Sunday, 2024-05-19, 1:15 AM
Welcome Guest | RSS
SpNetwork
Main
Registration
Login
Site menu

Login form

Search

1:29:54 Tim - What do you think of the idea … obviously we want to do this with the SS5 and go for the Cestui Que, what if one was to dabble their toes in the water a little bit by dealing with foreclosures and other bills and such in this fashion? CW - I think that your chance of success is going to be a higher rate than say what we were under debtor-creditor methods. You might not achieve the higher rate that we want to achieve by getting the whole ball of wax, or cutting the head of the snake off altogether. You still got the root in the ground and you still got these problems with the IRS, having yourself as being a debtor in there and if you try to come in say as beneficiary in a court you may have some problems because the records don't match [ in the IMF]. Tim - I see, so there is a lot of groundwork to be laid first. Shifting a bit, you said before that if we had done something wrong here that it would put you back into debtor-creditor, so if one grabs the whole ball of wax, as you just stated, is it possible at that time to do something wrong to put you back into d-c and then what happens, you have to go grab a new card and new trust? CW Let's say you commingled after you got everything straightened around, I don't know what would happen. They may try to come back at you and take the whole thing back. I don't know. Tim - so you've got 10 Social Security cards to basically jump in there and start over again maybe? CW Yeah, you may have to redo the whole process again. Really, the process is not the hard part. Bill - Some are wondering if this is the right avenue to be going down. Is there a way that you could mess this up and cause yourself a big enough problem in the future that you wish you had not done this because you can't undo it. I just heard you say I think you could just grab another SS5 and go get number 3, or 4, or 5 card … 

CW This new trust probably wouldn't have a new Social Security number. Bill - So you've got you new SS5 and done it By Grantor and … CW The some other way that they have set up and probably identifies this new entity as not being in their United States jurisdiction. Bill - So this maybe does cause such a problem shall we say is almost irreversible? CW How are they going to charge me under their Statutes and Codes if I'm not under their Statutes and Codes? I think it comes back down to as functioning as pre-1888 or 1889, to when the United States came into existence. We had common law and you were only responsible for certain things if you hurt somebody. I don't think you could get out of that. You are back under you are your brother's keeper. You are under the 10 commandments. Things are a whole lot simpler. Now you getting back into commerce as far as getting the consumables you need, all the fancy cell phones and telephones, all the cars and things you need. You don't need to dig a hole live in a hole the rest of your life because you got out. I need to have access to those things that I need. That would be through that new LLC based on that interest that I would be buying the consumables that I consume. 

Bill - You had an analogy tonight about Edison - you don't give up just because it didn't work, you just kept going. I'm seeing this as very big and I have to grasp this whole thing and get it right because if I mess it up I'm in trouble, but tonight you've sort of brought my mind around to something different and the idea that I might grab a foreclosure and work that in the court as you've shown that can be done, or some bill that I've assigned over and done in this fashion, and learn this in that way before I go for the SS5 trust. CW Right. You might not have the success rate that you hope for but I think that could be done. Bill - I'm learning. I'm figuring out this is not working and that is not working and I am learning this where before I was saying I didn't want to do anything before I really grasped this. CW I think you can't do any better than everybody else. At least that I would say is probably is guaranteed. Whatever success rate everybody is I think you are going to have at least the same success rate. Bill - With the d-c? CW With the trust until you claim and pull the root out. If anything, at least it's another tool to put in the toolbox, but if it is the sole thing that has been running this whole thing all along and here it was disguised as d-c because it wasn't expressed as a trust to begin with and they construed it to be d-c … again, if it walks and talks like a duck, it is a duck. 

