May 22, 2013 3:26 AM

I'll Start this off. I'll leave it to Scott to decide if it is worthy of the top ten list: FALSE - There isn't any MONEY of REAL VALUE.

Untrue. Bitcoin has value. No debt and is really easy to transfer across jurisdictions.

Harry, its not "FREE DUMB" movement, it's "FREETARD" BOWEL MOVEMENT.

...and I can buy other currencies with it!

Free-Dumb is a TENDER FOR LAW Classic meme!

Precious metals have "INTRINSIC" value in the eye (3rd) of the holder. My brown eye has more value than paper money. I use paper to wipe my ass so that's about all the VALUE I can see with paper debt currencies. BITCOIN. Whoever invented it really knows their stuff & if it didn't have an END then it would wipe out all paper make believe debt currencies. Scott, you are beyond genius. So is Tara ??

My point was that my initial offering was FALSE because all money has VALUE because it can be used to obtain things. Although created by debt, and, therefore having a negative value; it has REAL VALUE. Who amongst us would burn our money? This is not to say that I have missed Scott's point that BITCOIN has a SUPERIOR VALUE because it is not debt based, nor is it taxable, which of course makes it EXTRA VALUABLE.

Slap down !!

I'd appreciate such a list too, if any of you have points to add.

The Birth certificate accesses an eleventy billion dollar account: No. Not for You. Not for the government. NOT ANYBODY. It is the government's DeFacto CLAIM on the VALUE in the NAME. Lien it, and YOU get the value...

...but then you are your own creditor, and you have nothing the world wants.

"you are your own creditor, and you have nothing the world wants." Don't they WANT our BODY and SIGNATURE as the SURETY which creates their PROFITS and FINANCES their shenanigans?

..not to mention as it turns out, we were mailed (think Nuke/Area 51) the Birth Certificate by mistake?.....would that have anything to do with why they used to say on the back of them- 'FOR TREASURY USE ONLY'...? :/

Sorry for the ignorance, but the right to contract is King isn't it, and there is no need to use any registry (UCC etc) to lien birth certificate etc,- my own claim to sovereignty based on natural law gives me sufficient standing always, doesn't it? Very difficult to manuever the turbid waters of the various jurisdictions in Scandinavia,-cradle of the sheeple.. There is little escaping the law of the iron fist it seems.

And by my word I can reclaim administration of my trust (birth certificate)?

"NOT ANYBODY" accesses our TRUST because theirs is a DeFacto CLAIM (and not a VALID CLAIM)? They don't access our PATRIMONY because it is ours IN LAW unless we TENDER or ACCEPT OTHERWISE. It's just waiting for us to lien it. OK so far? We break the law by claiming ownership of the BC (which is property of the treasury), and in doings so we LEGALLY become the SURETY for their funny accounting system. Meanwhile, our trust sits patiently waiting for us to lien it?

When I, in the form of offer to contract, disassociated from their legal system & at the same time reclaimed administration of my strawman,- which law will there be to break? Isn't it all about jurisdictional superiority,- and nothing beats natural law?

It remains untouched because we as Kings haven't made a VALID CLAIM upon it? UNLESS we were given full DISCLOSURE and all criteria of a valid contract are met, the trust remains pristine in LAW, even if Governments have made deFacto CLAIMS against it? Am I close?

STRAWMAN - Yet another Free-Dumb Movement lie. Your PERSON is a BILL OF LADING, not a fucking strawman. It entitles you to resources and services from the government in order to act in commerce. Nothing else.

Canadian tire money is a Coupon that does the same thing. No straws. No man. Just accounting.

How do we collapse the governments de facto claim on us, swiftly and efficiently? Can we?

Harry. CLAIMING THAT YE OWN THE BC !! FFS!! IT'S NOT YOURS. ITS THEIRS. USE IT AGAINST THEM BUT DON'T CLAIM IT FFS!! CLAIMING IT MAKES YOU SURETY. As Scott, says in regards to a friend of his " It's not my bag baby".

BILL OF LADING The written evidence of a contract for the carriage and delivery of goods sent by sea for a certain freight. Where are we presumably being shipped to? Where are they sending us, and to whom or what will we be delivered to? Only to act in commerce? For Example, can't we use our PERSON to CLAIM access to "CANADIAN" lakes so we can splash around and act like idiots if we want?

