How bankers get you with a home loan.

Subject: FW: Your House Loan in a Nutshell.


At your convenience, please read the article for an accurate accounting of what a home loan is and how it may differ considerably from your presumptions of the way banking and lending are routinely conducted.  Your realtor and your banker may never be the same after digesting the process that is taken for granted because it's too complicated or too hard to understand.  Here, the attorney's court transcript clearly outlines the fraud, and there is no statute of limitations for fraud!


"Fraud vitiates the most solemn of contracts ab initio"


David
Readers,


It's all in National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly case.  It's still on Internet.  Let me share with you a banking experience that stunned me about six years ago.  I went into Umpqua Bank in Medford, Oregon to cash my compensation check.  It was on a Saturday, very laid back day; and the male teller who usually waited on me recognized me and said that he would help me in a center-of-the-room station.  So, we met there.  I handed him my $1000.00 check to cash and he began writing his part of the transaction.  As he was writing, he was summoned to an emergency phone call.  I told him to take it, I wasn't in a hurry.  Just accommodating those who would serve me without question.  He was gone it seemed like forever.  Only one other busy woman in the bank.  I leaned over the counter just stretching in boredom and happened to see the banking deposit slip he was making out and it said, $60,000.00?  I was stunned in suspicion?  I thought he was going to give me 60K.  Feeling like a bank robber, I just kept my mouth shut when he returned and he finished writing and the slip was out far enough that I saw what he was writing: He then put down $1000.00 withdrawal from the 60K?  He signed it and handed me $1000.00?








So, what happened in essence is this: somewhere there's an account or many accounts up in my name, social security number, corporate USA account, or maybe all of the named and more set up in my name; and Umpqua Bank, for its services, withdrew/deposited 60K in their bank for the transaction and gave me $1000.00 of the transaction? 








Perhaps someone with 'banking' transaction knowledge can share with us and let us know just what took place!  I'm very interested in that!








Thank you,


~Eagleinflight             
Very interesting article.


YOUR HOUSE LOAN IN A NUT SHELL     !!!!!!!!


Banking FRAUD In America ADMITTED IN COURT Date: Tue, 24 Jan     2012 16:15:28 +0000


Banking in America


This is an       actual court transcript - an interview with a banker, who is under oath,       about a foreclosure. The banker was placed on the witness stand and sworn       in. The plaintiff's (borrower's) attorney asked the banker the routine       questions concerning the banker's education and background. Then this       conversation followed:


The attorney asked the banker,       "What is court exhibit A?"


The banker responded by saying,       "This is a promissory note."


The attorney then asked, "Is       there an agreement between Mr. Smith (borrower) and the       defendant?"


The banker said,       "Yes."


The attorney asked, "Do you       believe the agreement includes a lender and a       borrower?"


The banker responded by saying,       "Yes, I am the lender and Mr. Smith is the borrower."


The attorney asked, "What do       you believe the agreement is?"


The banker quickly responded,       saying, " We have the borrower sign the note and we give the borrower a       check."


The attorney asked, "Does this       agreement show the words borrower, lender, loan, interest, credit, or       money within the agreement?"


The banker responded by saying,       "Sure it does."


The attorney asked, `"According       to your knowledge, who was to loan what to whom according to the written       agreement?"


The banker responded by saying,       "The lender loaned the borrower a $50,000 check. The borrower got the       money and the house and has not repaid the money."


The attorney       noted that the banker never said that the bank received the promissory       note as a loan from the borrower to the bank. He asked,       "Do you believe an ordinary person can use ordinary terms and understand       this written agreement?"


The banker said,       "Yes."


The attorney asked, "Do you       believe you or your company legally own the promissory note and have the       right to enforce payment from the borrower?"


The banker said, "Absolutely we       own it and legally have the right to collect the       money."


The attorney asked, "Does the       $50,000 note have actual cash value of $50,000? Actual cash value means       the promissory note can be sold for $50,000 cash in the ordinary course of       business."


The banker said,       "Yes."


The attorney asked, "According       to your understanding of the alleged agreement, how much actual cash value       must the bank loan to the borrower in order for the bank to legally       fulfill the agreement and legally own the promissory       note?"


The banker said,       "$50,000."


The attorney asked, "According       to your belief, if the borrower signs the promissory note and the bank       refuses to loan the borrower $50,000 actual cash value, would the bank or       borrower own the promissory note?"


The banker said,       "The borrower would own it if the bank did not loan the       money. The bank gave the borrower a check and that is how       the borrower financed the purchase of the house."


The attorney asked, "Do you       believe that the borrower agreed to provide       the bank with $50,000 of actual cash value which was used to fund the       $50,000 bank loan check back to the same borrower, and then agreed to pay       the bank back $50,000 plus interest?"


The banker said,       "No. If the borrower provided the $50,000 to fund the check,       there was no money loaned by the bank so the bank could not charge       interest on money it never loaned."


The attorney asked, "If this       happened, in your opinion would the bank legally own the promissory note       and be able to force Mr. Smith to pay the bank interest and principal       payments?"


The banker said, "I am not a       lawyer so I cannot answer legal questions."

The attorney asked, "Is it bank policy that when a borrower       receives a $50,000 bank loan, the bank receives $50,000 actual cash value       from the borrower, that this gives value to a $50,000 bank loan check, and       this check is returned to the borrower as a bank loan which the borrower       must repay?"


The banker said, "I do not know       the bookkeeping entries." 


The attorney said, "I am asking       you if this is the policy."


The banker responded, "I do not       recall."


The attorneyagain asked, "Do you       believe the agreement between Mr. Smith and the bank is that Mr. Smith       provides the bank with actual cash value of $50,000 which is used to fund       a $50,000 bank loan check back to himself which he is then required to       repay plus interest back to the same       bank?"


The banker said, " I am not a       lawyer."


The attorney said, "Did you not       say earlier that an ordinary person can use ordinary terms and understand       this written agreement?"


The banker said,       "Yes."


The attorney handed the bank       loan agreement marked "Exhibit B" to the banker. He said, "Is there       anything in this agreement showing the borrower had knowledge or showing       where the borrower gave the bank authorization or permission for the bank       to receive $50,000 actual cash value from him and to use this to fund the       $50,000 bank loan check which obligates him to give the bank back $50,000       plus interest?"


The banker said,       "No."


The lawyer asked, "If the borrower provided the bank with actual       cash value of $50,000 which the bank used to fund the $50,000 check and       returned the check back to the alleged borrower as a bank loan check, in       your opinion, did the bank loan $50,000 to the       borrower?"


The banker said,       "No."


The attorney asked, "If a bank customer provides actual cash value       of $50,000 to the bank and the bank returns $50,000 actual cash value back       to the same customer, is this a swap or exchange of $50,000 for       $50,000."


The banker replied,       "Yes."


The attorney asked, "Did the       agreement call for an exchange of $50,000 swapped for $50,000, or did it       call for a $50,000 loan?"


The banker said, "A $50,000       loan."


The attorney asked, "Is the       bank to follow the Federal Reserve Bank policies and procedures when banks       grant loans."


The banker said,       "Yes."


The attorney asked, "What are       the standard bank bookkeeping entries for granting loans according to the       Federal Reserve Bank policies and procedures?" The attorney handed the       banker FED publicationModern Money Mechanics, marked "Exhibit       C".


The banker said, "The promissory note is       recorded as a bank asset and a new matching deposit (liability) is       created. Then we issue a check from the new deposit back to the       borrower."


The attorney asked, "Is this       not a swap or exchange of $50,000 for $50,000?"


The banker said, "This is the       standard way to do it."


The attorney said, "Answer the question. Is it a swap or exchange       of $50,000 actual cash value for $50,000 actual cash value? If the note       funded the check, must they not both have equal       value?"


The banker then pleaded the Fifth       Amendment.


The attorney asked, "If the       bank's deposits (liabilities) increase, do the bank's assets increase by       an asset that has actual cash value?"


The banker said,       "Yes."


The attorney asked, "Is there       any exception?"


The banker said, "Not that I       know of."


The attorney asked, "If the       bank records a new deposit and records an asset on the bank's books having       actual cash value, would the actual cash value always come from a customer       of the bank or an investor or a lender to the bank?"


The banker thought for a moment       and said, "Yes."


The attorney asked, "Is it the       bank policy to record the promissory note as a bank asset offset by a new       liability?"


The banker said,       "Yes."


The attorney said, "Does the       promissory note have actual cash value equal to the amount of the bank       loan check?"


The banker said       "Yes."


The attorney asked, "Does this bookkeeping       entry prove that the borrower provided actual cash value to fund the bank       loan check?"


The banker said, "Yes, the bank president told us to do       it this way." 


The attorney asked, "How much       actual cash value did the bank       loan to obtain the promissory       note?"


The banker said,       "Nothing."


The attorney asked, "How much actual cash value did the bank receive       from the borrower?"


The banker said,       "$50,000."


The attorney said, "Is it true       you received $50,000 actual cash value from the borrower, plus monthly       payments and then you foreclosed and never invested one cent of legal tender or       other depositors' money to obtain the promissory note in the first       place? Is it true that the borrower financed the       whole transaction?"


The banker said,       "Yes."


The attorney asked, "Are you       telling me the borrower agreed to give the bank $50,000 actual cash value       for free and that the banker returned the actual cash value back to the       same person as a bank loan?"


The banker said, "I was not       there when the borrower agreed to the loan."


The attorney asked, "Do the standard FED publications show the       bank receives actual cash value from the borrower for free and that the       bank returns it back to the borrower as a bank       loan?"


The banker said,       "Yes."


The attorney said, "Do you       believe the bank does this without the borrower's knowledge or written       permission or authorization?" 


The banker said,       "No."


The attorney asked, "To the       best of your knowledge, is there written       permission or authorization for the bank to transfer $50,000 of actual       cash value from the borrower to the bank and for the bank to keep it for       free?


The banker said,       "No."


"Does the creation of the new       note payable (now a bank asset) allow the bank to use this $50,000 actual       cash value to fund the $50,000 bank loan check back to the same borrower,       forcing the borrower to pay the bank $50,000 plus interest?       "


The banker said,       "Yes."


The attorney said, "If the bank       transferred $50,000 actual cash value (i.e. Federal Reserve Notes Payable)       from the borrower to the bank, in this part of the transaction, did the       bank loan anything of value to the borrower?"


The banker said, "No." He knew       that one must first deposit something having actual cash value (cash,       check, or promissory note) to fund a check.


The attorney asked, "Is it the bank policy to first transfer the       actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the lender for the amount       of the alleged loan?"


The banker said,       "Yes."


The       attorney asked, "Does the bank pay IRS tax on the actual cash value       transferred from the alleged borrower to the       bank?"


The banker answered, "No, because the       actual cash value transferred shows up like a loan from the borrower to       the bank, or a deposit which is the same thing, so it is not       taxable."


The attorney asked, "If a loan       is forgiven, is it taxable?"


The banker agreed by saying,       "Yes."


The       attorney asked, "Is it the bank policy to not return the actual cash value       that they received from the alleged borrower unless it is returned as a       loan from the bank to the alleged       borrower?"


"Yes", the banker replied.       


The attorney said, "You never       pay taxes on the actual cash value you receive from the alleged borrower       and keep as the bank's property?"


"No. No tax is paid." said the       crying banker.


The attorney asked, "When the       lender receives the actual cash value (the promissory note) from the       alleged borrower, does the bank claim that it then owns it and that it is       the property of the lender, without the bank loaning or risking one cent       of legal tender or other depositors' money?"


The banker said,       "Yes."


The attorney asked, "Are you       telling me the bank policy is that the bank owns the promissory note       (actual cash value) without loaning one cent of other depositors' money or       legal tender, that the alleged borrower is the one who provided the funds       deposited to fund the bank loan check, and that the bank gets funds from       the alleged borrower for free? Is the money then returned back to the same       person as a loan which the alleged borrower repays when the bank never gave up any money to       obtain the promissory note? Am I hearing this       right? I give you the equivalent of $50,000, you return the funds back to       me, and I have to repay you $50,000 plus       interest? Do you think I am       stupid?"


In a       shaking voice the banker cried, saying, "All the banks are doing this.       Congress allows this."


The attorney quickly responded,       "Does Congress allow the banks to breach written agreements, use false and       misleading advertising, act without written permission, authorization, and       without the alleged borrower's knowledge to transfer actual cash value       from the alleged borrower to the bank and then return it back as a       loan?"


The banker said, "But the       borrower got a check and the house."


The attorney said, "Is it true or false that the actual cash value       that was used to fund the bank loan check came directly from the borrower       and that the bank received the funds from the alleged borrower for       free?"


"It is true", said the       banker.


The attorney asked, "Is it the       bank's policy to transfer actual cash value from the alleged borrower to       the bank and then to keep the funds as the bank's property, which they       loan out as bank loans?"


The banker, showing tears of       regret that he had been caught, confessed, "Yes."


The attorney asked, "Was it the       bank's intent to receive actual cash value from the borrower and return       the value of the funds back to the borrower as a loan?"


The banker said, "Yes." He knew       he had to say yes because of the bank policy.


The attorney asked, "Do you       believe that it was the borrower's intent to fund his own bank loan       check?"


The banker answered, "I was not       there at the time and I cannot know what went through the borrower's       mind."


The attorney asked, "If a       lender loaned a borrower $10,000 and the borrower refused to repay the       money, do you believe the lender is damaged?"


The banker thought. If he said       no, it would imply that the borrower does not have to repay. If he said       yes, it would imply that the borrower is damaged for the loan to the bank       of which the bank never repaid. The banker answered, "If a loan is not       repaid, the lender is damaged."


The attorney asked, "Is it the       bank policy to take actual cash value from the borrower, use it to fund       the bank loan check, and never return the actual cash value to the       borrower?"


The banker said, "The bank       returns the funds."


The attorney asked, "Was the       actual cash value the bank received from the alleged borrower returned as       a return of the money the bank took or was it returned as a bank loan to       the borrower?"


The banker said, "As a       loan."


The attorney asked, "How did       the bank get the borrower's money for free?"


The banker said, "That is how       it works."Regards,


Bollingbrooke Institute


Website http://www.bollingbrookeinstitute.org
Email:       info@bollingbrookeinstitute.org

FIGHTING CREDIT CARD COMPANIES

MOTION TO DISMISS DUE TO LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION




AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT



Plaintiff is a company that claims to represent another company owned by another



Company. Plaintiffs obviously do not have exclusive right –jurisdiction to collect money



otherwise the DEFENDANT would not be receiving collection notices from other companies.



(Exhibit 1. Collection notice from: ( insert name of company.)



STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF SCOTT, MONTGOMERY vs. JEROME DAILY:



“…The money was not the property of the bank but was created out of nothing.” “…No United States law or statute exists which gave them the right to do this.” “A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to do this.” Chase Bank/Visa in combination with the Federal Reserve did create money or credit upon its books by bookkeeping entry. The money was not the property of Chase Bank/Visa, but was created out of nothing. Only God can create something out of nothing.



Every time you borrow money, take a mortgage on your house or use a credit card, the money given to you is not only counterfeit, it is an illegitimate form of consideration that voids the contract to repay because the bank never had the money as property to begin with. In addition, they charge you interest.



(EXHIBITS 2. THE CREDIT RIVER DECISION, EXHIBIT 3. FEDERAL REESERVE NOTES DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.) In 1913 we got the Federal Reserve and the game of perpetual debt continues…

MEMORANDUM CONTAINING THE ADDRESS OF HUMAN LIFE BONDS



February 2011 the federal government raised the value of human life from $6.8 million to



$9.1 million thereby increasing the debt bonds placed on the heads of American Citizens to



offset the impending inflation of the currency. ---- (EXHIBIT (3) pages 1-6).





Originally, the Constitution limited the jurisdiction of the federal government by making citizens of the state in which they were born or resided. According to the Constitution, the federal government could only have jurisdiction on a person if they lived in Washington DC or a US territory.

The Federalists who took control of our government after the Civil War, instituted the 14th Amendment to "protect" the former slaves. This amendment allowed the former slaves to come under the Jurisdiction of the Federal Government in order that the Federal Government could protect their Constitutional rights. Many blacks were being abused by people and the local or state governments would not come to their aid. The 14th Amendment may have freed the slaves from oppression of their neighbors, but it gave them and us a new master, the Federal Government.

The 14th Amendment makes us citizens of the United States AND of the several states. This allows the Federal Government to have jurisdiction over us that it never had before the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment also states (the last section) that the debt of the Federal government cannot even be questioned.

Most people have received their United States citizenship when they received their Social Security Card. With the Social Security Card came income taxes. I am not going to go into how we have been put under Statutory (Admiralty) Law; I will simply state that we are under it. We all know this because we need a license (permission to break the law) or permit to do things. A free citizen doesn't require a license or a permit. Why would a free person require permission from the government to get married, drive a car, start a business, to add onto his/her home or improve his/her property?

Please show me in the US Constitution or your state constitution where a government has the right to demand such obedience? If anyone is arrogant enough to try to use the US Constitution to show such things, please align your argument with the 10th Amendment. How did we get in such a mess, but more importantly, how do we get out of such a mess?

The Congress in session during the time the 14th Amendment was declared law provided people with a way to get out from under these provisions. It is called an apostille. An apostille allows you to deny or renounce your United States citizenship and receive diplomatic immunity. For total freedom, you also must file a UCC-1 lien against your strawman and a denial of corporate existence against the incorporated local and state governments

Have you ever noticed that your driver's license, bank statement, and any bill that you receive is in all capital letters? This is not by accident; there is a legal reason for this.

DID YOU EVER WONDER WHY THE GOVERNMENT OR THE STATE CAN TAKE YOUR HOUSE, PROPERTY, CARS, BANK ACCOUNTS, CHILDREN ETC.?

DO YOU THINK YOU OWN EVERYTHING YOU WORKED SO HARD FOR THROUGHOUT YOUR LIFE?

DO YOU THINK YOU ARE TRULY FREE AS GOD INTENDED IT TO BE SO? OR ARE YOU A SLAVE?

ARE YOU A SUBJECT AND PAYING DUTY TO THE CROWN OF ENGLAND THROUGH THE TAX SYSTEM?

WHAT IS YOUR REAL NAME? IS IT JOHN HENRY DOE, IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS OR IS IT, John Henry Doe, IN UPPER AND LOWER CASE LETTERS?

When the simple truth about banking is revealed, we’ll see that the economic effect of their stealing and counterfeiting has meant that wives must work for the family to survive. If the banking problem is corrected wives will have the option to stop working while keeping the same standard of living or working and doubling the family’s wealth. If enough of us leaned about the fraudulent banking system our loans could be forgiven or discharged, the government’s budget balanced, and the personal IRS/CRA tax cut to zero with no other taxes. If the banks paid their debt, we could all be out of debt.

The amount of credit the feds earned from investing in securities the credit borrowed from us via the registration of our births has pre-paid everything you might ever want or need. We are the creditors, and the federal mafia is the debtor. They owe us interest for using our credit, yet, since they (the public) are bankrupt, there is no ‘substance money’ so we, as creditors, will have

ASSUME THE FOLLOWING: to get paid by taking equity, in the form of our houses and cars, as the ‘set-off’ – the balancing of the account. They owe us interest on our credit which they are using to pay for the manufacturing of all the goods and services we are buying. We have already paid for the product before we buy it. We are still the principals of the securities because said investment was never disclosed to us. The feds are hoping we won’t request the profits of our investments, however, if and when we do, it is substantial enough that we would never have to work again. We could never spend it all.

The government floated a bond against our future earnings by using our birth registrations as the collateral for our ‘promise to pay’ the interest on the loan YOU lent THEM. When we access our Direct Treasury Accounts, those held at the BC/FRB under our SINs/SSNs, we will no longer ‘have to work. Meanwhile we will continue to:

1. Slave-labor for entities which do not exist except for the purpose of profit.

2. Do something other than what we were design, nor believe that there was an authority outside ourselves.

3. Believe that we (extensions of our creator) are worthless enough to have to pay for our existence.

Our life’s labor and everything we’ve created have become the legal, commercial collateral of the bankrupt USA/CA Inc. The feds give us back from our labors just enough to keep us convinced that we are actually earning enough of a living to buy what we want, when what is true is that most of us cannot afford what we think we want, and even if we truly did want what we think we want, it is already pre-paid. (Exhibit 2. Your debt was paid.)

So, not only are we not supposed to be working for anyone (banksters) or anything (corporations) other than for each other and for our own enjoyment but also we have enough credit to buy anything we want or need: we have just been, so far, prevented from accessing it. Since that is what ALL currency is today – our credit - it ought to be easy to realize that we can use our OWN credit – credit from our exemption, not credit which only creates more debt.

Think what would happen to the banksters if we all suddenly had everything we wanted. They would loose their control over us. We wouldn’t need to work, nor worry about ‘paying the bills’, nor believe that there was any authority outside ourselves. (We are the extensions of, not separate from, our Creator.) It is our concern and worried over ‘money’ which allow them control over us. How could the powers-that-be – those who are running the world in what seems to be about as disastrous a manner as can be- continue to so what they want to do, e. g.: WAR? There would be no more slave-labor. We would all be working at something that is way more fun. It is said that if se all ‘worked’ at doing what we wanted, all necessary jobs would get done. The remainder, the manufacturer of WMD, for example, would either cease to get done or the powers that be would have to do it themselves. What a concept?

If you want to make someone angry, tell him a lie; if you want to make him furious, tell him the truth. So, At the risk of infuriating you, everything you ever purchased from every corporation was already paid for. All you had to do was go and claim it, sign for it, and take it home; and this includes your home – it too was prepaid. You never had to work a day in your life to ‘pay for anything. All these years you could have been playing and doing what you love to do. We were conned into getting a good education so we could get a good job; all based upon the presumption that this is what we wanted. Would you work as hard as you do it you knew that nothing, which you think you own, belongs to you?

Most people in the world are wholly dependent upon ‘The System’ and cannot function without it. This system forces them to live in a debt cycle which never ends. The system perpetrates an addiction to materialism for the purpose of producing interest which is created from debt. Since debt does not really exist, then neither does interest, hence, the national debt is a hoax perpetrated by the PTB.

The biggest con game in the world have ever known was perpetrate by those who control education, law, media, churches, banks and medicine. They played upon our innate belief that we are unworthy, not to trust our intuition, that we must depend on the authorities, that any punishment we sustain is justified and deserved, that we must earn our right to life, that we have no self-generating power, that what is outside our minds is real. They have confiscated our health, wealth, love, and peace of mind under this ruse. This scam is known as The Matrix.

The United States is bankrupt and has been since 1933. The government has no gold or silver as required by the Constitution. The only asset left is the people. So how does the U.S. finance its daily operations?

Solution, collateralize the people for credit. How? By registering them in international commerce, and selling bonds on them. The people become the surety on the bonds, or the "pledge". The asset bonded (surety) is the labor of the people which is payable as some undetermined future date. Thus, the people become the "utility" for the "transmission" of energy. Result, a very sophisticated form of peonage or slavery and the Constitution does not apply because the government, on all levels, is thrown into international commerce, the law merchant, now known as the Uniform Commercial Code. [See Public Law 88-244 in which the U.S. Subscribed to private international law. See definition of "goods" under the Uniform Commercial Code; Section 2-105(1) and 9-105(1) in which animals, i.e. humans and their unborn offspring, become "goods" sellable in commerce!

When a baby is born in the United States, a birth certificate is registered with the Bureau of Vital Statistics in the State of birth. The key word here is "registered" as registered in international commerce. The baby becomes the surety, whose energy is due at some future date. When the birth certificate is registered in the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Department of Treasury issues a bond on the birth certificate ($1,000,000) and the bond is sold at some securities exchange and perhaps bought by the Federal Reserve Bank, which then uses it as collateral in order to issue Federal Reserve Notes or some other form of "debt obligation" (see 18 USC §411). The bond is then held in trust for the Federal Reserve at the Depository Trust Corp. At 55 Water Street, in New York City, about two blocks down the street from the Fed. It is a high rise office building and the sign out front reads "The Tower of Power".

When the birth certificate is registered, a separate legal entity is created, like a mirror image of the flesh and blood human. This separate entity, or alter ego (THE ALL CAPITAL LETTER NAME) is the "straw man". (See Black's Law 6th edition dictionary). And it is the "accommodation party" of the Uniform commercial Code §3-415. The "name" is credit. (See Back's 6th "accommodation party"). Therefore the right (or the use) has been separated from the title (or deed). The "straw man" holds the title (he belongs to the government's client who bought the title) and the real live you, flesh and blood man or women has only naked possession with the limited "right" to use the thing (like your body or your alleged possessions and land). Maybe that's why our civil rights suits get dismissed out of court on Civil Rule 12(b)(6) motions. This deals with "failure to state a title upon which relief can be granted". A claim is another word for "title". So we have "failed to state upon which relief can be granted". We do not own the "title", even to our own bodies anymore. Isn't that encouraging! How free are you now?

When the straw man violates some rule or statue (for instance a traffic ticket), the flesh and blood, the real you has to appear at the arraignment and admit the straw man's name (credit) and the "energy" surety is due and payable (fine) by the flesh and blood man who is in use of the straw man. This, I'm sure, is why it is so important to "voluntarily give" your name to the magistrate (court). The defendant is the straw man. The real you, the flesh and blood man is the "offender". An "offender" is on the offensive team until he screws up and goes on the defensive team with the defendant (straw man) and looses as the real man.

So if this scenario is correct, how does one get back the bond that has been sold on the birth certificate. And then how does one get in control of his body and his property?

TITLE = RIGHT = REMEDY = RELIEF can only be granted after perfecting the "security interest" in the "goods" (The collateral = pignus = the straw man

DEFINITIONS & MEANINGS

Stramineus homo /straminiyas howmow/. L. Lat. A man of straw, one of no substance, put Forward as bail surety.

Stratocracy /stseokraisiy/. A military government; government by military chiefs of an army.

Straw man or party. A "front", a third party who is put up in name only to take part in a transaction. Nominal party to a transaction; one who acts as an agent for another for the purpose of taking title to real property and executing whatever documents and instruments the principal may direct respecting the property. Person who purchases property for another to conceal identity of real purchaser, or to accomplish some purpose otherwise not allowed.

At birth your parents and the doctor become the pledger of the birth certificate title to the baby Johnny. The State become the recipient of this pledge for the future energy output of "Johnny". The state converts the "title security document" into a bond which is sold on the open market place to finance government. The bond holder is the secured party to receive the future energy output of Johnny. Johnny is the mere naked holder and possessor of the body with no title. His duty is to the secured party.

The definition of the straw man now becomes apparent. The straw man is nom de guerre artificial entity put forth that is owned by the secured party who bought into the bond placed on the market by the Treasury of the United States. The straw man is not yours. It is the front man for the secured party holder of the bond. Whatever the straw man signs, he does so to place title to property in the hands of the UNITED STATES and the bond owner. The straw man does not place title to the property into Johnny's hands. That is because Johnny does not have title to the straw man. The straw man belongs to the UNITED STATES and the bond owner.

In order to get one's liberty and independence back, one must first secure the title and ownership of the straw man back. Once one controls the straw man, then one controls the rights of the property that the straw man acquires.

The key to ownership is registration. In a military government, registered property is recognized By the "public" side. If the property is registered on the public side of the government, then the property is public. If the property is registered on the private side, then the property is private with no public interest.

The military government (democracy) has three appointed leaders. The governor, the Secretary Of State, and the Secretary of Treasury. The Secretary of State holds the registration for the Democracy corporation. The public side of the registration is the "corporate filings" at the state And county levels. The private side of the filings are the "Uniform Commercial Code filings" of the creditors to transactions. This registration by the private creditor is the highest priority of recognition by the military State (democracy). If one is not registered, then one is believed to be "foreign" with no rights, private or public, except what is granted by the military law form As a privilege.



For one to regain title to his body, the Birth Certificate must be secured and attached and recorded in the private UCC-1 filings with the Secretary of State in the democracy. Once the living soul has redeemed his Birth Certificate and filed notice of the redemption by a UCC-1 filing with the Secretary of State, then the living soul has the right of property ownership in himself through his straw man who now belongs to the living soul. Furthermore, the bond created and sold in the market place for the straw man now becomes the property of the living soul. The living soul now has the capacity to own real property by allodium and to own private chattel property by the process of the passover, redemption, chargeback, and discharge of public debt.

What's in a name? Very simple. A name is CREDIT. For any unauthorized person to use your Name or the straw man's name (when they do not own the title to the straw man) is to violate the laws of "slander of credit". Once you have redeemed the straw man and own him, then any further commercial process done by any person (like an attorney, a judge, or law enforcement office without your consent) is slander of credit against your straw man. This is a federal criminal securities violation that means prison for them.

Until you redeem your straw man and register his title to you, the living soul, then your straw man becomes the source of the credit for the UNITED STATES to the public affairs of the nation through the "pledge" or gift of your property) your body and energy) to them for their use.

The Birth Certificate can be treated as a 'negotiable instrument' by the signature upon it and can be "accepted as value". From "Signature Without Liability Primer" [PDF] by Michael H. Keehn...

In short, a government issued birth certificate is issued with consent of one parent at the time of birth. The birth certificate is sent to a government agency, generally the Bureau of Vital Statistics. Here, another ‘birth certificate’ is issued, this one spelling the name of the baby in all capital letters, creating a fictional entity (strawman or trade name). If the name on the birth certificate were to represent the baby as a natural individual, it would be spelled with the appropriate upper and lower case lettering. For example, John Quincy Adams, not JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. The all capitals spelling of the name creates a corporate fiction (a strawman, a trade name), which the government can regulate and control.

With the issuance of a birth certificate on this fictional character, this strawman or trade name is placed into international commerce. The government issues a bond on the birth certificate in the amount of $630,000 (today’s value), and the bond is sold on a securities exchange. It is always purchased by the same corporation, the Federal Reserve Bank. Through some trickery and deception, the baby becomes the surety which guarantees the payback of the bond. The trick is to get the baby to volunteer to pay... all of his (or her) life. And that is what the following essay is about... how to avoid becoming liable for a fictional strawman or trade name that was a creation of government for the purpose defrauding the individual (the baby).

