Precisely! It was the same for me. I would watch/read this piece and that piece over the years, understanding up to a point, but never enough to confidently take any actions. I was stuck because I didn't have all the pieces to the puzzle, at least to what I found necessary to feel good about it all.
As such, the book is basically all the pieces assembled in a way that I wish I would have come across it all originally. It would have saved me a ton of time piecing it all together. But of course the advantage for me was, I learned it all so thoroughly that I'm finally able to write the book for others. In a way, it was more advantageous to do it the way I did it in terms of having a fuller understanding.
I live by a simple axiom; if it isn't simple, it's wrong. And fortunately, I've been able to simplify it all to my satisfaction.
The hard part of writing the book is three-fold:
Unwinding all the lies and deceptions we've all been brainwashed to believe that simply aren't true. For example, that we are a "democracy". Seems simple enough to say "Nope, we're a Constitutional Republic". But it isn't that simple because 99% of the population, government officials, media, etc. say otherwise. How could they all be wrong? Right?
Explaining that all our government/LEO "authorities" work for an interloping, foreign owned and operated services corporations (The British Territorial government and the Vatican municipal government) and they mostly aren't "bad guys", but simply as duped and brainwashed as the rest of us. This is a hard concept for most people to get a hold of as I've bounced it off so many friends and families this past year. All push back and all highly doubt it without exception.
As there are probably 100 different vital topics to understand, including just the right amount of information to support them without diving in so deep that the book would turn into thousands of pages. I could probably write 100 different books on each topic covering everything thoroughly, but only a rare few would ever care to read any of them, let alone connect all the dots. And it's the "dot-connecting" which is the fundamental point of my book. Without that, it's all just more information to file away in our minds.
And in terms of this board, convincing people that Q/Trump aren't going to "fix it for us". We-The-People have to do it ourselves, otherwise we're stuck in the same mess - "Meet the new boss --- same as the old boss" applies. Perhaps Trump/Q will assist by neutering the existing interloping forces, I don't know. Trump and Q worked for them and never said otherwise and I'm quite sure they knew/know it. At any rate, the best they can do is to "pave the way" for us to take back the control that was originally granted to We-The-People upon the founding of our nation.
As to the "Who is You" article. This is pretty obscure "legalese" stuff. If you understand who you are and where you are, your status, standing and capacity, than this doesn't really matter. The existing legal structure cannot ATTACH to "you", via deceptive JOINDERS and draw you into their fraudulent jurisdiction of the fictional dead.
They can't even get started without establishing jurisdiction. As one of my favorite guys (Karl Lentz) says, "It's a lifestyle". You either "get it" or you don't. If you don't, they're going to joinder you into their jurisdiction one way or another. You'd need 10+ years of study to out maneuver them. Nobody has that kind of time. Once you clearly understand WHO YOU ARE (man/woman standing on the land), the jig is up for them.
In closing, since you've engaged here a bit with me, I'd like to ask you a question; Which topic/subject/concept do you find most confusing and/or most unbelievable/unlikely, and why?
I ask everybody this questions that's had a chance to talk at length with me or read through some of my early materials and it has helped improve the book immensely. It doesn't matter how much you do or don't understand now. There are no dumb questions either.
In closing, since you've engaged here a bit with me, I'd like to ask you a question; Which topic/subject/concept do you find most confusing and/or most unbelievable/unlikely, and why?
There isn't much that I find unbelievable or unlikely. Lots of things are confusing or unclear to me but not on a subject level.
I would like to know what happens when a birth is registered. If a corporation is formed that you are led/taught to believe is you, who owns it, who is the executor, the beneficiary, etc?
Can a man just opt out of the game and refuse to answer questions or even speak when confronted by an "authority"? I really like the simplicity of "I decline your offer to contract" as a response. Does this really work?
I would like to know what happens when a birth is registered. If a corporation is formed that you are led/taught to believe is you, who owns it, who is the executor, the beneficiary, etc?
)>>>> What's formed is a "trust", specifically a cestui que vie trust. These trusts were useful when first created in 1666 during the age of exploration when land/property owners didn't return from their escapades overseas. They were considered "lost at sea" if they didn't return in 7 years. If you're aware that all the fictional courts are in the admiralty/maritime (sea/water) jurisdiction you'll appreciate how the trick was pulled off. After being born, the nurse wraps up your "after-birth" which the cabal surreptitiously calls "you", being dead-on-arrival until further notice. They claim you were "lost at sea" at birth. This then allows them to lay claim to your "future labor/assets/property" as the living child is completely unaware of what has happened.
Being unaware, the "REAL YOU" then unwittingly acts as the "Trustee", having to keep the trust operating and covering all expenses (e.g. mortgage, loan, fine, etc), while all along the "REAL YOU" is really the Beneficiary. The state/cabal acts as the "executor" during your lifetime and acts as the beneficiary after your death when roles changes with the "decedent estate" legal process. While you're alive, the beneficiaries are the bankers/financiers that trade your trust just as they would a stock. Its value fluctuates based on your education, career path, earning potential, etc.
Ultimately, it's your CQV Trust that is really "The money that's printed out of thin air" by the Fed that you've likely heard so much about. It isn't really "printed out of thin air". The future earning potential of all the CQV trusts is what they're printing.
Why do you think they want all the illegal immigrants to enter the country, especially as the US population growth continues to decline? God only knows how many generations forward they've "printed" to as of late. I suspect they're trading three and four generations out now (our great, great, great, great grand kids labor/property/assets now. That game is almost over however.
Can a man just opt out of the game and refuse to answer questions or even speak when confronted by an "authority"?
Yes and No. You're compelled to answer questions ultimately if you're under suspicion of a criminal act. Unfortunately, "silence" is considered "consent" in the admiralty jurisdiction after you're given three opportunities to respond. This is very common when it comes to collections.
However, if you're confronted by a cop you have several options. It depends. If you're asked to appear in court, you should first file a counter-claim challenging jurisdiction and then only appear in court under what's known as "Special Appearance", which you notify the court ahead of time.
By virtue of doing so, you're challenging jurisdiction. You need say very little at that appearance and aren't compelled to answer any of the judge's questions. You simply state "I am a man/woman standing on the land and soil jurisdiction and I am challenging this jurisdiction of this court under the filed case #12345". There's nothing else you need say or confirm. Especially things like your spoken "name" or "date of birth", both of which are used as joinders to the water jurisdiction.
I really like the simplicity of "I decline your offer to contract" as a response. Does this really work?
Declining an offer to contract can and does work. Unfortunately, the level of ignorance of the vast majority of police officers is so great, you might get yourself into a bad situation with them. You can try it. If it's clear they don't understand what you're saying (which is likely), you can call for a supervisor, who may or may not understand.
If none of them understand, you may be faced with the awkward situation of being thrown in the can. That's probably not worth it for a traffic infraction or some minor thing. You're best off signing off on their ticket including the words "Under duress" with your autograph. You can then easily, and more importantly, SAFELY argue your position in front of a judge...who will understand.
All I can say is, you've really got to know your stuff if you want to try it out. The cops can lie to you about all sorts of things they say are "the law", while very often they are not. There are a couple dozen YouTube channels that do this sort of thing and school the cops day in and day out as they cops try to assert authority over them with non-existent statutes.
You're in an IMMENSELY SUPERIOR position if you've declared your political status as an American State Citizen/National with Anna Von Reitz's group however. Once you've done this, you can literally say that statues/codes/acts/ordinances don't apply to a man/woman and are only "advisory". That'll likely confuse the heck out of a cop, but many are aware of our growing movement and 99 out of 100 times they back off quickly.
Keep in mind, none of this applies if you cause wrong/harm/injury to your fellow man. All bets are off with this. I'm talking about "crimes against the state" here.
I'm geographically in canada, so some of what you mention doesn't easily apply. I gave up driving, employment, utilities and more in order to limit my exposure to this weird world.
Check out Christopher James (He's a Canadian Common Law expert) channel on Bitchute if you haven't already. He's pretty good (but not great). He learned all his stuff from Karl Lentz and Anna Von Reitz primarily. "A Warrior Calls" -> https://www.bitchute.com/channel/K6tBDPiVYwHO/
Our situation with Canada isn't identical, but very similar as you also fundamentally operate under the Public Law (In "Common Law"). Like ours, most of your LEO and attorneys don't know this, but key judges do.
As I suggested, best to say as little as possible if you get into a tangle and save your knowledge for when you get in front of a judge.
Book is 2-3 months out as best as I can surmise. I'll let you know when I'm into the second draft and you can review at no cost.
