Declaration of Independence... Drafting in Progress.

[Daozen]

Part III. Liens?

I know from other conversations that galactic abuse of laws is part of this. Jupiter Ascending and The Ruiner confirmed and expanded on what I had learned in the past.

I know they are afraid of Liens. I'm sure they are something that can disrupt the whole process.

The OPPT did more than people think. But the OPPT say "It's done." It's not done. It's not done until we are partying in the streets, and we go to a true organic timeline, not a matrix positive timeline. They made a huge crack in the mechanism, but it's not over yet.

How do we file liens?

Against who?

In what court?

Where is the best OPPT information about this? Where are the videos about the harvesting and the deception. They are in the early conversations, but where?

In Indonesia, we just wrote them on paper, and that was considered ratified. They said the soul group we were part of could do it, but only a small percentage of them had woken up...

So... now to investigate liens. Any ideas are welcome.

To be continued.

[Daozen]

Lien links:

Winston Shrout on OPPT liens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGjfKnAjnNI

Heather responds to Winston:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY5WWliZCzA

http://shiftshaper.org/freeatlast/20...k-in-nebraska/

http://americankabuki.blogspot.tw/20...of-planet.html

http://www.zengardner.com/winston-sh...pt-ucc-filing/

HARVESTING

https://angellucci.wordpress.com/201...-simon-palmer/

WINSTON SHROUT ON LIENS

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?t=9329

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYSVq5_Hk2Q

https://www.wssic.com/

DAVID WILCOCK ON LIENS:

http://divinecosmos.com/start-here/d...g/1051-g7banks


LAWFUL REBELLION ON LIENS


HARVESTING AND PRIVATE COURTS

http://removingtheshackles.blogspot....march-5th.html

http://www.lawfulrebellion.org/2009/...bject-to-acts/

WHO CAN PUT A LIEN ON A BANK ACCOUNT?

http://www.ehow.com/info_8567208_can...k-account.html

MIRROR LOANS

http://pn.i-uv.com/courtesy-notices/

HEATHER OPPT ON THE ENERGETIC GRID:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is1dsy94AKQ

[lcam88]

icam88, maybe you could teach us about liens. I only know what I know from half remembered Winston Shrout videos and Lawful rebellion podcasts. If you have time, any information or pointers/links are appreciated. Cheers.

Dear Contact Point:

I am honored by the offer you extend. I'll dig up the model of the contact between my person and my human self, and as we move along, let's see what makes sense to consider and decide what directions are worth moving in.

Originally the aforementioned contract, it was part of a process of perfecting a legal claim. It was to be followed by submission of UCC1 form (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCC-1_financing_statement) followed by notice of fault and default (notarized with a bill of lading and sent by certified or registered mail etc etc). The packet created would be the perfected claim that would be almost irrefutable in a court of law.

The problem we have been having with these types of perfected legal claims, which are very similar to your tacit procuration of surrender in a way, is actually enforcing the terms. From memory Winston Shrout has some level of success in his actions as he was in possession of the bond number of a standing judge and managed to gain some level of traction, they disbanded the judge at the end, if memory serves. There was a case in North Carolina, now sealed, where two brother successfully engaged a bank on the basis of Commercial Law, but because of the procedures involved, they spent over 12 months in jail while they made their case. In history we have much evidence of military options being utilized because no other option of enforcement could be practically leveraged.

So while learning about liens and perfecting legal claims to back the liens is well worth the results in terms of knowledge, the practical side of utilizing these means for ends against the powers that be are rather more meek and certainly very very hard indeed. I liken the undertaking to going All-In in a poker game knowing you have the winning hand, in context of a Murphy's law that states: A 44 beats 4 aces. How far are you willing to go? Are you going to take the judge up under contempt of court, who is going to oversee that? We have found that courts are not actually honorable when faced with a case between a plaintiff holding a perfect claim and a bank, they uphold the status quo and not the contract in every one of the more than 50 occasions we tried. Regardless, this knowledge is very interesting indeed, and perhaps still very useful, especially in context of what Contact Point is doing.