Do you see trusts? I do. How come with the DTC, for example, which means Depository Trust Company, how come we are going in there under d-c? Why are we going there under trusts? How come the IRS, which is Trust 62, how come we are doing d-c with the IRS? Why aren't we doing trusts? It doesn't make sense. Why would we fight something that is trusts coming in with some other kind of law form other than trusts? Trust is equity, pre-1933 equity, or post in-chambers. It makes better sense. The more I study it I see more about trusts that was oh, my gosh, it was there all the time. The other teachers in this have always said, it's all about trusts, and bonds, and insurance, but yet they don't go down the trust path. They go down the d-c rabbit hole. Well, I'm going down the trust rabbit hole. Anybody who wants to follow me is welcomed. I see it as trusts and trust is the way I'm going to treat it, 100%. I've gotten away from d-c. I've successes under d-c, Accept For Value, Discharge. I've done some of that stuff. I just wasn't satisfied how it was turning out. There was no rhyme or reason, it was hit and miss until what I came across that it was just a success here and there that they gave everybody. It was just a ring in the bulls nose leading them down the path that they wanted them to keep them from the true path, which was 180 degrees back the other way, under trusts.

1:38:25 Tim - The WHFIT people, they were doing some calls and pulled in some fellows that had been working in trusts. One guy maybe 30 years setting up trusts for multi-millionaires. Because of what these trust guys were hearing I think they came onboard and are probably working together to create a WHFIT team larger than before. I wonder if you have experienced that sort of thing. Have you garnered the attention of people who have years of experience of working with trusts? Have they come to you and given you an atta-boy and told you that you were on to something and/or have you had fellows like that come your way? CW No, none of these that have said they know everything about it and said, yeah, you are on the right path. I have had people say that though. I don't know whether or not they are operating in trusts. Tim - You are sort of in a different realm of the whole trust thing. CW I think most people are using it as a defense to protect assets from the creditor getting at the debtor's assets. They are using a trust as a protective mechanism. That is not what I'm using trusts for at all. I'm using trusts as an offense. Tim - That would beg the difference I guess. CW Nobody has ever done that before, as far as I know. At least I've never heard of it. 

Danny - I think the guy that was just speaking was referring to people that think they know a lot about statutory trusts and they probably do, but you are the only one that has been expressing the private trust. I've been to quite a few different trust meetings and hearings and that sort of thing. I'm realizing now it was all statutory, not private. CW Right. Anything that is a statutory trust is operating under d-c in the public. It's really the black trust, which is this Gilbert Law Summaries book, but I say that if I show you the black then if you see white you'll know the white when you study it by sight. We are also studying the white under A Practical Treatise on the Law of Trusts by Lewin [downloadable here: http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924018816110 or http://books.google.com/books?id=OeXCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PP9&dq=a+practical+treatise+on+the+law+of+trusts+vol.+I&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false for Vol I and http://books.google.com/books?id=lfHCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA845&dq=a+practical+treatise+on+the+law+of+trusts+vol.+II&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false for Vol. II]. There are some real eye-openers in that, right on the first two pages. And then you tie that in with Select Cases and Other Authorities On The Law on Trusts by Austin Wakeman Scott [downloadable here: http://books.google.com/books?id=dya5AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=law+of+trusts+Scott&lr=&cd=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false] and you've got some case cites to support that right there is that Trustees manual anyway. You tie that in with Scott's on Trusts and you've got some dynamite stuff. Tie those books together. That's the private trust. That's pre-statutory, pre-United States. This Treatise on the Law of Trusts is 1888. This was the first American version and based on the Eighth English Edition from England. We are going to go back into the English version and go back to the Sixth to get you back to say 1776 and see what that compares to in this 1888 version. Here is the confusing thing. They use all these old terminology like feoffement, offment, and feoffee to uses, cestui que to uses. What the heck are these people talking about, we don't use that. That was the trick they are using the hypothecate and get us to pledge voluntarily our assets because they no longer just change the definition of known words that we are using, they've taken the definitions and switched the words. That made us go on a straight path and they made a 90 degree turn and took a parallel [correctly: perpendicular] path with us. They made the switch. I always thought they jumped off the track and formed a parallel [correctly: perpendicular], no, they tricked us to keep on going so we are thing we are onto this law form that we continued on in and they actually made a switch by the definitions and putting new words on it because they were going by the old 1888 version. Just on the first two pages there were some revealing facts on enlightening things. That book is actually the blueprint on how they have been operating all this time. 

