said,

The way statute is currently applied to people is without doubt despicable. I'm sure we agree on that.


Meaning that the way statutes are applied is despicable. Do you really not agree?

My position is that statutes are perfectly lawful and that the correct application of them is also perfectly lawful. This is true even if those doing the applying are themselves guilty of treason for some other reason, including misapplication of statute.

Now the application of the statutes may well be unlawful when applied incorrectly, outside their rightful domain, and such action may well constitute treason by the people/persons applying them in such a manner i.e the Crown and government. I think this is what you are saying?

So I'm talking about the statutes when they are used correctly and you are talking about them when used incorrectly. So I agree with you.
It is important to note that statutes themselves cannot be unlawful as they cannot act. Maybe I'm making a fine distinction but I think it is important - only actors can behave unlawfully.

I'm sure you know more about the 1911 parliament act than I do, but I cannot see how consenting to a statute, even one created by a traitor, necessarily constitutes a criminal act.
For arguments sake let's agree that the UK government is guilty of treason since 1911. Does that make me and millions of other people guilty of a crime for say, not drinking and driving in accordance with statute?

I would strongly suggest that this is nonsense, though I readily admit that obeying statutes which enable the traitor in their acts of treason, would be criminal.

I think I would probably agree with you that it is a crime not to be in lawful rebellion at this time - if I knew exactly what the definition of lawful rebellion is.

Cheers.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Affidavit served today..

Postby bustachemtrails » Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:00 pm

Whereas I don't wish to get into a nit picking argument with you I will clearly state my points and accept the ones that you make that I also agree with.

You stated "On one point I disagree with you. Statute is not unlawful. It is simply a body of rules/regulations. If they are applied to people with their consent, and by this I mean knowing consent rather than the trickery which is almost always used, then they are not unlawful, after all we are free to consent to pretty much anything we want to."

I advocate the fact that we are not free to consent to Acts and Statutes under the present criminal regime and, we are not lawfully bound by Acts and statutes in any way even in times of a lawful administration because, Acts and statutes are legislative RULES not laws which do not adhere to Gods law, which all laws must adhere to to be lawful. Man made laws/rules are entirely unlawful which is demonstrated within the coronation Oath contract thus, if we consent to Acts and Statutes then we are in direct violation of Gods law which is a crime under common law and Gods law whether we are religious or not.

I certainly do agree that the way statutes are currently applied to people are without doubt despicable, no argument there mate !

"My position is that statutes are perfectly lawful and that the correct application of them is also perfectly lawful. This is true even if those doing the applying are themselves guilty of treason for some other reason, including misapplication of statute." .......As above already clarified.

"Now the application of the statutes may well be unlawful when applied incorrectly, outside their rightful domain, and such action may well constitute treason by the people/persons applying them in such a manner i.e the Crown and government. I think this is what you are saying? " ....Correct but as above also.

"So I'm talking about the statutes when they are used correctly and you are talking about them when used incorrectly. So I agree with you.
It is important to note that statutes themselves cannot be unlawful as they cannot act. Maybe I'm making a fine distinction but I think it is important - only actors can behave unlawfully." ....Statutes unless according to constitutional law/Gods law cannot be used correctly as they are man made therefore unlawful. Your point that Statutes cannot be unlawful because they cannot Act loses me, they are unlawful whether they are acted upon or not.

"I'm sure you know more about the 1911 parliament act than I do, but I cannot see how consenting to a statute, even one created by a traitor, necessarily constitutes a criminal act."..... It is a criminal act to consent to criminal statutes pure and simple. Aiding and abetting treason and other documented crimes is wholly unlawful. Ignorance is no defence in law.

"For arguments sake let's agree that the UK government is guilty of treason since 1911. Does that make me and millions of other people guilty of a crime for say, not drinking and driving in accordance with statute?".......This is nit picking to be fair bro... It isn't actually a crime to drink and drive but it is a bloody stupid thing to do whether unlawful or not as the chances are you will cause another harm or loss by doing so. It is a crime to stand under Acts and statutes or any administration of law in times of treason yes.....we have a duty to stand under the constitutional law its clearly the case according to Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215. We have 'lawful excuse' to say not pay tax as that is a lesser offence than paying into the coffers of a treasonous regime.

"I would strongly suggest that this is nonsense, though I readily admit that obeying statutes which enable the traitor in their acts of treason, would be criminal.".....yes it is nonsense and not a very good example if I may say so. I concur with the final part of your above point however.

"I think I would probably agree with you that it is a crime not to be in lawful rebellion at this time - if I knew exactly what the definition of lawful rebellion is.".....I had assumed that you were familiar with what lawful rebellion is whilst posting on this thread Dreadlock.....It is your duty to know in fact and, you can easily read what it is that is required of you to be in lawful rebellion under Magna Carta 1215 article 61.

It is the duty of ALL sovereign beings to stand under constitutional law, we have a duty to preserve our right of self governance. Sovereignty - Use it or lose it.

I trust that we wont need to go over and over these points but obviously if you disagree, feel free to do so. Namaste.
bustachemtrails
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:19 pm
Location: Devizes, wiltshire

PreviousNext

Return to Lawful rebellion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests