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.
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.