Great information, how do We The People require the courts to operate with full disclosure instead of tactic acquiescence as the normal construct of their business? If they don't operate with full disclosure, essentially acting in fraud. Why should We The People have to over come their fraud to remain unharmed by their actions???
This is the crux of it all is it not? That is why at the end of the post, we need to take back the courts peacefully through operation of law and declaring Ex Parte Milligan. This means enough people from your county and State to recognize the fraud and serve notice to the courts. In the meantime, i, share this information so people understand what they are dealing with in the corrupted system. Keeping in mind, there is always a remedy.
Grass roots exposure of the fraud will cause them to have to change their operations to full disclosure, and they go bankrupt from the grass roots exposure so we can rebuild a Just, system... Duly noted, mission engaged... Thank you sir!!!
I have used a Disclaimer of Interest to assign the Interest to a case to the United States as usufructuary, and caused the court to stop treating me as the surety to the case. See my information channel on Telegram called DisclaimerOfInterest
Nice! i, am not a fan of the beneficiary, trustee/surety, grantor trust method in a court room. The reason is very basic. A man can benefit but is not an action thing called a beneficiary. So, your approach makes complete sense as you do not want to be the surety. If any contract exists with the State-of-State or Federal organizations, it can be used as evidence against this presumed status of a man (driver's license, registration, voter registration, tax contracts, SSN power of attorney not revoked, etc...). A man does not need permission. A man can benefit, but once taking on a title, status is diminished.
The DOI doesn't apply in all cases. For example, custody cases and foreclosures. If you abandon the interest with a DOI, you abandon your rights to the property (children or real estate).
It does apply in lawsuits for unsecured debt and also criminal cases.
I have a question or point of clarification on your example Notice.
In I.3 you ask:
Clarify whether this court recognizes a man or woman as distinct from a statutory "person," "natural person," or "individual."
My comprehension is the quoted titles are all the same jurisdictional, corporate thing.
In II.8 you use the man/woman, yet in II.9 the
term “living individual” is used (to mean man/woman?) and in II.10 “natural person” is used (to mean man/woman)?
[text in question copied below]
If no such contract exists, confirm in affirmation form that this court has no authority over a man/woman absent consent.
The summons and complaint refer to the Defendant in an ALL CAPS format (e.g., JOHN DOE), indicating a legal fiction or corporate entity rather than a living individual.
Under Chicago v. Mayer, 44 N.E. 1104 (Ill. 1896), the use of a name in all capital letters represents a corporate fiction, not a natural person.
[end copy]
The terms of art being significant, I’m seeking a point of clarification to ensure I’m getting it.
Also, why the use of lower case i for self reference verse capital(ized) I (did i just answer my own question)?
Yes, the three terms in I.3 are all the potentially same jurisdiction.
IN II.8 it should read "living man". That is a more accurate phrase and words to avoid presumption.
The issue on II.10 is how the case law references a man and it predates the Black's Law change to redefine a Corporation to include "natural person". This is how you would clarify this discrepancy.
As for the lower case for "i" is rather simple. You are a creation of the Creator who creates. You are a living soul. The seed of consciousness. As such, you are the "i am". Also, "i" as a visual depiction is a man with a head. "I" is decapitated. Also, "I" in capital is intentionally conflated with a number in legal terms. "i" makes all this clear.
In addition, using "i" forces proper sentence structure referring to the present and proper state of being. In other words, by using "i" in all references to "yourself", the construct of the sentence removes the "action thing" titles.
Great information, how do We The People require the courts to operate with full disclosure instead of tactic acquiescence as the normal construct of their business? If they don't operate with full disclosure, essentially acting in fraud. Why should We The People have to over come their fraud to remain unharmed by their actions???
This is the crux of it all is it not? That is why at the end of the post, we need to take back the courts peacefully through operation of law and declaring Ex Parte Milligan. This means enough people from your county and State to recognize the fraud and serve notice to the courts. In the meantime, i, share this information so people understand what they are dealing with in the corrupted system. Keeping in mind, there is always a remedy.
Grass roots exposure of the fraud will cause them to have to change their operations to full disclosure, and they go bankrupt from the grass roots exposure so we can rebuild a Just, system... Duly noted, mission engaged... Thank you sir!!!
No one will do it for us. Fully accountable, fully responsible.
I have used a Disclaimer of Interest to assign the Interest to a case to the United States as usufructuary, and caused the court to stop treating me as the surety to the case. See my information channel on Telegram called DisclaimerOfInterest
https://t.me/disclaimerofinterest
Nice! i, am not a fan of the beneficiary, trustee/surety, grantor trust method in a court room. The reason is very basic. A man can benefit but is not an action thing called a beneficiary. So, your approach makes complete sense as you do not want to be the surety. If any contract exists with the State-of-State or Federal organizations, it can be used as evidence against this presumed status of a man (driver's license, registration, voter registration, tax contracts, SSN power of attorney not revoked, etc...). A man does not need permission. A man can benefit, but once taking on a title, status is diminished.
i, will take a look.
The DOI doesn't apply in all cases. For example, custody cases and foreclosures. If you abandon the interest with a DOI, you abandon your rights to the property (children or real estate).
It does apply in lawsuits for unsecured debt and also criminal cases.
You can DM me on TG if you like.
This would be why regardless standing as a man claims all rights. But, if you are actually at fault, full liability.
Looked up the channel and it does not come up for some reason.
Thank you as the key is enforcement!!!
I have a question or point of clarification on your example Notice.
In I.3 you ask:
Clarify whether this court recognizes a man or woman as distinct from a statutory "person," "natural person," or "individual."
My comprehension is the quoted titles are all the same jurisdictional, corporate thing.
In II.8 you use the man/woman, yet in II.9 the
term “living individual” is used (to mean man/woman?) and in II.10 “natural person” is used (to mean man/woman)?
[text in question copied below]
If no such contract exists, confirm in affirmation form that this court has no authority over a man/woman absent consent.
The summons and complaint refer to the Defendant in an ALL CAPS format (e.g., JOHN DOE), indicating a legal fiction or corporate entity rather than a living individual.
Under Chicago v. Mayer, 44 N.E. 1104 (Ill. 1896), the use of a name in all capital letters represents a corporate fiction, not a natural person.
[end copy]
The terms of art being significant, I’m seeking a point of clarification to ensure I’m getting it.
Also, why the use of lower case i for self reference verse capital(ized) I (did i just answer my own question)?
Thank you.
Yes, the three terms in I.3 are all the potentially same jurisdiction.
IN II.8 it should read "living man". That is a more accurate phrase and words to avoid presumption.
The issue on II.10 is how the case law references a man and it predates the Black's Law change to redefine a Corporation to include "natural person". This is how you would clarify this discrepancy.
As for the lower case for "i" is rather simple. You are a creation of the Creator who creates. You are a living soul. The seed of consciousness. As such, you are the "i am". Also, "i" as a visual depiction is a man with a head. "I" is decapitated. Also, "I" in capital is intentionally conflated with a number in legal terms. "i" makes all this clear.
In addition, using "i" forces proper sentence structure referring to the present and proper state of being. In other words, by using "i" in all references to "yourself", the construct of the sentence removes the "action thing" titles.
Very interesting.