Christian Walters “Creating, Claiming, and Moving Titles” thru AFV, UCC, GSA and IRS forms. http://www.imperialmastering.com/legal/christianwaltersoct3009withsamdavis.mp3 Sat 7 to 9, wwwtherealpublicradio.net. Call in at 712-432-8773, PIN 179441#. The key is in ‘expressing the trust’. My administrative remedy focuses on that. All the colorable titles/colorable contracts HIDE the root, which is the Trust. Everything is a trust because there is no money, there’s no value available to be given as consideration. So a trust fills the void. Say I have a cup. Title to that has to be on a piece of paper. To reach the real thing in the private, we go thru the public with a colorable title (colorable: appearing to be true, valid, or right, e.g., ‘the pleading did not state a colorable claim’; intended to deceive; counterfeit.) First we create the title, which is a representation of the cup. Put on paper its description, get that notarized, then we register it in the public, and that makes it able to be seen in the public, but we hold it in the private. We claim it on a UCC 1, in collateral (box 4). Then we get a certified copy of that, and also file a Notice in the County and get a certified copy of that. We’ve just registered that title in the public, and we have two witnesses, so public can see it. Now we can move it. If we want to we can move it to someone else. Whoever is holding title has liability. We move it via UCC 3. We authenticate before registration (usually done by notary). All this is done thru commerce. The IRS forms are for the private side, the GSA forms for the public side. It’s just like a ledger sheet, a T. On the left/public/liability, must balance with the asset side on the right, the private side. That’s banking, which we do according to GAAP and FASB. Both sides must balance, or the bank has to float a bond to balance the account. That’s when you get arrested. They put a charge on the public/liability side, by registering with the US Treasury, hitting you with charge/indictment, and unless you balance the account, they’ll balance it for you. But you can balance it yourself by creating the title, etc. You do banking every day, but you don’t know it. Everything coming into your mailbox is coming under the UCC Article 3, Negotiable Instruments, under 3-115, which is Incomplete Instruments, looking for your signature to make it complete. Look at that section, it says ‘they’re going to make it complete by adding words and numbers’. Words like ‘pay to the order of’, and maybe One Million Dollars and they get your signature so they can turn it into a negotiable instrument, a check. Under 3-115 they’re going to add other doc’s with that, such as security agreements. This is how negotiable instruments ties into all this. What we’re leading to is, for example, in a mortgage, we start out with a promissory note, which is really a title. They want your signature to gain access to your Exemption Account, which is the SS account, the cestui que trust (public/liability), which is drawn against the foreign situs trust, the Birth Certificate (BC) trust (private/ assets). Again, accounts must balance. So the promissory note is just a decoy so they can grab your signature, and add ‘words and numbers’ to it. The key is, how did you give your signature. It is the ‘rule of signatures’ and the ‘rule of forms’ that counts. You never want to give your unqualified signature in the public because it is going to be construed as the strawman. That gives them ‘accommodation signature’ rights (carte blanche) and access to your account. You can restrict your signature so that you have access to the account. You want to sign (before signature) ‘by Grantor’, ‘by Trustee’, or ‘by Beneficiary’, (the 3 parties to a trust), or sign as “Authorized Representative (AR)”. I call the AR the ‘portal term’ because it portals in to your UCC. Under UCC 3-402, where the AR is signing for the contractdebtor-creditor relationship.
But it also can apply to trusts, with a Form 56 appointment to the AR, who may function as a co-trustee. Special conditions for that Authorized rep because now with that appointment, he’s under trust, he can operate as assistant to trusteeand can (not sure, sounds like “(the AR) could also be the trustee’s assistant as (?) the payer of the bill, by the private contract on the form 56.) Without it he’s under UCC3-402. Authorized rep could be either debtor/creditor context, or trust. The SS account/trust is really a sub-trust, and by giving qualified signatures, that tells them you know who you are. If you don’t express the trust, they will ‘construe’ the trust, under creditor/debtor law. By not expressing the trust, we drop the ball, they pick it up, and construe it, in their favor, with you liable for payment with FRN’s as a 14th Amendment citizen, liable for statutes and codes. If you express the trust, you can make payment with Private credit. As you function, you’re going to have to give a key restriction to correspond with the duty you’re performing. That is going to be looked at, and compared with what you’re trying to accomplish in comparison to how you’re signing. Unless the key fits in the door, the key won’t open the door. The key is the rule of signatures. It’s the key to accessing the Treasure. Everything becomes an act of ‘gifting’ under the Trust. Trusts were put in place in 1933 with the taking of the gold. So every colorable contract is wrapping and hiding a trust at it’s core and the gifting of the ‘res’ or the principal of the trust forms the corpus of the trust. Your signature is your representation of the trust and all your past, present, and future labor, i.e. your assets. Your signature is the res, i.e. the value and the principal. Black’s law; two kinds of trusts, Express and Implied. “Trust: the right, enforceable solely in equity, (in court), to the beneficial enjoyment of property to which another person holds legal title; a property interest