Precisely! It was the same for me. I would watch/read this piece and that piece over the years, understanding up to a point, but never enough to confidently take any actions. I was stuck because I didn't have all the pieces to the puzzle, at least to what I found necessary to feel good about it all.
As such, the book is basically all the pieces assembled in a way that I wish I would have come across it all originally. It would have saved me a ton of time piecing it all together. But of course the advantage for me was, I learned it all so thoroughly that I'm finally able to write the book for others. In a way, it was more advantageous to do it the way I did it in terms of having a fuller understanding.
I live by a simple axiom; if it isn't simple, it's wrong. And fortunately, I've been able to simplify it all to my satisfaction.
The hard part of writing the book is three-fold:
Unwinding all the lies and deceptions we've all been brainwashed to believe that simply aren't true. For example, that we are a "democracy". Seems simple enough to say "Nope, we're a Constitutional Republic". But it isn't that simple because 99% of the population, government officials, media, etc. say otherwise. How could they all be wrong? Right?
Explaining that all our government/LEO "authorities" work for an interloping, foreign owned and operated services corporations (The British Territorial government and the Vatican municipal government) and they mostly aren't "bad guys", but simply as duped and brainwashed as the rest of us. This is a hard concept for most people to get a hold of as I've bounced it off so many friends and families this past year. All push back and all highly doubt it without exception.
As there are probably 100 different vital topics to understand, including just the right amount of information to support them without diving in so deep that the book would turn into thousands of pages. I could probably write 100 different books on each topic covering everything thoroughly, but only a rare few would ever care to read any of them, let alone connect all the dots. And it's the "dot-connecting" which is the fundamental point of my book. Without that, it's all just more information to file away in our minds.
And in terms of this board, convincing people that Q/Trump aren't going to "fix it for us". We-The-People have to do it ourselves, otherwise we're stuck in the same mess - "Meet the new boss --- same as the old boss" applies. Perhaps Trump/Q will assist by neutering the existing interloping forces, I don't know. Trump and Q worked for them and never said otherwise and I'm quite sure they knew/know it. At any rate, the best they can do is to "pave the way" for us to take back the control that was originally granted to We-The-People upon the founding of our nation.
As to the "Who is You" article. This is pretty obscure "legalese" stuff. If you understand who you are and where you are, your status, standing and capacity, than this doesn't really matter. The existing legal structure cannot ATTACH to "you", via deceptive JOINDERS and draw you into their fraudulent jurisdiction of the fictional dead.
They can't even get started without establishing jurisdiction. As one of my favorite guys (Karl Lentz) says, "It's a lifestyle". You either "get it" or you don't. If you don't, they're going to joinder you into their jurisdiction one way or another. You'd need 10+ years of study to out maneuver them. Nobody has that kind of time. Once you clearly understand WHO YOU ARE (man/woman standing on the land), the jig is up for them.
In closing, since you've engaged here a bit with me, I'd like to ask you a question; Which topic/subject/concept do you find most confusing and/or most unbelievable/unlikely, and why?
I ask everybody this questions that's had a chance to talk at length with me or read through some of my early materials and it has helped improve the book immensely. It doesn't matter how much you do or don't understand now. There are no dumb questions either.
Thanks!
In closing, since you've engaged here a bit with me, I'd like to ask you a question; Which topic/subject/concept do you find most confusing and/or most unbelievable/unlikely, and why?
There isn't much that I find unbelievable or unlikely. Lots of things are confusing or unclear to me but not on a subject level.
I would like to know what happens when a birth is registered. If a corporation is formed that you are led/taught to believe is you, who owns it, who is the executor, the beneficiary, etc?
Can a man just opt out of the game and refuse to answer questions or even speak when confronted by an "authority"? I really like the simplicity of "I decline your offer to contract" as a response. Does this really work?
Good questions:
I would like to know what happens when a birth is registered. If a corporation is formed that you are led/taught to believe is you, who owns it, who is the executor, the beneficiary, etc?
)>>>> What's formed is a "trust", specifically a cestui que vie trust. These trusts were useful when first created in 1666 during the age of exploration when land/property owners didn't return from their escapades overseas. They were considered "lost at sea" if they didn't return in 7 years. If you're aware that all the fictional courts are in the admiralty/maritime (sea/water) jurisdiction you'll appreciate how the trick was pulled off. After being born, the nurse wraps up your "after-birth" which the cabal surreptitiously calls "you", being dead-on-arrival until further notice. They claim you were "lost at sea" at birth. This then allows them to lay claim to your "future labor/assets/property" as the living child is completely unaware of what has happened.
Being unaware, the "REAL YOU" then unwittingly acts as the "Trustee", having to keep the trust operating and covering all expenses (e.g. mortgage, loan, fine, etc), while all along the "REAL YOU" is really the Beneficiary. The state/cabal acts as the "executor" during your lifetime and acts as the beneficiary after your death when roles changes with the "decedent estate" legal process. While you're alive, the beneficiaries are the bankers/financiers that trade your trust just as they would a stock. Its value fluctuates based on your education, career path, earning potential, etc.
Ultimately, it's your CQV Trust that is really "The money that's printed out of thin air" by the Fed that you've likely heard so much about. It isn't really "printed out of thin air". The future earning potential of all the CQV trusts is what they're printing.
Why do you think they want all the illegal immigrants to enter the country, especially as the US population growth continues to decline? God only knows how many generations forward they've "printed" to as of late. I suspect they're trading three and four generations out now (our great, great, great, great grand kids labor/property/assets now. That game is almost over however.
Can a man just opt out of the game and refuse to answer questions or even speak when confronted by an "authority"?
Yes and No. You're compelled to answer questions ultimately if you're under suspicion of a criminal act. Unfortunately, "silence" is considered "consent" in the admiralty jurisdiction after you're given three opportunities to respond. This is very common when it comes to collections.
However, if you're confronted by a cop you have several options. It depends. If you're asked to appear in court, you should first file a counter-claim challenging jurisdiction and then only appear in court under what's known as "Special Appearance", which you notify the court ahead of time.
By virtue of doing so, you're challenging jurisdiction. You need say very little at that appearance and aren't compelled to answer any of the judge's questions. You simply state "I am a man/woman standing on the land and soil jurisdiction and I am challenging this jurisdiction of this court under the filed case #12345". There's nothing else you need say or confirm. Especially things like your spoken "name" or "date of birth", both of which are used as joinders to the water jurisdiction.
I really like the simplicity of "I decline your offer to contract" as a response. Does this really work?
Declining an offer to contract can and does work. Unfortunately, the level of ignorance of the vast majority of police officers is so great, you might get yourself into a bad situation with them. You can try it. If it's clear they don't understand what you're saying (which is likely), you can call for a supervisor, who may or may not understand.
If none of them understand, you may be faced with the awkward situation of being thrown in the can. That's probably not worth it for a traffic infraction or some minor thing. You're best off signing off on their ticket including the words "Under duress" with your autograph. You can then easily, and more importantly, SAFELY argue your position in front of a judge...who will understand.
All I can say is, you've really got to know your stuff if you want to try it out. The cops can lie to you about all sorts of things they say are "the law", while very often they are not. There are a couple dozen YouTube channels that do this sort of thing and school the cops day in and day out as they cops try to assert authority over them with non-existent statutes.
You're in an IMMENSELY SUPERIOR position if you've declared your political status as an American State Citizen/National with Anna Von Reitz's group however. Once you've done this, you can literally say that statues/codes/acts/ordinances don't apply to a man/woman and are only "advisory". That'll likely confuse the heck out of a cop, but many are aware of our growing movement and 99 out of 100 times they back off quickly.
Keep in mind, none of this applies if you cause wrong/harm/injury to your fellow man. All bets are off with this. I'm talking about "crimes against the state" here.
Anyway, thanks for your questions.
I'm geographically in canada, so some of what you mention doesn't easily apply. I gave up driving, employment, utilities and more in order to limit my exposure to this weird world.
Hurry up with that book.
Check out Christopher James (He's a Canadian Common Law expert) channel on Bitchute if you haven't already. He's pretty good (but not great). He learned all his stuff from Karl Lentz and Anna Von Reitz primarily. "A Warrior Calls" -> https://www.bitchute.com/channel/K6tBDPiVYwHO/
Our situation with Canada isn't identical, but very similar as you also fundamentally operate under the Public Law (In "Common Law"). Like ours, most of your LEO and attorneys don't know this, but key judges do.
As I suggested, best to say as little as possible if you get into a tangle and save your knowledge for when you get in front of a judge.
Book is 2-3 months out as best as I can surmise. I'll let you know when I'm into the second draft and you can review at no cost.