To be more specific, a second "negotiable instrument" is drawn on the value of the first that is held by the state, which is then bought and so "accepted for value" and then held by the Depository Trust Corporation. (Also see "Who Is Running America?".)

Negotiable Instruments include 'Promissory Notes', 'Bills of Exchange', 'Letters of credit', 'Bills of lading', 'Securities' (such as stocks and bonds) as in the "security of the person", 'Deeds' and 'IOUs'.

It goes on...

With the issuance of a birth certificate on this fictional character, this strawman or trade name is placed into international commerce. The government issues a bond on the birth certificate in the amount of $630,000 (today’s value), and the bond is sold on a securities exchange. It is always purchased by the same corporation, the Federal Reserve Bank. Through some trickery and deception, the baby becomes the surety which guarantees the payback of the bond. The trick is to get the baby to volunteer to pay... all of his (or her) life. And that is what the following essay is about... how to avoid becoming liable for a fictional strawman or trade name that was a creation of government for the purpose defrauding the individual (the baby).

A little more detailed information...

When a child is born, the hospital generally sends the original, not a copy, of this record of live birth to the State Bureau of Vital Statistics, sometimes called the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). Each STATE is required to supply the corporate UNITED STATES with birth, death, and health statistics. The STATE agency that receives the original record of live birth keeps it and then issues another Birth Certificate in a different form where the name of the baby is spelled in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. This creates a ‘legal person’ as opposed to a natural individual.

The Birth Certificate issued by the State is then registered with the U.S. Department of Commerce - - the Executive Office - specifically through their own sub-agency, the U.S. Census Bureau, which is responsible to register vital statistics from all the states. Thus, the birth certificate is registered in international commerce. The word registered, as it is used in commercial law, does not mean that the ALL CAPITAL version of the name was "merely" noted or recorded in a book for future reference purposes. When a birth certificate is registered with the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Treasury will issue a bond on the value of the birth certification. That bond is then made available for purchase on a securities exchange and is bought by the Federal Reserve Bank. This purchase then become the authority or collateral to issue Federal Reserve Notes, which we use as a medium of exchange.

The value of the bond in today’s world is $630,000. The bond is then held in trust for the Federal Reserve at the Depository Trust Corporation at 55 Water Street in New York City, about two blocks down the street from the Federal Reserve. It is a high-rise office building and the sign in front reads: “The Tower of Power.”

This process creates a burden in that the ALL-CAPITAL legal person named on the birth certificate has become a surety, or guarantor, a condition and obligation that is automatically and unwittingly assumed unless you rebut the presumption by effectively noticing government.

“Guarantor. Person who becomes secondarily liable for another’s debt or performance... One who promises to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another.” - Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

From this it is easy to conclude that the baby is to assume the liability for any burden created or associated with the strawman or trade name listed on the birth certificate.

STRAWMAN, (INSERT NAME HERE), THE PARAMOUNT INTEREST IN THIS PROCESURE WISHES TO SET OFF, SETTLE AND DISCHARGE FROM HIS BOND ACCOUNT NUMBER: (INSERT YOUR SOCIAL SEVURITY NUMBER HERE WITH NO DASHES BETWEEN NUMBERS) PROVIDING THAT YOU SUBMIT A ORIGINAL CHARGING OR ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT. SHOULD THE ONE WHO FUNDED THE LOAN BE REPAID THE MONEY?

“…a great part of what is called Government is mere imposition.”

“All the great laws of society are laws of nature. Those of trade and commerce, whether with respect to the intercourse of individuals or of nations, are laws of mutual and reciprocal interests. They are followed and obeyed because it is the interest of the parties so to do, and not on account of any formal laws their Governments may impose or interpose.”

“But how often is the natural propensity to society disturbed or destroyed by the operations of Government? When the latter instead of being engrafted on the principals of the former, presumes to exist for itself; and acts by partialities of favor and oppression, it becomes the cause of the mischief it ought to prevent.” -- from: COMMON SENSE RIGHTS OF MAN by Thomas Paine 1737 – 1809

(EXHIBITS: (4) FAKE BANKING CRISES 2 PAGES, (5) AUDIT OF FEDERAL RESERVE 2 PAGES, (6) CANONS OF POSITIVE LAW 5 PAGES, (7) YOUR MORTGAGE DEBT WAS PAID 5 PAGES.



ALL RIGHTS RESERVED TO AMEND WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT

Submitted this _______ day of _________________, 2011 ______________________FOR STRAWMAN

WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207 STRAWMAN, ( INSERT NAME)