"Origins" of the hypothecation - STRAWMAN Part II

Those sneaky British

Oh where, oh where did my estate go?

Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd Edition

HYPOTHECATION. A term borrowed from the civil law. In so far as it is naturalized in English and American law, it means a contract of mortgage or pledge in which the subject-matter is not delivered into the possession of the pledgee or pawnee; or, conversely, a conventional right existing in one person over specific property of another, which consists in the power to cause a sale of the same, though it be not in his possession, in order that a specific claim of the creditor may be satisfied out of the proceeds.

The term is frequently used in our text books and reports, particularly upon the law of bottomry and maritime Hens; thus a vessel is said to be hypothecated for the demand of one who has advanced money for supplies.

In the common law, there are but few, if any, cases of hypothecation, in the strict sense of the civil law ; that is a pledge without possession by the pledgee. The nearest approaches, perhaps, are cases of bottomry bonds and claims of materialmen, and of seamen for wages; but these are liens and privileges, rather than hypothecations. Story, Bailm. § 288.

"Hypothecation" is a term of the civil law, and is that kind of pledge in which the possession of the thing pledged remains with the debt or, (the obligation resting in mere contract with out delivery ;) and in this respect distinguished from "pignus," in which possession is delivered to the creditor or pawnee. Whitney v. Peay, 24 Ark. 27. See 2 Bell, Comm. 25.

Can you say Sheriff’s Sale?

Let’s look at a recent example, shall we? Click on the heading to be directed to the articles.

Bona Vacantia! King Charles Siphoning Dead Brits' Assets Meant For Charity Via Medieval Law

How royal estates use bona vacantia to collect money from dead people

Oops! How could that happen?

What is a CUSIP number?

Magna Carta - Revisit

On June 15, 1215, in a field at Runnymede, King John affixed his seal to Magna Carta. Confronted by 40 rebellious barons, he consented to their demands in order to avert civil war. Just 10 weeks later, Pope Innocent III nullified the agreement, and England plunged into internal war.

Although Magna Carta failed to resolve the conflict between King John and his barons, it was reissued several times after his death. On display at the National Archives, courtesy of David M. Rubenstein, is one of four surviving originals of the 1297 Magna Carta. This version was entered into the official Statute Rolls of England.

National Archives and Records Administration. (updated 2019, April 26). Magna carta. National Archives and Records Administration. https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured-documents/magna-carta

Notice Pope Innocent III nullified the original Magna Carta? Why?

Prior to the Magna Carta, King John [“Reign 1199-1216”] handed over all his lands in England to the Pope to gain an ally against King Phillip II of France. Prior to this point, John had very little land in England of his own as his father, King Henry II [“reign 1154-1189”] gave very little land to John as inheritance. This new relationship with the church [“King’s land given to the church”] gave John oversight on the Commonwealth lands of the church. He received One Thousand Marks a year from the Pope for the transfer. John, as a result, became a vassal for England, but was no Longer a King in the real definition and paramount claim of his own land. When William the Conqueror won England a century earlier, William had left the barons with their own land with equivalent title to those lands as the King. However; this new church leverage, and John’s lack of his own land leverage, opened the door to the Magna Carta when John became a vassal of the land rather than the true King. Basically, the Pope and Catholic Church now claimed much more of England. This included lands near and around London.

There were a series of conflicts that aided the leverage by the barons, and in 1215, the barons took London by force and made their demands to John for a charter of rights.

The Pope was against the Magna Carta and had a desire for continued land arrangements. These lands were known as “commonwealth” lands. These were lands the King would give to the church, the church would redevelop, and then make money from the conversion. They would make basic wasteland areas into farms and community areas and would tend to the poor and sick. This would gain influence over the peasantry by the church and would maintain a good relationship with the crown.

Although the Pope overruled the initial versions of the Magna Carta, the final was reissued and made permanent from Henry III in 1297. This document was a blue print for our Declaration of Independence and the confirmation of outright land claim by the people.