To understand the basis of authority that underpin a perfected legal claim, it is necessary to know the basics: Maxims of law, legal definitions, and Commercial Law (sometimes referred to as Maritime Law or Law of the sea: https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc). Perhaps the most important basic tool you need is a legal dictionary. I recommend Blacks Law, and get a recent version as well as one that was published before 1933 when the Federal Reserve Act was enacted, definitions about money changed at that time. In fact many of the definitions have been changed to suite the more modern legal statutes than Commercial Law, I see it fitting to specify the exact definition by reference only, from one of these dictionaries where it suites me.

The Maxims of Law, normally written in latin, are also published in the dictionaries along with their translations. They are much like logical concrete positions which are conclusions based on application of Law of Thought that can be made in abstract circumstances where argument or conflict arise. They are normally presumed in court, but reference made to them where fitting will certainly carry a requirement to consideration equivalent to fact. It was said to me, that they are the foundation by which all reason and law are based.

[Daozen]

Thanks for a good breakdown. I was hazy on all those details.

Re: "How far do you want to take it?" There are some issues:

1) Do I even consider the current system valid? i.e. Do I need to submit a form to an illegal legal entity? I'd prefer to write an affadavit voiding any claims they have.
2) You can contract with infinity itself, which supersedes ALL other legal entities.
3) We experienced concrete, legitimate, verified success with contracts pinned to the wall. We are being watched. Higher dimensional courts are real.
4) Interesting that you picked up on the Tacit procuration of surrender. Have you heard the stories of judges being terrified of liens?
5) I am just going to write something once, and maybe post it online, but nothing more. I refuse to interact with the UCC system, except to void it.
6) I will add a petition/poll element. These things are noticed too.

So I am almost coming from a magic angle. Magic, in this case, means a system of laws invisible to us that we can still interact with.

So... what would be the best document: Voiding out all their legal claims to Earth? Putting a Lien on the entire harvesting system? Lets get fictional here. They're fictional too.

The Legal terms I'm looking at are: Void, Tacit Procuration, an Affadavit affirming freedom?, and large scale liens.

Heather did something. She had them all running around. This is documented on line.

Best Wishes,

[Daozen]

Now tell me what a court is.

Why do I have to go to their court? You are tacitly validating them by accepting and approaching their system. Can I open my own court? What do I need for a court? A gavel and a wig? What else?

I am not naive enough to think one judgement could change things overnight, but SOMETHING is going on.

We are all working together and eroding this system from our own special angles.

[Daozen]

Gandhi said, “There is a higher court than the courts of justice and that is the court of conscience. It supercedes all other courts.”

Forget about all the revisionist arguments about Gandhi. No one was perfect. Look at that quote. Is that just a metaphor, or is a coded reference to a higher court?

All I know is they took this stuff very seriously in Indonesia.

[Daozen]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court

Court
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Court (disambiguation).

A trial at the Old Bailey in London as drawn by Thomas Rowlandson and Augustus Pugin for Ackermann's Microcosm of London (1808–11).
A court is a tribunal, often as governmental institution, with the authority to adjudicate legal disputes between parties and carry out the administration of justice in civil, criminal, and administrative matters in accordance with the rule of law.[1] In both common law and civil law legal systems, courts are the central means for dispute resolution, and it is generally understood that all persons have an ability to bring their claims before a court. Similarly, the rights of those accused of a crime include the right to present a defense before a court.

The system of courts that interprets and applies the law is collectively known as the judiciary. The place where a court sits is known as a venue. The room where court proceedings occur is known as a courtroom, and the building as a courthouse; court facilities range from simple and very small facilities in rural communities to large buildings in cities.

The practical authority given to the court is known as its jurisdiction (Latin jus dicere) – the court's power to decide certain kinds of questions or petitions put to it. According to William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, a court is constituted by a minimum of three parties: the actor or plaintiff, who complains of an injury done; the reus or defendant, who is called upon to make satisfaction for it, and the judex or judicial power, which is to examine the truth of the fact, to determine the law arising upon that fact, and, if any injury appears to have been done, to ascertain and by its officers to apply a legal remedy. It is also usual in the superior courts to have barristers, and attorneys or counsel, as assistants,[2] though, often, courts consist of additional barristers, bailiffs, reporters, and perhaps a jury.

The term "the court" is also used to refer to the presiding officer or officials, usually one or more judges. The judge or panel of judges may also be collectively referred to as "the bench" (in contrast to attorneys and barristers, collectively referred to as "the bar"). In the United States, and other common law jurisdictions, the term "court" (in the case of U.S. federal courts) by law is used to describe the judge himself or herself.[3]

In the United States, the legal authority of a court to take action is based on personal jurisdiction, subject-matter jurisdiction, and venue over the parties to the litigation.

[Daozen]

The question is, why are we coming at this from the "defendants" angle? i.e. the feisty David challenging the Goliath courts? Why?

They are in the minority. They are in the wrong. Why can't we hold our own trial, even online? This goes to common law courts and citizen juries etc. Another legal area I know little about...

[Daozen]

Common Law Court Info

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread671458/pg1
http://archive.adl.org/mwd/common.html

At the 6:19 mark of this government instructional video the judge thanks the jurors for helping bring justice "in our common law court"

All of that being said, have people who are using their freemen techniques been right all along?

Freemen went as far as arresting a judge yesterday because the judge refused to state if it was a common law court or if he was operating under his oath.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread670987/pg1

[lcam88]

Now tell me what a court is.

Why do I have to go to their court? You are tacitly validating them by accepting and approaching their system. Can I open my own court? What do I need for a court? A gavel and a wig? What else?

I am not naive enough to think one judgement could change things overnight, but SOMETHING is going on.

We are all working together and eroding this system from our own special angles.

A court is simply the space before you where you resolve your disputes. In admiralty, that is where the captain happens to be. And indeed are you not the captain of your ship? <shrug/>

I like your approach of not giving it more legitimacy than absolutely required. I don't know if open challenges are really the best way. Certainly working towards a point where you no longer need the benefits offered is something absolutely necessary; we can never be rid of them if we depend on them. That said, perhaps there is a way to assimilate them... It's something I've been thinking over for a very long time. Essentially the oligarchy has come to the point where technological innovation no longer requires sustenance of the blue collar and in turn they have been tacitly exiled economically. Perhaps there is an opportunity or angle to work from with that.

As I see it: I govern myself and don't require anyone else to perform that task for me. But as it happens, many people cannot govern themselves and things are now the way they are.

Don't be too quick to disregard the UCC. It is just like any other system, it will become what people make of it. People have been indoctrinated and trained with money and maybe that is something workable. Just look up the definition of money in the UCC, it doesn't exist. In the Federal Reserve act it explicitly prohibits persons (corporate or otherwise) from requiring payment in a specific _form_ of money. If memory serves, value is defined in the UCC as "money or its equivalent". Equivalent as in a note or draft as further detailed in the UCC.

That victory and the unease by which the turn of events took, is likely only because there was a question, even if not noticed by Heather, that not giving in would be detrimental to the big picture.

[lcam88]

Thanks for a good breakdown. I was hazy on all those details.

Re: "How far do you want to take it?" There are some issues:

1) Do I even consider the current system valid? i.e. Do I need to submit a form to an illegal legal entity? I'd prefer to write an affadavit voiding any claims they have.

It is valid, we cannot live without it. But you don't need to submit a form. In fact, I did very much what you are suggesting.

2) You can contract with infinity itself, which supersedes ALL other legal entities.

Indeed

The point of contract is only the meeting of like minds in the exchange of consideration.

3) We experienced concrete, legitimate, verified success with contracts pinned to the wall. We are being watched. Higher dimensional courts are real.

But what matters is our resolve, that we govern ourselves, first and foremost. Regardless of whether we are watched or not, and regardless of higher authority of some kind.

And in a way that is that the system is built around too.

4) Interesting that you picked up on the Tacit procuration of surrender. Have you heard the stories of judges being terrified of liens?

I have been meaning to mention it for some time. I have heard of those stories. When my brother engages banks before courts, he normally gets the "special" judge. On more than one occasion they have substituted the judge once they identified him. What does that say? He knows he is urinating (the other word was ****ed out) down the throat of the beast too.

5) I am just going to write something once, and maybe post it online, but nothing more. I refuse to interact with the UCC system, except to void it.

I found the UCC to be the most consistent code in all of the statutes in all the states and countries. Indeed it is almost universal. If you handle paper money, you are handling a note as defined in the UCC in a manner consistent with the UCC. If you sign a check, same thing. Did you know you can write a draft that is the equivalent of money, and exchange it as a bearer instrument, all legally within the bounds of the UCC? What you cannot do with that draft is call it a check or make it resemble a check sufficiently so that it might be confused with a bank document.

The fact is everyone lives by these rules even if they do not know it. Your proposition is tantamount to supposing that being informed about events in your community is be avoided. I personally don't support the Hermit proposition unless you are prepared with an alternative.

Micheal Tellinger of South Africa is trying an interesting experiment there, but even the means he is using, on an informal level, has parallels with the UCC. There are many interesting things you can do even without refuting the UCC. For example, qualify your signature with terms like "without recourse" or "rights reserved". Those terms drastically change the meaning of documents in subtle ways. Why do you think the line you apply your signature to on a check is actually the words "Authorized Representative" in very very small letters?

What you propose, of not interacting with the UCC is quite a bit more formidable than you know.

6) I will add a petition/poll element. These things are noticed too.

So I am almost coming from a magic angle. Magic, in this case, means a system of laws invisible to us that we can still interact with.

So... what would be the best document: Voiding out all their legal claims to Earth? Putting a Lien on the entire harvesting system? Lets get fictional here. They're fictional too.

I agree with you here, that the problem is legal claims and actions people are taking. I really and truly admire your views and will to make a change. My point is to examine how to make that change.

Magic. I liked what Bashar (channelled messages) had to say about imagination, manifestation and the overall that he shared.

The Legal terms I'm looking at are: Void, Tacit Procuration, an Affadavit affirming freedom?, and large scale liens.

Heather did something. She had them all running around. This is documented on line.

Best Wishes,

Very interesting propositions. But is that really the best way? Personally, there is a part of me that prefers leaving Legalities as something for the history books.

[lcam88]

Forget about all the revisionist arguments about Gandhi. No one was perfect. Look at that quote. Is that just a metaphor, or is a coded reference to a higher court?

All I know is they took this stuff very seriously in Indonesia.

Indonesia is a muslim country, albeit more moderate than some. Just examine that faith a little bit and you should be very weary about religion in general.

[lcam88]

The question is, why are we coming at this from the "defendants" angle? i.e. the feisty David challenging the Goliath courts? Why?

They are in the minority. They are in the wrong. Why can't we hold our own trial, even online? This goes to common law courts and citizen juries etc. Another legal area I know little about...

(last one!)

Your angle is coming from your view that a claim has been made upon you, Contact Point. You feel you are being challenged and need to defend your position. That is why the difference I made earlier between the person and the human being is relevant. With that understanding and you will notice that there actually is no claim made upon you.

Rather the entire thing is rather a straw-man. They create an entity that they can then easily control, push around and knock down. The con is to have you accept that entity they created as though it where you. I took much care in the language I used in that post. Specifically:

Some years back, a distinction between human-being and person was made to me. The prior being a natural god-created being where the latter is more akin to a record identified by name and number in some governmental arquive, a persona of sorts people wear as though it where a part of them.

I say come to an understanding of who you are (legally) and make the time you have to spend here mean something to you. Don't worry about things that serve only to bring you to bear the wooden yoke until, or unless you can do something meaningful about it.

[lcam88]

The Legal terms I'm looking at are: Void, Tacit Procuration, an Affadavit affirming freedom?, and large scale liens.

Maybe you only need to look at one term: novation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novation

Even as a person encumbered by beneficiary obligations defined by some secret trust, you can always put forth a novation... Obviously new terms could void preexisting ones...

Perhaps a substitution of trustee

The biggest issue is always enforcing, as I say earlier. So the question still comes up, does such a legal maneuver actually matter? What do we actually want to do?

[Daozen]

Novation! That might tie everything together. I wonder if the UCC is directly linked to the harvesting mechanism. I think Heather said this, I can't remember where...

I have read and absorbed all your points. Lots to think about. I'm going away for a couple of days. The next step is to work on a document which ties all the ideas together. It all comes down to a document.