You don't own yourself -- the Federal Reserve does!

This is a lot of reality to soak in. For instance, for people that must travel for a living, for those who have kids who want to live a "normal" life. It really is made to be almost impossible to get out of the system and not have to rely on it.

I'm curious, how is it one can solely own a piece of property that is not theirs? If this is true, couldn't one just continuously add more property to their possession?

reply to post by Jesusis1337


It's called a UCC 1 financing statement. You trademark your Strawman name and put a lien on it and act as it's agent.

reply to post by eLPresidente


Some interesting things to consider regarding property, the Vatican is the single largest land owner of public record, the Queen of England is a distant second when it comes to over all land owned, the Queen’s land holdings pale in comparisons to the Vatican are in the hundreds of millions of acres. Other big global owners are people like the Sultan of Brunei, and the King of Thailand, and the Saudi Royal Family. Royalty does have its privileges and their ownerships go internationally far and wide.

Here in the United States the person who owns the most land as a matter of public record is Ted Turner founder TNT TV and CNN, starting to see why Ted might find it convenient and lucrative to have the worlds biggest and also first 24 hour a day international network news syndicate?

The thing about owning land of course though is maintaining it. Once you have acquired the land what do you do with it.

Part of the concept here of declaring land and property has your own is the common law principal that possession is 9/10ths of the law. This in fact means that if you are physically in possession of a piece of property as in actually there in person upon it you have established a nine times more powerful lawful basis of ownership than the owners of public or private record. If they don’t live there themselves, dwell there, or have agents living or dwelling on the property they are in fact lawfully not in possession of it. Legally they own it, but lawful and legal are two different things, lawful is established on common/nature’s law principals in this case how you could own something you are physically not in possession of. The person who actually resides and dwells there is in possession of it. Legal means by contract, both parties agree. That is the difference.

Under common law what is effectively happening is a squatter is taking it over and is in physical possession of it.

Then declaring their ownership lawfully by using the nine tenths of the law that favors those in actual physical possession, under common law the entity or person who imagines they legally own it through contractual agreement must be able to prove a loss.

Because our instrument of debt, fiat, and de facto currency is not attached to any property or commodity it does not have a real value, but simply a perceived value. Legally and lawfully there is huge difference between real value and perceived value. Real value is lawful, perceived value is legal. Lawful always trumps legal.

Because the currency is worthless and if it was currency they purchased it with, their loss is only the real value of the cost of paper, ink and labor.

Lawfully under common law this then is a private debtor issue with the real value of the currency lost only being the cost of the paper, ink and labor. Further if the currency was simply a funds transfer using a bank draft, personal check, or electronic funds transfer now there is really no loss except the labor. If the labor is paid in that same paper currency there is no loss there either.

The land itself was grown by the earth; if you or your agents are not physically in possession on it you do not lawfully own this land.

The dwelling was paid for in full at the time it was built.

The only thing of real value is land and resources and human beings, we are necessary to extract the earth’s natural bounty and to fashion physical things and products of value from it. These things are all very real. They have a real utility value. While their perceived speculative power is simply attached to currency that also is first based on a perceived and fluctuating speculative value which causes all things with a utility real value then to have a perceived speculative value based on the fluctuating currency of no real value.

Yet when it comes to utility real value, if you are using the computer you are in possession of it has a real value to you, the fluctuating price you paid for it in perceived value paper has no meaning to you once you own it, only the real utility value of the actual property does.

The legal owners of the land have no utility use for it themselves, they are not using it, they can not be lawful possessors and owners of it unless they or their agents or in physical possession of it and on it and deriving a utility real value from it as a result.

The squatter who is now in physical possession of it has a real utility need for it, and can establish a lawful decree of ownership under common law as a result. He simply has to declare this to the state in the process already described by others in the thread, so the state can make this a matter of public record.

Lawfully the only way the legal owners could then challenge the 9/10th of the law favor to the squatter is to take possession of it back through them or their agents but would then have to actually dwell in it to reestablish ownership and a real utilitarian need. So if the actual title owner or their agent has no way, need or desire to do it, then and get that real utility value from it, then the squatter may retain it?