Harry, go back & read what Scott, says in regards to claiming your BC. It's in the ss Dean Clifford, thread.

You are the "ship" (Vessel).

You are carrying a bill of lading that is actually YOURS. It only benefits the government when you don't claim it. A lien is your PUBLIC CLAIM to that BILL OF LADING, which means the government cannot use it.

I recall someone once saying, "Off-ship" = delivered ;)

So, my reasoning above was valid as long as change "strawman" for "bill of laden"?

Scott, isn't it ELEVENTY TRILLION $$ NOT BILLION?

Please, stop saying STRAWMAN.....AAAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH. ..

Strawman is for FREETARDERS.

Get off the freetard gatorade dude.

How would you define yourself vs freetarders? In which way exactly does your approach differ? In just a few words? I'll for one read through all of your posts to understand all of this better,-promise.

Our captain, did say something just recently about people using the word STRAWMAN. .. TAKE NOTICE PLEASE.

Freeyarders....where's the YARD ??

I have a "ship" that my parents gave them to take care of. I cannot use it without getting myself in trouble unless I lien it with a VALID PUBLIC CLAIM? From then on I can tell them where to go and how to get there? And if they should become confused, my NOTICE OF MISTAKE presented within my affidavit will correct them of any such misunderstanding.

Spastic kunts use the word STRAWMAN. IM NOT THAT SPASTIC.

Thank you Harry., that is what I thought.

Ingunn...sigh....you've got a lot of De programming to do b4 ye even start asking questions about LAW SHIT. You're a CONSTITUTIONALIST aren't ye??

Adam, I'd say you have a mile or two to walk as well - both of us do.

Then I create a TRUST (complete with terms that make me happier than a pig in shit) and have my corporation (another vessel) be responsible to administer the trust. Now my flesh and blood body never has to answer anything. If some government "official" makes some deFacto claim that he has a right to take me someplace and spank me, I tell him that even I don't have access to to my PATRIMONY; he/she needs to get permission from my corporation's administrators. Oh, and they have a ginormous fee schedule for answering inquiries by third party interlopers.

In a LEGAL SYSTEM that is based on LEGAL PRESUMPTIONS, you want to REVERSE ONUS, not NOTIFY. Liening does just that. Unless the claim is rebutted, the onus is on the government to show why you are NOT entitled to the claim...except, legally they can't. The government is NOT A PERSON. It cannot make a claim.

"A Fiction injures no one"...? - Maxim of Law

Scott, a lien is a private claim and to sue is a public claim?

Um... No, you can't.

You have only ONE unalienable right; The right not to contract. The rest of your rights, are INALIENABLE rights; Meaning they are LEGALLY PRESUMED unless you have implicitly surrendered them.

You surrender inalienable rights when you enter commerce, and are a commodity that is bought and sold in commerce.

ADMIRALTY is ROMAN law, which is based on PRESUMPTION. When you use MONEY that has a TENDER FOR LAW attached, you don't get to dictate terms after. If you could, do you think I'd waste time trying to teach you vacuum-heads how to create your own money, and what a crypto currency is? :P

ummmm....UCC Redemption!

Capitis Diminutio

"...you don't get to dictate terms after."..... this has me thinking; id like to ask Mark Carney: "What were the Terms&Conditions of use (legal tender) to BEGIN WITH?" ;)

so, how valid is editing the paper currency, crossing out the word law for instance?

The word LAW is not on ANY currency that I know of! :D

LEGAL IS.

Yes, and if you deface a LEGAL instrument and BENEFIT from it, you have committed FRAUD.

The BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT and THE CRIMINAL CODE are pretty clear on that.

False promises

How so? If you think that's true, burn every bank note as soon as you get it.

Fraudulent promissory notes. ...

Even a 9 year old gets it. Today I asked my daughter to read the tiny line of script on the Thai bank note and to tell me what it meant. She said "It means it isn't really money"

WOW....

9 year young

She should start teaching her teachers.

Nothing is hidden!

A reverse onus clause is a provision within a statute that shifts the burden of proof on to the individual specified to disprove an element of the information. Typically, this provision concerns a shift in burden onto a defendant in either a criminal offence or tort claim. For example, the automotive legislation in many countries provides that any driver who hits a pedestrian has the burden of establishing that they were not negligent.

Onus, from Latin, indicates accountability/responsibility Onus may also refer to: Blame Burden (disambiguation) Legal burden of proof (onus probandi)