1:45:45 Eric - You mentioned something a while ago about case cites, now when we are in the private is there a need to utilize case cites as our law in-camera? CW You ever wonder why maxims didn't work on the public side? It's because maxims are in equity. So, we'll use maxims. One of the maxims is "He who claims trust must prove trust." Eric - Do we need to utilize case cites in the private. CW I don't think so because under trust I'm probably just going to use equity, what is fair and just. Equity is a whole lot simpler. Equity is going to compel you to do what you should have done or to compel you not to do say a breach of trust. Eric - That really does make a lot of sense. Then we don't have to deal with all that case research. CW Right. The 900 lb. gorilla is trusts and equity. Equity is the 900 lb. gorilla. Eric - Gilbert being the statutory, when we are in the public court, if you were to be in a statutory trust, there still isn't any conscience, even though there is a statutory trust, a conscience where they are going to recognize you as the real man because they can't? CW Right. Eric - Are you going to put together a list for people to study for the law on trusts and the treatise on trusts? CW That Treatise on Trusts is so choked full of information but yet you have to use your decoder ring, your Black's Law Dictionary with you, the 1st version of Black's Law, the 1883 version. That's going to get you with the 1888 book and the terms they were using at that time. Have that with you. It is very slow going. 

You have to look up almost every word because even the words that you think you know like in has a totally different meaning. It says here like, "So the lord who was in by escheat, a disseisor, abator, and intruder, were not amenable to the subpoena; for the first claimed by title paramount to the creation of the use; and the three last were seised of a tortious estate, and held adversely to the feoffee to uses." In "the lord was in by escheat" the word in means ”under or based on the law of, that is, to bring an action in contract." At that time we had valid contracts because we had lawful money. He was in by contract, and action in contract by escheat. You have to be careful the words that you presume you understand you almost have to look up the little words and see what they are talking about there. Eric - They sure didn't teach us that back there in 1st grade. CW No, they didn't and they probably didn't want you to even go near there. To me all that is fee, fi, fo, fum feudal times and that is what we are operating under today. Eric - The gentleman that wrote The Declaration of Independence, is that the brain that they are operating from and why that is such a great document to utilize because it is really from that whole frame of private? CW At one time it was public but they put the whole public in trust and now they have formed the private vs. the public. Actually, when 1933 came around your Republic American common law and everything got put into trust. It is still being held in trust but you can still access it through the in-chambers because that is where the substantive rights of the real man still exists. Hardly anybody get in there. Once we merge the titles and terminate the trust now the Republic comes back. 

Eric - Could you talk about when we merge roles, for example, we are obviously always going to qualify our signature from now on with everything we sign as the Grantor and if we get into a situation where we decide to merge … can we be a grantor and a trustee or can we only be a grantor and beneficiary or the only time the trust terminates is when we merge all three or is there a fatal combination that terminates a trust? CW You said three things there and it's a yes to all three things. Yes, you can be grantor and trustee under a certain situation, or you can be grantor and beneficiary under certain situations. Yes, when you merge the title into one entity the trust terminates. Eric - What about trustee and beneficiary if there is one in the same party? Would that terminate it? CW Yes. Eric - So, if you had multiple beneficiaries, one of the beneficiaries could be trustee and beneficiary or would you have to have multiple trustees and one beneficiary or would that terminate the trust if one of the trustees was the beneficiary when you have multiple trustees? CW If you have multiple people you have to take their rights and merge their rights. Are they holding everything equally or are they holding a percentage? If they held equally I think that any single one would be able to merge the title for the rest of them because they all hold equally. If they are all holding each a share then they would all have to come together and merge. 

1:53:00 Eric - I'm looking at the word alienability and then we have the word alien. I was trying to figure out where that might have originated from. Do you have any ideas on that? CW No, my guess is as good as yours on that one. Eric - there are so many people dealing with different situations, whether it be that they don't have any existing court cases or … CW They are really in the best position because they don't have anything pressing on them. They can take the time to study this and get this down so they know it like the back of their hand and they don't have to be under the gun because they have to know it tomorrow. Eric - That would be like the 1st person who would want to use The Declaration of Independence to express and then do the SS5 as Grantor, but what I was wondering is maybe if you could put together a chart from the people that have no issues to the people who have court cases, to maybe people who have mortgages and no foreclosures pending against them, to maybe everybody else who has an action in court as far as the way they may want to take action just to get a chart of how we would to act based on where we are at? CW That is basically what I'm trying to do - put together a model that applies to whatever situation that you've got, because it is all a trust. Trust operates the same way. 

1:55:25 Eric - The reason I brought that up is sometimes people are talking about their mortgage notes and bringing up the SS5 and that's not the right thing to do and maybe they have a court case and talking about the SS5 or no court case… CW Yeah, they are using it because they think they have to bring it back into that Social Security account. No, you don't really have to. You can treat the case solely as a trust. Eric - Maybe you could put together a visual model so everybody can look at and say this is where I am and where I plug in to get an idea of where they are on the tree? CW They need to bring it back to the signature. Where was the signature on the existing trust formed? That's at the signing. Usually at the signing they get your signature by accommodation signature rights under d-c because you fell silent or fell into a dishonor. Or, you are the holder of the instrument because you didn't do a return, a proper way of returning it. They get you under that d-c thing and you are liable under that, but you are not expressing it to be a trust to begin with and that signature is really how it all started. Maybe that OR bond that you signed or that acceptance of that indictment and you are holding that indictment because you never expressed it to be a trust. Therefore, you fell silent and they got it to be construed under d-c and they got you under arrest or your property. 

1:57:30 Eric - When you fail to qualify your signature on a mortgage note and then you do your administrative process and then your declaratory judgment and then your NOI to get into chambers where you can bring your creditors bill in equity, at that point to claim trust and prove trust because you don't have the note that you originally signed and they haven't brought it forward, what is the model you are going to use to claim the proof? Would it be the case you filed against them? CW Most people have some kind of a copy of the note that they signed because they gave you copies. Eric - A copy is just fine? CW Yeah, I'm the one who signed the note. Eric - That's all it takes is a copy to bring it into chambers? I was wondering if you had to have the original in order to claim? CW You are not going to have the original and the closest thing I would get is a certified copy. If I can't get a certified copy then maybe I better protest I didn't get a copy because I was a signer on the note. Eric - I think that answers a lot of questions for a lot of people because I understood the process right up to getting into chambers but then to prove and claim that's what our emphasis is going to be, to get a certified copy. CW I would form a Notice of a Declaration in the county and put that on the UCC and form the two records to prove that I was established that I was the Grantor because I was the signer. If anybody can rebut that they would have to what? Produce another note signed by somebody else. How would that happen if they can't even produce the note? Where is their evidence to rebut my claim? Produce it. Davila v Shalala says unless you produce a record none exists. Eric - Once you claim the proof, once you are in chambers, then I can claim myself as the beneficiary? CW - If I don't get any rebuttals to my claim then my claim stands. Now I have standing as Grantor/Beneficiary and now come in with a prima facie case of the affidavit and now that I make the claim against the Trustee that he didn't make the disbursement the court of equity is going to assume that he is guilty, and he didn't. They are going to treat him that way and ask him, "When are you going to pay?" He doesn't have a record of a payment. Eric - When he didn't make the disbursement he is in breach, right? CW Yes. That could compel him not to breach the trust. Order him to make the payment! [This could be used as an offensive move to prevent a case going to court for breach of trust.]

2:00:25 Eric - You said the affidavit a moment ago … what affidavit were you talking about specifically? CW My affidavit is going to stand as truth of the case and is going to be on the private side, in-chambers. Otherwise, on the public side an affidavit is nothing other than the lowest form of evidence that points to a competent point witness that can be put on the stand and sworn in and cross-examined. Eric - So it is going to be an affidavit of truth? CW An affidavit of truth, yeah, put in on the public side that is going to state that I've got the right to make the claim. But then I could also put in an affidavit on the public side … what do they do? They just make a claim on a foreclosure and they attach somebody's affidavit of assignment. Eric - Did you mean private in one context there and public in the other because you said public twice and I'm a little confused? We were talking about private so you would put the affidavit of truth into the private? CW Right, but it is going to be treated two different ways. Eric - The one in the private … how would you treat it? CW That would be the law of the case. [This is what the judge, in-chambers, will have to rule for your benefit.] The one in the public is just going to be pointing to a fact that there is a witness that needed to be put on the stand, say for example, would be me because I'm making the claim. I'm making the claim as the Beneficiary. That is the lowest form of evidence in their realm, in the public side of the court. It only points to somebody that is supposed to be getting on the stand and testifying and subject to cross-examination. Eric - What would they look at as a higher form of evidence if we have to bring it in on the public side? CW Well, I'm operating colorable on the public side under their rules and regulations, but really I'm operating dually on the private side in-chambers and I have a simultaneous process running, simultaneously. I've got a colorable claim on the public side, which I'm stating that I'm Beneficiary, but that really sets up the in-chambers proceedings where my affidavit over there is going to be in a different realm and a different law weight. 

2:02:50 Eric - Once we get into chambers are the only people that are going to be there is going to be me and the judge or is the attorney for the plaintiff going to be there, too? CW Possibly. It depends on how you can set it up. Eric - For the CCI do I want to even reveal anything to the attorney for the plaintiff? CW Really, the attorney is representing the other party, which privately I should have gave them all the documentation at one time. They should have had it. We could play it like, "They already have the documentation so there is no need for them to be in the hearing. This is for judges eyes only." Maybe they might object and the judge won't allow it that way. That's ok, they already got the information anyway. See, they don't hold any weight in-chambers. They are fictions. Eric - Oh, no conscience, they can't be recognized in-chambers! CW Right! Eric - So no matter what they say the judge can't hear them just like he can't me in open court? CW Yes, the same way in reverse, yes. Just the opposite, the mirror image. That why they couldn't acknowledge the debt when we asked for a Debt Validation. They would be stopping the prescription. [See above definition on page 7 from Black's Law 8th Edition.] Just like in-chambers they can't be heard just like you can't be heard in the public side as a real man. Their fiction in-chambers can't be heard and your live man in public can't be heard. It's the mirror image backwards. Eric - But I can be heard when I go in as the plaintiff because I'm not going in as a real man, I'm going in as a fiction, correct? CW Right, you are going in as a strawman. Eric - Just to make sure everybody has a clear understanding that is how I'm going to go in. When you are talking about going into the public you are talking about going in for causes of action, correct? CW Right, causes of action is agency that they are accustomed to see in their forum or in their process and procedures. Eric - That would the only reason for my going in there is for my causes of action, for example, as we talked about like unfair business practices, anti-trust, etc. CW I would do that just so we can come into chambers on the private side and prove my case. 

2:05:15 Eric - So you are talking about, for example in a non-judicial state where if they filed against me I would have to come in there, not under my causes of action, but I could come in just putting in a NOI to get a protective order just to get -in-chambers in that situation, correct? CW I didn't follow you there. Could you clarify that a little bit again? Eric - What I was saying is that I was thinking that the only reason that I would be in court in the public side is if I, especially as the Beneficiary on the witness stand, is if I had filed a cause of action - if I was the plaintiff that came in. In Florida, for example, where we are obviously it is a judicial state when it comes to foreclosures so I wouldn't even have to file. What I am wondering is if I would even be on the witness stand as the Beneficiary? CW That would be a counterclaim then, say in Florida. Eric - Right. So you what you were talking about is if we were coming in as a plaintiff in a non-judicial State to get it into court then we might be the Beneficiary on the witness stand because we were the plaintiff and we file a cause of action, correct? CW You have to bring in a case, so you have to have some kind of independent action. Eric - In Florida, for example, I wouldn't need to bring in the causes of action so I wouldn't need to be on the witness stand as the Beneficiary, for example? CW You may never get to trial and get on the witness stand. If you are making a prime facie case they may settle before it gets there because all you want to do is get it into chambers. Eric - That's right. As you said before, whatever I've got to do to get in there that's what I've got to do. CW Keep in mind that in-chambers is the same as an in-camera hearing. They are synonymous. 

2:07:15 Tim - You were talking there about foreclosures. I want to pick up some of these that people want to walk away from them. Putting it into a trust I understand is the best way to go. Now I would be the Trustee on that new trust, but there is the matter of the old trust that is being dealt with. CW The old trust would probably be incorporated into the new trust. You are bringing an independent action through this new trust you are forming with a cause of action. It encompasses the old trust because you are going to incorporate it in there and turn it all into trust res and a special deposit. Tim - It's workable then? CW Yeah. 

2:08:15 Eric - If we got away from a fiat currency system and actually went back to a gold currency system … we were to have gold certificates or silver certificates or some type of certificate for an intrinsically backed system, all this would continue to be just as valid because there would still have to be trusts that we could go back and obligate…? CW Yeah, there would still be trusts. Eric - The only way this would be an issue if they would actually hold the intrinsic value directly in our hand, correct? CW Trust does not have to have a value. Eric - What I am getting at is the only way we would not want to utilize all of this is because we would actually hold the gold in our hand because we don't have to trust the piece of paper in our hand is worth something? CW Really, I kind of like the system the way it is if they would allow us to use HJR-192 in the way it supposed to be meant to do. Really, we have the ability to create as much money as we need to get us through any crisis or situation that we could face. Then once that situation is abated then we could relieve the debt, release it, by the release valve by doing the opposite on the other side and bring it down to more manageable levels like it was always meant to function as. The whole problem is they're not allowing us to do that. There are just some greedy people that are not allowing us to seek the remedy and the opposite, the set-off on the other side. The discharge on the public and the set-off on the private, the relief value. Actually, that ledger sheet is nothing more than the House Joint Resolution. You can pump up the public side, the discharge side, as much as you want to get you through any kind of emergency but then you set it off on the other side, bringing the public side back down into a level that you could manage. I hate to get away from that because we have a perfect system, except it is being misused. Eric - I don't disagree with you on everything you just said, but they are talking about, for example, the Federal Reserve may go away so if things were to change as far as the system we are currently in and I don't see that happening. CW They aren't accountable to anybody but themselves. They are not accountable to the people because they are still functioning in the Democracy, but I don't live in a Democracy. I'm supposed to be living in a Republic but I got hypothecated into a Democracy. I'm trying to get out, just like everybody else. Eric - Even if they were to get rid of the Federal Reserve unless we actually carry gold everything that we are talking about in trusts is still going to be valid because we still have to trust that that piece of paper has value, correct? CW Yeah, you have to have faith and confidence in something. 

Eric - There are a lot of people talking about, "What's going to happen if they get rid of the Federal Reserve? Are we even gong to be able to utilize all of this?" CW What they put into trust is by special deposit, in other words, in kind in, in kind out. What did you put in in 1933? Gold! That means that you must get gold back out. If they are trying to give me some gold certificates that is proof that they commingled the funds and they are in breach of trust. Eric - They are really in breach of trust when they sold us gold-plated tungsten. CW OK, yeah well we have to watch out for those. We've got dishonest people, whether they are in government or out of government. Did people buy the tungsten gold and they really hold the real gold in trust for us? Don't know but it won't make any difference to me because we are going to take the remainder from the termination of the strawman and we are going to form that new trust, by an order, and have them put what was supposed to be there back into that new trust. So, it really doesn't make any difference to me whether the absconded with the gold or not. I'm giving them room to save face here. Put it into that new trust we are forming and now generate some interest for me on the public side and put it in that LLC over there. Eric - When you say interest, let's make sure we use that in the right context. When you are saying interest are you talking about if I have $100 and it's 6% interest or are you talking about interest because I actually have a stake in it? CW On the one side it's because I have a stake in it but on the other side it's $50. Eric - So again, the duality of the public and the private, is that what you mean? CW Right, right. Because the $50 they can recognize on the public side but my interest is really on the private, which is the stake I've got. One of those duality portal words but I think really all of these are portalling on both sides with dual meanings. They are playing this game. They are causing havoc. It's the definition of legal fiction that I keep going back to. Eric - Then you read the first page on the document you were talking about with the word 'in' in it, the Practical Treatise on the Law of Trusts, and then most people wouldn't read the first paragraph, much less read the whole book and understand it, so the havoc just continues because there is no true understanding of what is really going on. CW Right, you have to have that decoder ring with you. Here is legal fiction, the last paragraph under Black's Law 8th. 

"Legal fiction is the mask that progress [the strawman] must wear to pass the faithful but blear-eyed watchers of our ancient legal treasures [Our unalienable rights]. But though legal fictions are useful in thus mitigating or absorbing the shock of innovation, they work havoc in the form of intellectual confusion." Morris R. Cohen, Law and the Social Order 126 (1933).

What is intellectually confusing with these duality public/private thing and the switching of the words and stuff? It really wrecks havoc with our intellect. But yet it is the face mask that you must wear to interface in to do commerce because you've got to get those colorable titles that actually are representing the real thing held in the private. You've got to come by way via the public. The only way you are going to interface in there is the private man, the real man, is putting on the face mask of the strawman. Eric - Do you know when that definition of legal fiction actually got put in the Black's Dictionary? CW Yeah, that was actually quoting from an 1819 I think it said. [correctly: 1933] It's actually making reference to the ancient law by … oh this is by Morris R. Cohen, Law and the Social Order 1933. The paragraph above that is by Henry S. Maine Ancient Law 1901. You ought to read that one. Get Ancient Law by Henry S. Maine. You are going to be shocked. [http://books.google.com/books?cd=2&q=Ancient+Law+Henry+S.+Maine&btnG=Search+Books] 
I did a show on that one. It goes back into Roman Law and the Capitus Deminutio. They are diminishing your status under Roman Law by the capitalization of your name. Look that up in Black's Law. [See also this forum entry: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread363550/pg1. Read the comments as well.]
capitis deminutio (kap-i-tis dem-i-n[y]oo-shee-oh). [Latin "reduction of status"] Roman law. A diminution or alteration of a person's legal status. -- Also spelled capitis diminutio. See DE CAPITE MINUTIS.
"Capitis deminutio is the destruction of the 'caput' or legal personality. Capitis deminutio, so to speak, wipes out the former individual and puts a new one in his place, and between the old and the new individual there is, legally speaking, nothing in common. A juristic personality may be thus destroyed in one of three ways: (1) by loss of the status libertatis. This is the capitis deminutio maxima; (2) by loss of the status civitatis. This is the capitis deminutio media (magna); (3) by severance from the agnatic family. This entails capitis deminutio minima." Rudolph Sohm, The Institutes: A Textbook of the History and System of Roman Private Law 178-79 (James Crawford Ledlie trans., 3d ed. 1907).

capitis deminutio maxima (kap-i-tis dem-i-n[y]oo-shee-oh mak-si-m ). [Latin "maximum reduction of status"] Roman law. The diminution of a person's legal status as a result of being reduced to slavery.

capitis deminutio minima (kap-i-tis dem-i-n[y]oo-shee-oh min-i-m ). [Latin "minimal reduction of status"] Roman law. The diminution of a person's legal status involving a change of family, while both citizenship and freedom were retained.

