Make your own free website on Tripod.com
 
Forum
« November 2004 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Constitutional Questions
Enfranchisement Scheme
Martial Law
Queen's Law Abolished
War Measures Scheme
Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
View Profile
Open Community
Post to this Blog
Friday, 19 November 2004

Topic: Enfranchisement Scheme
Test Test

Posted by signatoryindian at 9:03 AM MST
Post Comment | View Comments (4) | Permalink

Monday, 21 March 2005 - 3:32 PM MST

Name: Scott

Greetings,
People call me Scott.
I am of european descent but I too have a great interest in this subject, so no disrespect is meant by these comments. I only seek to share and receive information about sovereignty, which is lost/clouded through the 'franchise scheme' and by joining the commercial world.

The body of this e-mail was taken from one sent to a friend and added to after I found this site relating to this very important issue, so I thought I would share what has been on my mind.

Most natives are under certain contracts with government that subject them to the statutes as the human representative for their PERSON. When natives contract with CANADA and accept benefits, they join the 'country club' so they have to abide by the rule. They forget about their standing as a Beneficiary and they only assume the role of a trustee. Those contracts make people forget about their Human Rights and to only accept their PERSON'S Civil Rights for taking part in the 'country club' and having limited liability through their PERSON/corporation. Then the Constitution does not apply to PERSONS so most people are with Alice, in Wonderland.

Were you born in a Hospital?
If so, most likely your mother signed a contract which pledged title by registration of your body to the state/province. How sneaky! They use a Bill of Lading which describes the content of what is being shipped/birthed into commerce, i.e. Brown Eyes, 7 lbs. 8 oz. That is why Child Wellfare can take children away. The mother signed away title, so the government became the trustee. Then the government creates a PERSON so an accounting of all the kids commercial activity can be tracked.
It's the same with all other things the government deems to be their property. Have you ever registered an automobile so it became a vehicle? If so, that is why they can tell you how and how not to operate it. They have title to the vehicle. Did you get a driver's license? If you had to ask permission to do something, obviously you are coming in on a subservient level. That is because they only give licenses to PERSONS created by government that belong to the counrty club/wonderland and not to wo/men living in the real world. So the driver's license is actually made out to the PERSON but everyone thinks it them on the driver's license so they make themselves liable rather than realizing that the name on the Driver's License isn't even theirs. Do you have a Driver's License with your name on it? No! They probably put your family name first in UPPER case letters. Is that you on the license? No! It's your reflection. Your person-a is the only thing that show up in the public eye. The government only deals with what is on the surface or on paper which is your PERSON, but you assume the role as the trustee for the PERSON rather than stating a superior claim as a living being which is above the government because it took people to create the government.

I believe the natives do not have to lose their sovereignty, even if they contract into commerce and become accountable for a PERSON, because title to the PERSON can be reinvest back into the living party/human so the native has title to the PERSON. Then if the PERSON is charged, the native can come in as a third party Beneficiary and the proceeds revert back to the native; rather than the government having title to the PERSON so the proceeds revert to the government. The native can remain sovereign outside of commerce if they seperate themselves from/rebut/revoke having the fiduciary duties for their PERSON (which is a trust) and establish themselves as a third party with the primary claim/title over the PERSON as Beneficiary.

I'll try to write more later, as this was just to be a quick note, but this is a complex issue to write about.

Please make comments and ask questins.

Scott

Monday, 21 March 2005 - 4:22 PM MST

Name: Scott

Greetings,
Scott here again.
I thought I would post an e-mail I am working on that relates to my last post.

All crimes are commercial and being guilty or not guilty is just a smoke screen. The court is only there to collect a debt.
Think about it. It becomes obvious on small charges where they tell you there is a certain dollar amount you can pay to avoid jail time. If they don't tell you what the crime is worth, there is still an commercial accounting that runs parallel to the court case. If one just deals with the accounting, the court case and prosecution goes away. Even if they don't tell you, there is an account set up for each crime. People end up dishonoring the commercial accounting and since the court didn't collect the debt they have an accounts receivable. Since the account was not settled, they sell the account as an accounts receivable and hold the man in prison as collateral. Everyone in prison is only there because they breached their fiduciary duties as the trustee for their PERSON that was being charged, by not accepting the charge within 3 days, creating a dishonor or by not paying it. The charge is a commercial Bill of Exchange. A dishonor is created for the non-acceptance or non-performance of a Bill of Exchange/ticket. As the trustee, people are supposed to discharge the debts of the PERSON, i.e. pay the ticket or 'accept' it, otherwise they are in breach of their fiduciary duties, a default judgement is given and the trustee goes to jail. It doesn't matter what the crime was. All crimes are commercial so people go to prison for a commercial dishonor, because they didn't accept the charges and agree with their adversary quickly. They probably came up with a good argument as to why they are not guilty which is a dishonor. Even if you plead quilty, if you don't take care of the commercial aspect of the case, you dishonor/breach your fiduciary duties and must pay.

1) People go to prison because they don't pay the debt. They dishonored, went to prison, then their dishonor/default judgement is sold. To pay the debt and to not dishonor, they need to put in a Bid Bond as the Principal and their attorney should be instructed to settle and close the account using their exemption as principal.

2) They should request any other bonds written to be presented and hypothecate the bonds themselves as principal.

3) One should only give their name upon the condition that charges have been entered onto the court record ALREADY and if the judge has a sworn oath of office that the court will take notice of.
If charges were entered onto the court record before one gives their name or creates joinder and testifies against themselves, there must be a bond already posted to charge the account or else their exemption is underwriting the account. But they don't usually charge the account they just keep the bond and get the defendant to bond the account with their time or dollars by testifying against themselves. If their isn't a bond, they don't have anything they can sell yet, but they try to get people to dishonor the account by not accepting the charges into the calendar year so they can sell the dishonored/unaccepted account/ticket/bill of exchange
So one must instruct their attorney to present/return the bonds to them as a third party intervener and as the (living) principal and instruct the attorney to use their exemption as principal to settle and close the account, since they have accepted and returned the charges as revenue to the venue they came from. If one doesn't accept and return the charges/bond, then they dishonor and their account gets sold. They take your exemption/bond/account if you I dishonor and they make an investment security out of it.

4) If one is in prison already, they have already dishonored by non-acceptance. They have to ask for the bonds/investment securites back since they have already been sold.

5) To stop them from getting a dishonored account/default judgement that they can sell, one must post their own Bid Bond as Principal and underwrite the matter with ones exemption of the pre-paid account and return the charges to their venue.

The account already has value if charges are entered onto the record. You can rebut the presumption that you are the trustee/accommodation party for the PERSON/debtor. Establish yourself as the Beneficiary with the claim over the PERSON. Return the charges as accepted/honored like a bank does to allow them to go through your principal account to go to post setlement and closure by using your exemption. You might also need to post a Bid Bond to use your exemption to settle and close the account. Any other bonds created from this case becomes your interest as the Principal, because the bonds are based on your Person's identity and value they must be return to you.
But if charges aren't entered already, one could end up testifying against themselves as the debtor creating a bond/contract with the judge agreeing to discharge the debt with dollars.
One could create a bond with the judge to pay for the crime personally/public or one could accept the bond/account that has been entered onto the court record and use their exemption to settle and close. If they won't prove that charges have been entered onto the record or prove that the court has taken judicial notice of the judge's oath of office, then one shouldn't give their name. One should not dishonor their request to give your name but agree to give their name under certain conditions like, "I will gladly give my name if you can prove that charges have been entered onto the court record and this court has take judicial notice of 'Frank' acting as judge." One should instruct their attorney to go to post settlement and closure of the account by using their exemption as Principal whom they are relying upon for the account and for the Surety/Debtor as the source of the funds.

"I want any other Bid Bond returned to me as the Principal (so I can hypothecate it) and I want full settlement and closure of my pre-paid account using my exemption since I have posted a Bid Bond using my exemption as the Princpal being relied upon for this account and I accepted the account into the calendar year and returned your presentment for value and consideration in exchange for full settlement and closure of the account as revenue to it's venue in the fiscal year."

Monday, 21 March 2005 - 4:51 PM MST


Greetings,

The following comments are my opinion.

Do you agree with me?

When natives take their claims into the courts, they lose their standing as a Beneficiary because the court are only set up to deal with dispute between trustees. So the court is allowed the assumption that the one bringing in a claim is a PERSON/trustee. Since the government created the PERSON, the government is allowed the presumption, if the presumption is not rebutted, that they have title to that PERSON, so any claim brought in by that PERSON reverts back to CANADA.

The natives should be drawing the trustees into native courts, so the case can be between a Beneficiary/native and a trustee/PERSON. A native cannot raise a claim as a Beneficiary in their courts which are set up for disputes between two trustees only.

What are your thoughts?

Tuesday, 22 March 2005 - 3:16 PM MST

Name: Scott

http://anishinabe.org/CCRA20030521.html

(Your Name Here) is a man as defined in the Book of Genesis and not a "person" as defined in any statute created by men. [Genesis 2:7, Douay Bible. Schedule "A"].
(Your Name Here) shall comply with your Demands upon your proof of claim that he is not a man as defined by Genesis and he is a "person" as created by the junior, sometimes referred to as "federal", governing structure or a "creation" of the Province or any Municipality.

http://anishinabe.org/willysclaim.html

The Beneficiary was, at all material times, a member of a Sovereign Nation and under no known contract that would have caused him or could have caused him to surrender his sovereignty to any level of Her Majesty's governing structures within the confines of Turtle Island.
The Beneficiary was, at all material times and continues to be a Treaty Indian and not some sort of corporation, such as "Status Indian", created by the junior, sometimes referred to as "federal", governing structure in Ottawa.
Defendant trustee chief {Scott's note: the bad guy}was at all material times chief de facto and a trustee to the Beneficiary, carrying on business as the so-called chief of Ochappowace Reserve.

Scott's Note: Most natives ARE under certain contracts with government that subject them to the statutes as the human representative for their PERSON. When natives contract with CANADA and accept benefits they join the 'country club' so they have to abide by the rules when engaged in any activity within CANADA as a trustee. They forget about their standing as a Beneficiary on Turtle Island and they only assume the role of a trustee within CANADA. People forget about their Human Rights and adopt Civil Rights for taking part in commerce and having limited liability through their PERSON/corporation. The Constitution then does not apply to PERSONS, so most natives are with Alice, in Wonderland.
I believe the natives do not have to lose their sovereignty, even if they contract into commerce and become trustee/accountable for a PERSON, because title to the PERSON can be reinvest back into the living party/human so the native has title to the PERSON. Then if the PERSON is charged the native can come in as a third party Beneficiary and the proceeds revert back to the native. Usually the government has title to the PERSON and the proceeds revert to the government.
Natives can use their PERSON in commerce, while they remain outside of commerce as the Beneficiary of the trust/PERSON. The native can remain sovereign outside of commerce if they seperate themselves from/rebut/revoke having the fiduciary duties for their PERSON (which is a trust) and establish themselves as a third party with the primary claim/title over the PERSON as Beneficiary.


http://anishinabe.org/CCRA20030521.html
I do not “enjoy” the franchise, nor could I possible be enfranchised to the junior, sometimes referred to as “federal”, governing structure or the Governing Structures of the Several Provinces.

View Latest Entries