Why it becomes necessary to answer all correspondence from the legal owners or their agents is simply to establish you remain in possession of it. As long as you can demonstrate you are in lawful physical possession of it in that fashion they can not claim that the property has been abandoned to reestablish their legal claim of title.

To stay in lawful possession of the land and property you must stay on it.

The only time this would not work is if the owners actually possessed allodial title to it, if it’s the Queen of England’s property chances are great she possesses allodial title, if the property is owned by the Vatican they would always have allodial title.

Most other entities and legal owners would not have allodial title.

Now to answer your question as to why you can’t just acquire and acquire in this fashion is in part because you must physically possess and be on the land to declare it yours.

However importantly in the example(s) sited in this thread the squatter decreeing possession and lawful ownership first came in to possession through legal agreement, in other words it was not an abandoned property squatted upon it was obtained through legal agreement, a loan agreement between a bank that now legally owns it, or an individual that legally owned it that has made you a debtor to legally live there.

You are simply abandoning the legal agreement to seek a lawful solution as a squatter in physical possession.

However because you must keep staying there, legal attempts to verify that you are which will be legally reported unto your credit rating will show you legally in default.

Once you are in legal default on your credit report, no other party is likely enter into a legal agreement to allow you to legally take possession only to then take lawful possession.

So you can’t run around the world acquiring endless properties and dwellings in this way, one at a time though for only as long as you want to squat on it, and you must come into possession of the property and dwelling either first legally by agreement with the legal owner who is not in lawful possession, but the owner of legal record, or acquire it lawfully by intruding into an abandoned piece of property legally owned and then taking lawful possession by lawful decree.

The State which as do the banks and financial institutions and corporations always needs to balance its books, the cross is also a ledger, assets on one side, debts on the other, the moment you decree a second piece of property to the state you are in essence telling them the other property you decreed to lawfully be yours is lawfully abandoned so it can be either reclaimed by the legal owners of record should they wish to reestablish the claim or taken over by the state.

Squatting laws are real, countries like Mexico still have them where the process I just described is often utilized and commonly known and is accepted to be both lawful and legal.

These laws are very real here in the United States because it is common law; they are not commonly known, publicized or often utilized though. So much most people would not dream that they existed or could be used.


[edit on 6/3/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Damn I love this thread, I don't know how anybody can deny this information. I feel this topic is very important and doesn't matter if you believe it or not, you have to at least be aware of this.

This is an excellent thread .

There are some users on this thread who seems to know about the biggest cons-piracy issue of all times .


Here is a mantra ;

I am not a person .

I have a person .

Roman Law Maxim

A maxim of Roman Law which carries forth to today is: “Let he who would be deceived, be deceived.”

Which is to say, if your ignorance allows you to be deceived, then so be it… Deception is allowed under the law and it occurs all the time.

So there is truly a price to pay for ignorance of the law. They should know, they’ve made certain none of us are educated in law in public school.

Robert - Arthur : Menard

Of course , a new socio-economic model is required for all of humanity , including the lords & ladies .

reply to post by 23432


Robert - Arthur : Menard

what does the - and the : indicate in your name?

Capitis diminutio maxima has absolutely nothing to do with capital letters. Ancient rome only had capitals. And they weren't called "capitals" until the lower case was made.

Capitis means "head". Not Capitals. Capitis diminutio means "lower than the head" or "less than the head" I think.

When you see a conspiracy theory, don't find more evidence to support it. Find evidence that it is all rubbish. This is how all of you get dragged into little things like this...you just fall for one attention-seeking self-important bloke with a messiah complex.

...plus, dont you conspiracy theorists have any other better things to do?

[edit on 6-3-2010 by YouMoronsAreParanoid]

[edit on 6-3-2010 by YouMoronsAreParanoid]

Originally posted by Cabaret Voltaire
reply to post by 23432

 

Robert - Arthur : Menard

what does the - and the : indicate in your name?