The commonwealth arrangement is important as this resulted in John becoming a servant of the church. He gained title to land, but not outright ownership. He was the Trustee, the church was the donor, and the poor and sick ended up being the beneficiaries of the arrangement. This is known as the Commonwealth Trust. If you are part of the Commonwealth, you are essentially looked at as a pauper or peasant receiving benefits from the church. Having benefited from the Trust, these paupers assets are considered as belonging to the Pope’s Trustee - the King. The paupers are now the “body politic” of the Public Charitable Trust. Historically, this “commonwealth” is the first formal Public-Private Partnership. We see this same idea in NGO activities worldwide today.

The Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666

The tidy little commonwealth arrangement went on for approximately 400 years with the Catholic Church essentially claiming control of portions of the lands of England. And every colony that was deemed a commonwealth had the same presumption. If the church was behind the financing in some form, the rules of the trust still applied.

In 1666, there was the great fire of London. The fire was so substantial that almost everyone left the city and evacuated to the countryside that did not parish in the blaze. This left a large number of vacant houses and properties. Many of the owners never returned. [“if there was an event involving large American city(s) in modern times, would the same thing happen? Can you say Lahaina?”]…

The Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666 was a way of registering [“there is that word again”] people and their property as “presumed dead” when they did not come back to claim the property immediately. The King, Charles Stuart II [“reign 1660-1685”] would seize on the property and redevelop it with the backer and new claimant, the church. The people were presumed to be dead, lost at sea or beyond the sea. The land could then be re-invested and a resultant profit could be made on the newly improved land that was seized. The City of London was largely converted to the church with the Monarchy profiting, and the British Crown was used to manage and develop the land to “benefit the public”. This created a new Municipal Government of the City of London.

This new presumption was so successful, that anyone deemed “missing” or was an unwanted foreigner, or was a “targeted individual” [“TI”], that there now was a structure that provided the excuse to seize assets and estates. The British Crown provided what were called Revenue Agents and Warrant Officers [“sound familiar?”], conveniently being supervised by the Inquisition, to carry out the dirty business of seizures, and in turn make money off the flip.

King James 1 wrote a book about this scheme called “The Bounty Book” and he noted that it all begins with a system of False Registration — in this case, registering property as belonging to unknown or missing persons or people merely “presumed to be” wards of the state.

Von Reitz, A. (n.d.). A valuable history lesson -- for the Brits and everyone else. https://annavonreitz.com/. http://annavonreitz.com/avaluablehistorylesson.pdf

There is no published record of this relationship, particularly for the city of London, to have ever been changed.

At this point, the King was slowly gaining trusteeship to lands without actual paramount claim, but instead having monetary control through the title process. This allowed for the imposition of property taxes that was otherwise not permitted through the Land Patent process or Norman Patents through William the Conqueror to his barons as sovereigns.

Is this starting to ring a bell in the back of your mind?

Do the articles regarding King Charles, linked above, show the same pattern?

Were these estates that are used to enrich the crown provided through an act of the church [“Bona Vacantia”]? To connect the dots, one needs to look at the commonwealth lands, the lands granted to John, and the administration of the church. Who was the King in 1265? Was this after John lost his land to the church? Why is this little detail not connected in published articles?

How many coincidences does it take to no longer be a coincidence?

Were there Land Patents and Land Grants in America? Those of mankind who came to America claimed their land with sovereign title [“title in fee-simple and/or allodial title”] after a period of profit sharing or indentured servitude that was required to pay for their voyage. They earned allodial title to their property in America. No taxes were levied on property with full allodial title, as it was private property through the Land Patent and Land Grant process held by sovereigns. [“not real property or residential property”]

• Shire Herald: America Settlers, Land Ownership, and Puritan Influence on Law Common to i

• Shire Herald: Plymouth vs Virginia Land Title and Decentralization

Unknown. (2022). How Colonists Acquired Title to Land in Virginia. How colonists acquired title to land in Virginia. http://www.virginiaplaces.org/settleland/headright.html

America - True Land Paramount Claim

In America, as part of our independence, our forefathers wanted rid of the scheme of taxation through both church and British Crown slavery. As illustrated thus far, the registry system was active in Great Britain up through our Declaration of Independence. It was presumed that the land was being managed by the King and still claimed ultimately by the church. This little detail is not shared in our modern text books. Yet, there has not been any evidence to show the relationship was permanently severed. What does that mean? Accidental omission?

To put things in perspective, history was changed in documents taught in schools. Does anyone remember the Encyclopedia Britannica? It is now available online for free. Do you know when the first Encyclopedia Britannica was published? If you go right to their own web page, you will find the answer. The first edition “began publication in December 1768 in Edinburgh, Scotland”.

What was going on in Scotland in 1768 and the preceding years? In 1745, Charles Edward Stuart and the Jacobite army win over Derby, just a mere 150 miles north of London. This was an attempt at the reclaim of the throne of Great Britain for the Stuarts. The Stuarts reigned over Great Britain from 1603 until 1714. After the end of the Stuart reign, the imposing of increased taxation on Scotland was increased, and this, as well as other English army occupation activities, led to the Jacobite rebellion and the efforts of the Stuarts, through Charles, to retake the throne.

Does the increasing taxation from the Parliament in Great Britain sound familiar related to our similar time in history within the 100 years leading up to 1776? Does this methodology sound familiar today, except through our own Federal Government? How would you change enough little details and make the “peasants” in the occupied territory start to believe a minor variation on history? Something like the belief that taxes are somehow now mandatory…

The Encyclopedia Britannica was available in America, but not widely accepted until around 1933, when it was introduced with shortened and simplified articles. What else happened on and around 1933? Was there a “New Deal”? Was there a bankruptcy? Was there a need to adjust the history enough for people to miss the details?

1933 March 9, a bank emergency was declared by President Roosevelt because of the insolvency [bankruptcy] of the United States. Executive Order 6073, 6102, 6111, 6260; Senate Report 93-549, pgs. 187 & 594, 1973.

1933 March 9, “The new money (paper promissory notes) is issued to the banks in return for Government obligations, bills of exchange, drafts, notes, trade acceptances, and banker’s acceptances. The new money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar, because it is backed by the credit of the nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and other property of all the people in the Nation.” Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congressional Record, 1st Session.

Sounds like we are creditors to the government and they are taking out a mortgage on us… “all the homes and other property of all the people in the Nation”. Did you get your voucher to redeem the credit owed to you by the government for the loan? How much would you be worth if 33 trillion dollars of debt to make IOUs [“FERNs - Federal Reserve Notes and other treasury bonds and instruments”] was given back to those who were the actual creditors - hint - not the banks.

1933 May 1, gold was transferred from U. S. Citizens to the United States by Executive Order 6102.

Bankruptcy can got kicked down the road…

1950 Congress declared “bankruptcy and reorganization“. Secretary of Treasury appointed receiver in the bankruptcy. Reorganization Plan, No. 26, 5 U.S.C.A. 903; Public Law 94-564; Legislative History, Pg. 5967.

Registration as U.S. Citizen - Dead - lost at sea

Now, go back to the last article and review the birth certificate registration process introduced prior to 1910, that was later modified and ultimately added to legislation by the 1950’s. Taking over the world requires playing the long game. A multi-tiered approach is required across various infringements on rights to accomplish the false registry process. The birth certificate created the false registration as previously employed by the Catholic Church and the King of England. No need to change a good thing, right?

Voter registration was the next notch in giving up rights. Our founding fathers were aware of this risk.

“New Claims will arise. Women will demand a Vote. Lads from 12 to 21 will think their Rights not enough attended to, and every Man, who has not a Farthing, will demand an equal Voice with any other in all Acts of State,”

John Adams, 1776 - On the expansion of voting beyond property owners

Voter registration was a key in the manipulation. Under the guise of the protection of rights, the commercial mercenary conflict of the “civil war” allowed for the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to be created; and then the provision for these to be changed at will by Congress. Ratification of amendments all of a sudden became unnecessary for those amendments after the 12th. This is due to the the additions being added in the Constitution of the United States of America 1789. It is not the contract with the union of States which was the Constitution for the united States of America. And also separate to this is the Constitution of the United States from 1790.

The 14th amendment specifically set up a new class of citizen that would allow indentured servants and slaves - recently “freed” - to vote by registering as a U.S. Citizen. Slowly, this process was introduced for women and all men over 18. Remember John Adams quote earlier? They would now become part of the United States of America Federal Government citizenry. And the Federal Government would decide what rights are protected once in this class of citizenry.

So, by registering to vote, you are volunteering to be a United States citizen.

Prior to the “civil war”, Americans were not part of the Federal Government unless they were filling a duty to the people in Congress or other Federal functions as a Federal employee, or military personnel, or territorial citizen. And the Expatriation Act from Statutes at Large, 43rd Congress, 1st Session Volume 18, Part 1, 27 July 1868 allowed for the unconditional separation from being a United States Federal Citizen; and if one is a citizen of the United States, that citizen is afforded all protections while in a foreign country the same as a “native born citizen”. Thus, clearly showing the difference in political status.

Death and Taxes

Some more presumption.

It is said that some things in life are unavoidable; like death and taxes. The “presumed dead - lost at sea” has been covered. Now, let’s review taxes to a minor extent here. Who has to pay them? Anyone who registers with a W4 form. Once registered and considered an “employee” of a company, you are now considered having a “job” where you receive “income”.

Did you know you can choose to “work” for “compensation”? You can be a man who does work. Doing a “job” is doing something illegal for illicit gain. Although there are other definitions, this version sets up the condition for the obligation of taxes because it is the penalty for doing a “job” and receiving “income” for said “job”.

JOB - Merriam-Webster

a - something done for private advantage: the whole incident was a put-up job

b - : a criminal enterprise - specifically : ROBBERY: There comes a time in everyone's life when you need a lawyer. And I'm not implying that you're going to hold up a liquor store or pull a bank job anytime soon.

c - : a damaging or destructive bit of work: did a job on him

What does your “employment” agreement state? Are you an independent man contracting work for compensation? Or, are you an “employee” [“title - mark - face”] doing a job for income?

Summary

By the same method of registration used by the Catholic Church in England and the King of England, one of mankind is converted to a Legal Person who is presumed dead - lost at sea with any registration. Certain adhesion contracts create the evidence for the Federal Government to presume you are a United States 14th Amendment citizen; and thus, subject to the legal rules, codes, acts and statutes of the Federal Government. Jurisdiction matters. Here are some of the many adhesion contracts used as evidence of registration.

• Birth Certificate

• Capital Letter Legal Name

• Voter Registration

• Drivers License

• Passport [“if you select “yes” to U.S. Citizen for both you and your parents”]

• Corporate employment contract

• Residency declaration “in” a State [“instead of having a home “on” the land and soil and living on the county and state”]

Next Time

The time has come to connect the dots on the illegal mercenary conflict called the “civil war”. This convenient commercial squabble between confederacy subcontractors provided the open door to facilitate the demise of America through a central bank, registrations, converting the entire land and soil jurisdiction and all the property of the people into a huge credit slush fund; and, by not “sharing” the details of how to get redeemed for your credit. Of course, if you are a registered dead entity, and lost at sea, and you do not show up to properly claim your status as an American and NOT a U.S. Citizen, the government has no reason to believe they do not now-and-forever benefit from the property they are borrowing against. It creates their own “personal” collateral for residents. Which you probably signed a document under penalty of perjury that you were in fact a resident. After all, residence is a privilege in a foreign State, and possession is 9/10’s of the law.