capitis deminutio minor (kap-i-tis dem-i-n[y]oo-shee-oh mI-n r). [Latin "minor reduction of status"] Roman law. The diminution of a person's legal status involving a loss of citizenship but not of freedom. • Under the Empire, banishment for life to an island or other restricted area had this effect. -- Also termed capitis deminutio media.
Cite as: BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 223 (8th ed. 2004) 
It's almost like they publish this stuff in the later editions in Black's so that it's already posted and public knowledge of what they are doing and it's like if you don't read these then it's your downfall because they've given you public notice. It's voluntary ignorance. Eric read from Black's 4th - In Roman Law, a diminishing or abridgment of personality. A loss or curtailment of a man's status or aggregate of legal attributes and qualifications. CW by capitis and capitis is capital. Capitalization and when they capitalized your name they diminished your status. Eric - It says capitis deminutio maxima. The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurs when a man's condition, which changed from one of freedom to one of bondage when he became a slave, which swept away all citizenship and all family rights. CW Right, they are doing that by prescription. You didn't make the claim, therefore you are going to lose the right and you are going to lose the claim. Eric - One of the things that jump out at me there is "all family rights". What do they mean by that? CW look up familia. 
familia (f -mil-ee- ), n. [Latin] Roman law. 1. All persons, free and slave, in the power of a paterfamilias. See PATERFAMILIAS. 2. One's legal relations through and with one's family, including all property, ancestral privileges, and duties.
"The testator conveyed to him outright his whole 'familia,' that is, all the rights he enjoyed over and through the family; his property, his slaves, and all his ancestral privileges, together, on the other hand, with all his duties and obligations." Henry S. Maine, Ancient Law 170 (17th ed. 1901).
3. A family, including household servants.
"Familia.... A family or household, including servants, that is, hired persons (mercenarii or conductitii,) as well as bondsmen, and all who were under the authority of one master, (dominus.) Bracton uses the word in the original sense, as denoting servants or domestics." 1 Alexander M. Burrill, A Law Dictionary and Glossary 603-04 (2d ed. 1867).
Cite as: BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 637 (8th ed. 2004) 
Under Roman Law they have diminished your status and created this legal fiction and everything has really been put in trust because a legal fiction is a trust. It is a constructive trust. Eric - So, when they capitalize your name they are creating a trust and that is really an agenda to take your household, your household servants, your quantity of land, and what's sufficient to maintain your family. CW Yeah, it's the vacuum cleaner that sucks all your assets from you. It says an equitable remedy that the court imposes against one who has obtained property by wrong-doing. That is under constructive trusts in Black's 8th. 
constructive trust. An equitable remedy that a court imposes against one who has obtained property by wrongdoing. • A constructive trust, imposed to prevent unjust enrichment, creates no fiduciary relationship. Despite its name, it is not a trust at all. Cf. resulting trust. -- Also termed implied trust; involuntary trust; trust de son tort; trust ex delicto; trust ex maleficio; remedial trust; trust in invitum. See trustee de son tort under TRUSTEE. Cf. resulting trust. [Cases: Trusts 91-111. C.J.S. Trover and Conversion §§ 10, 12, 174-201.]
"A constructive trust is the formula through which the conscience of equity finds expression. When property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest, equity converts him into a trustee." Beatty v. Guggenheim Exploration Co., 122 N.E. 378, 380 (N.Y. 1919) (Cardozo, J.).

"It is sometimes said that when there are sufficient grounds for imposing a constructive trust, the court 'constructs a trust.' The expression is, of course, absurd. The word 'constructive' is derived from the verb 'construe,' not from the verb 'construct.' ... The court construes the circumstances in the sense that it explains or interprets them; it does not construct them." 5 Austin W. Scott & William F. Fratcher, The Law of Trusts § 462.4 (4th ed. 1987).
Cite as: BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1546 (8th ed. 2004) 
Eric - So for people who want to keep their head in the sand and just continue on and not really pay attention, it's like a truck running you over. CW Really, yeah. There are too many grains of sand and they keep piling the grains of sand, the evidence, up and the next thing you know you have a mountain. For somebody to deny the mountain of sand you have to be a fool, totally brain-dead. Eric - There is no what that I could ever go into that public court again Christian. CW I think that if I know how to operate under the strawman in the public, why would you be afraid to go into court? Eric - Yeah, if you know how to operate. Somebody told me it's like going into a completely dark room, naked, and there is broken glass all over the floor and it's also covered with … CW I liken it to a minefield, but you know in every mine-field there is a safe passage by a secret path. If I know the secret path I don't get blown up. Eric - Just in reading what I just did and why they developed the capital letter name … CW Yeah, for the purpose of them getting you. Eric - Yeah, that is the purpose behind it. There is no other reason. So when I look at my driver's license and I see that on there I feel a whole lot differently now when I look at that. CW The remedy to defeat them is really to agree with them, create no controversy, and then latter on get into a position and change it. 

Calendar
«  May 2024  »
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031

Entries archive

Site friends
  • Create a free website
  • Online Desktop
  • Free Online Games
  • Video Tutorials
  • All HTML Tags
  • Browser Kits

  • Statistics

    Total online: 1
    Guests: 1
    Users: 0


    Copyright SpNetwork © 2024
    Create a free website with uCoz