Hi there Cabaret Voltaire

It's not my name .

But if it was , - and : would mean what I meant it to mean it .


It's all an act .

What is an act one might ask .

Precisely !


Smoke and Mirrors where up is down and left is right .

Ace is required , Capitano , Ace is required .

Originally posted by daddio

What you don't understand...

no, don't just play ignorant, i was not by any means talking about redemption itself, but your matrix quote, i.e. you have to walk through that door /take that pill, etc. type of symbolism and it's application in the real world

you can't beat an enemy by playing their own game according to their own rules, period. to believe otherwise would assume stupidity on their part.

a notice of intent will help you how exactly in war? will you now tell us that all the the people who died at waco would have survived had they sent letters containing the required phrases to a court?

WRONG....
Once again we see the arrogance/ignorance that assumes that that everyone reading this is based in US.
Just sayin......

reply to post by YouMoronsAreParanoid


Welcome to ATS. Nice username.

Please tell us more about what you know.

[edit on 6-3-2010 by Ionized]

Originally posted by 23432

Originally posted by Cabaret Voltaire
reply to post by 23432

 

Robert - Arthur : Menard

what does the - and the : indicate in your name?

Hi there Cabaret Voltaire

It's not my name .

But if it was , - and : would mean what I meant it to mean it .


It's all an act .

What is an act one might ask .

Precisely !


Smoke and Mirrors where up is down and left is right .

Ace is required , Capitano , Ace is required .

I think now I actually know less than before.

So.....
how about......
what does the - and the : mean in somebody else's person corporation ''name'' thingy?

reply to post by Long Lance


While I see your point, another possibility is that these remedies are put into the code for those who are meant to know about and use them, as the way for those who are above the system, to be above the system.

I do see your point though, but we are dealing with Code, codified to the point where the common human is confused but the man in the know has the key.

But perhaps you are right, maybe those who are above the code don't bother with any of these procedures at all.

Originally posted by Cabaret Voltaire


I think now I actually know less than before.

So.....
how about......
what does the - and the : mean in somebody else's person corporation ''name'' thingy?

Cabaret

Dash (-) and a Colon ( will mean whatever the owner of the name wants it to mean .

All of this word-smithing leads us to a stage where the acts are per-formed .

You are thinking too hard .

Your name is not yours , it never was to start with .

If you wanted to augment your giving name and make it irregular for the " extreme formality followers club " . then this is one way to go about .


Always remember , it's all an act , nothing more , nothing less .

Originally posted by Ionized


But perhaps you are right, maybe those who are above the code don't bother with any of these procedures at all.

when their source of power and therefore survival depends on violation of the law or code, it's a given noone will even think twice about doing it. are we there yet? probably not although you'll never know for sure until 'it' hits the fan.

Those who generate the obligations are also obliged to provide the remedies for the said obligations too . To not do so , would mean illegality and unlawfulness .

They are Lawfull & Legal .

That is how one does the ancient & justified routine .

Phonecians are eating their hats in their graves .

Assumption and Presumption rules the waves of administration .

Wake up by all means but you may not like what you are waking up to .

Some more links and info related to this topic. This stuff is all over the place once you begin to realize it is out there.

Tim Turner:
www.moneyonaccount.com...

If you live in texas....

Here is a good place to start finding some information for your self,

www.sos.state.tx.us...

I am generally a lurker here on ATS but I have found this thread to be one of the most informative I've seen so far. Most of the information presented appears to relate to the US, although there has been some mention of the Commonwealth. I was born in Australia so I'd like to know how this relates to me or at least where to start looking for information. Thanks

Mat 22:18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
Mat 22:19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
Mat 22:20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
Mat 22:21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Mat 22:22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

Does this make a little more sense now....?

Mat 23:16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
Mat 23:17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
Mat 23:18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.
Mat 23:19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?

Is that a little clearer perspective?

Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Gal 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: [color=#FF0000](100 dollar bilz yall)
Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Gal 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Peace