held by one person (grantee or trustee) at the request of the grantor or settlor, for the benefit of a third party (the beneficiary). Express Trust: a trust created with the Settlor’s express intent (expressing the trust, voluntarily), usually declared in writing; an ordinary trust as opposed to a resulting trust or a constructive trust. Implied trust, which is involuntary; also called constructive trust. (SS account). The form thru which the conscience of equity (the court) finds expression against one who has obtained property by wrong-doing. When property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may in good conscience retain the beneficial interest/title, equity converts him into a trustee. (They deem us to be holding title illegally, and they convert us into the trustee.) It is sometimes said that when there are sufficient grounds for imposing a constructive trust, the court construes a trust (it implies a trust because we did not express a trust first). The expression ‘constructive trust’ is absurd, because “constructive” is derived from “construe”, not ‘construct’; the court ‘construes’ the circumstances, it explains them; it does not ‘construct’ them.” (Black’s). Cestui que trust is an implied or constructive trust.(Social Security Trust) It is a beneficiary of the foreign situs trust because you didn’t express the trust after age 18. The cestui que is the remedy by which the court finds justice for the one who has lost his property to one who does not legally have a right to the property. They construe the trust with you as the trustee; you were supposed to pay, you didn’t, so you are in breach of fiduciary duty, you can go to jail. You should express the trust with your intent, under,
say, 1776 law form, which is pre-United States, and pre-statutes and codes, so you could then pay with private credit, or NDI’s, ‘negotiable debt instruments’ and you would be safe in making private payments with private credit. They put you under public policy where you have to pay with FRN’s. If you would like to make payments with private credit, you can always correct the problem. Under “The Re-statement of Laws on Trusts”, second edition, at 332, it says “powers of revocation or modification omitted by mistake; the settlor can reform or modify the trust to reflect his original intent, even when the court construes the trust to be irrevocable”. Because you didn’t express it being revocable or modifiable, you didn’t know as settlor you had such power. A practical example; a mortgage foreclosure case, where foreclosure sale was set before any documents had been filed, and the documents were prepared that expressed the trust in three lines and a footnote and case cites. The court construed the trust and appointed the trustee as defendant. Our “Notice of Interest” (a statement that we are expressing the trust), alleged that the defendant was the beneficiary now, not the trustee, as the court had construed. The sale was postponed two hours before it was set to go. We determined that the reasons for the postponement were 1) any time the trustee and the beneficiary are one and the same, the trust freezes, or terminates. The court construed or implied the trustee to be the defendant, where we came in and expressed the trustee to be the beneficiary, freezing the trust. 2) More importantly, we filed the SOI, Statement of Interest, and that has to be filed within 30 days of claiming the NOI, because the NOI times out. This gives the court notice of a claim, so it could not give free and clear title with a notice of adverse claim SOI supports the fact that we are the grantor and the beneficiary. That case collapsed, disappeared. (The SOI is CCI, Confidential Commercial Information). Get IRS enforcement. Now they can’t construe the trust. When you’re under Trusts, you’re not under debtor/creditor, or agency, or statutes and codes, or the 14th amendment citizenship status///you’re under private law. Courts can operate in both the public and the private realms. They got you into trust, but believing that you’re operating under debtor/creditor. The three parties to a trust, grantor, trustee and beneficiary, do not have to have knowledge that they are forming a trust relationship that can be seen and recognized by law. That’s how they trick you in court. You aren’t qualifying your signature. You give them access to the account by accommodation rights based on the birth certificate, the SS 5 Social Security application, and the 1040 form, a contract that gets you under 14th amendment debtor/slave/citizen. Besides ‘authorized rep’, another word that has two functions is ‘transfer’. Under UCC, it’s 3-200’s, where transfer is really ‘negotiation’ of a negotiable instrument, by assignment, endorsement, delivery by bearer, or by operation of law. “Transfer” also means, under trust law, ‘one of the means of forming a trust’. We qualified our signatures as grantor and beneficiary, and appointed the judge as trustee, for closure and settlement. Look up definition of special deposit; trust deposit, and trust receipt. Trust receipt is ‘a pre-UCC security device, now governed by Article 9 of the Code, consisting of a receipt, stating that the wholesaler or buyer has possession of the goods for the benefit of the financier.’ Today, there must usually be a security agreement, coupled with a filed financing statement (UCC1), with the security agreement on it,’ just like in a mortgage case. That is a trust receipt if you express the trust first. And a receipt
is ‘a record of a payment.’ If you didn’t express the trust, they construed it to be your UCC filing under debtor/creditor law, and now you owe a debt. If you had come in expressing the trust, that UCC1 filing with the security agreement would be a trust receipt, a record of the payment being made. The key is in the expression of the trust. From the Treasury Dept website: Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy.