Declaration of Independence... Drafting in Progress.

[johnjen325]

The online UCC form options have limited the complete list permissible in a way that neuters it from the standpoint of what we want to do. Be careful because filing incorrectly can land you frivolous charges.

Yes 'playing' in the UCC sandbox is not for the uninitiated, nor for those who haven't been 'trained'.
And the training is not only limited but carefully controlled as to whom qualifies to be trained.

Finding a person qualified to deal with UCC filings would be necessary.

JJ

[johnjen325]

And just to further load up this whole area of investigation just a touch more…

The whole notion of contracts and agreements also applies to our extended families.
Both our soul and dna 'lineage' involves extensive contractual underpinnings, which take preceedence over anything going on down here in this gravity well.
With the proviso that we know about them, and accordingly take them into account.

This too is part of the deception being perpetuated upon humanity.
We have been labeled as being stupid (and worse) because we don't 'protect' ourselves, even when challenged.

It's hard to utilize resources and capabilities that are within ones grasp when there is a lack of awareness of even their existence, let alone the specifics that are involved in the first place. And this level of responsibilty for oneself also requires practice, which is where training/education/experience comes into play.

The extent and dynamics involved at these levels of soul and dna family interaction takes the phrase "exchange of consideration' to whole 'nuther levels.

JJ

[johnjen325]

And I just saw this which might add some more insights

http://sitsshow.blogspot.com/2013/07...w-uniform.html

JJ

[lcam88]

I don't think the UCC is neither good or evil, don't fall into the trap of becoming less then rational because of mere inflections. That would be like surrendering your right to come to your own conclusions.

[Daozen]

SWORN AFFIDAVIT- I reserve the right to alter this as I see fit.

>>>

The individual is sovereign, and the expression of the highest universal law, provided he does not attempt to impose his will on another. Local councils are subordinate to sovereign humans, provincial governments are further subordinate to local councils, and so on. The Federal government is the lowest law of the land, not the highest. I do NOT consent to world government, and I will not put any energy behind any attempts to control humanity, or trick us into consenting to another control system. Sovereign humans, working alongside the creator, are the highest authority on Earth. All other institutions are subordinate to the sovereign human. All contracts implying control, hierarchy, or tacit consent, are hereby revoked, eternally. All contracts I signed are retroactively deemed to be written -without prejudice-

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/without_prejudice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffersonian_democracy

We find that the people of Earth have been tricked into implied, unstated and secret contracts with groups of questionable and murderous intent.

It is my intention to write a NOVATION and renew the agreement between myself, the people or Earth, and the creator. This agreement shall supercede all previous agreements. There is no evidence to prove that this following agreement should not be the highest law on Earth.

NOVATION

The VATICAN AND ALL RELATED CORPORATIONS IN, ON AND EX-TERRA, (Transferor), a corporation duly organized and
existing under the laws of THE HOLY SEE with its principal office in
VATICAN CITY; Contact Point, a sovereign being duly
organized and existing under Universal Law, with its principal office
in Taipei; inter into this agreement as of 23rd June 2015.
(a) THE PARTIES AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING FACTS:
1. CONTACT POINT has entered into certain contracts with Transferor, namely:
Implies debts and Papal Bulls too numerous to mention.

The Term “THE CONTRACTS,” as used in this Agreement,
means the above contracts and purchase orders, including all modifications,
made between Contact Point and the THE VATICAN before the effective date of this
Agreement (whether or not performance or payment have been completed
and releases executed if Contact Point or THE VATICAN has any remaining rights,
duties, or obligations under these contracts and purchase orders). Included
in the term “THE CONTRACTS” are also all modifications made under the
terms and conditions of the contracts and purchase orders between Contact Point
and the Vatican, on or after effective date of this Agreement.

2. As of 23rd June 2015, the Transferor has transferred to the
Transferee all of the assets of the Transferor by virtue of a NOVATION
[insert term descriptive of the legal transaction involved] between the
Transferor and Transferee.
3. The Transferee has accepted all the assets of the Transferor by virtue of the
above transfer.
4. The Transferee has assumed all obligations and liabilities of the Transferor
under the contracts by virtue of the above transfer.
5. The Transferee is in a position to fully perform all obligations as they may
exist under the contracts.
6. It is consistent with Contact Points’s interest to recognize the Transferee as the NOVATION AGREEMENT
successor party to the contracts.
7. Evidence of the above transfer has been filed with The Creator under Universal Law.

(b) IN CONSIDERATION OF THESE FACTS, THE PARTIES AGREE THAT
BY THIS AGREEMENT-

1. The Transferor confirms the transferto the Transferee, and waives any claims
and rights against Contact Point that it now has or may have in the future in
connection with these contracts.
2. The Transferee agrees to be bound by and to perform each contract in
accordance withe the conditions contained in the contracts. The Transferee
also assumes all obligations and liabilities of, and all claims against, the
Transferor under the contracts as if the Transferee was the original party to
the contracts.
3. The Transferee ratifies all previous actions taken by the Transferor with
respect to the contracts, with the same force and effect as if the action had
been taken by the Transferee.
4. Contact Point recognizes the Transferee as the Transferor’s successor in the
interest in and to the contracts. The Transferee by the Agreement becomes
entitled to all rights, titles, and interests of the Transferor in and to the
contracts as if the Transferee were the original party to the contracts.
Following, the effective date of this Agreement, the term“CONTRACTOR”
as used in the contracts, shall refer to the Transferee.
5. Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, nothing in it shall be
construed as a waiver of any rights of Contact Point against the Transferor.
6. All payments and reimbursements previously made by Contact Point to the
Transferor, and all other previous actions taken by Contact Point under the
contracts, shall be considered to have discharged those parts of Contact Point’s NOVATION AGREEMENT
obligations under the contracts. All payments and reimbursements made by
Contact Point after the date of this Agreement in the name of or to the Transferor
shall have the same force and effect as if made to the Transferee and shall
constitute a complete discharge of Contact Point’s obligations under the
contracts, to the extent of the amounts paid or reimbursed.
7. The Transferor and Transferee agree that Contact Point is not obligated to pay or
reimburse either of them or otherwise give effect to any costs, taxes, or other
expenses, or any related increases, directly or indirectly arising out of or
resulting from the transfer or this Agreement, other than those that Contact Point
in the absence of this transfer or Agreement would have been obligated to pay
or reimburse under the terms of the contracts.
8. The Transferor guarantees payment of all liabilities and the performance of
all obligations that the Transferee (i) assumes under this Agreement; or (ii)
may undertake in the future should these contracts be modified under their
terms and conditions. The Transferor waives notice of, and consents to, any
such future modifications.
9. The contracts shall remain in full force and effect, except as modified by this
Agreement. Each party has executed this Agreement as of the day and year
first above written.

Furthermore...

I break, revoke and vapourize all implied, unstated and secret contracts.

I do not consent to any interference from any military organisation attempting to stop me from claiming my destiny, or slow the spread of water and food technology on Earth. I do not give permission or energy to any entity, human, draco, alien or group attempting to trick, distract or destroy my attempts to liberate myself and my own timeline. I claim dominion and ownership of my timeline, and the Earth I inhabit.

I do not consent or give permission for cloning technologies to be used in any timeline that I own. I claim dominion over my timeline.

I don't accept the false belief that I, or any human being, am subordinate to any external agency, government, self-proclaimed royalty, or military organisation.

I claim full ownership of my sovereignty, my destiny, and my timeline.

I ask that the charlatans and enemies of humanity are healed and/or removed. If they won't accept healing, I ask that they are removed from this reality and taken back to source for processing. Humanity has voted overwhelmingly to be free, and I ask that my family, and all militaries related to them, plus all sentient beings that hear this prayer, are moved to help us liberate ourselves.

I am a sovereign being. I also have links with other off-world and intra-terrestrial cultures. Knowing this,

I call on ALL groups, forces, nations and people reading this, where-ever they are, to unite and work towards the above goals on EVERY level imaginable, in all areas of time. Furthermore I ask that any groups, forces, nations and people working to inhibit or slow down the spread of these ideas, or to imprison mankind, be immediately neutralized and removed from power, with alacrity, force and civility. I ask that the bonds of power surrounding this Earth, and illegal contracts and power structures, be dissolved in vast energetic currents.

I also ask that any individual or group working towards his or her own sovereignty, or the sovereignty of another person, groups, nation or city, be afforded the highest possible protection from the most advanced groups, nations, forces or people in existence.

I ask that any contracts signed on my behalf, plus any implied or quasi contracts are rendered broken, null and void, as they were signed or implied without my permission. I ask that Earth enters into a new agreement with the highest service-to-others oriented groups in existence.

Furthermore I ask that any group, nation, force or person in possession of advanced or ancient technology that can increase the service-to-others vibration on Earth use it to its fullest effect, clearing any negativity throughout the whole planet, and adding infinitely powerful healing energy to every human being on Earth on all levels.

*

This contract will be further ratified and perfected by a series of opinion polls attempting to gauge the mood of the people of Earth. We will convene a series of votes on the method and manner of governance on Earth.

All claims and rebuttals have to be in public, in 3D, on this thread. No implied or etheric, or otherworldly claims are accepted.

I believe that the contents of this my witness statement are true and accurate. My username as stated above.

I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I call the universe, and all higher courts and notaries, in their entirety, to witness this signing.

Thanks for listening, Universe.

Further Affiant sayeth not.

Signed,

Contact Point, A sovereign being on Earth. Tuesday, June 23, 2015

[Daozen]

Affidavits

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

[Daozen]

From the above link:

One of the great deceptions of official agencies is the use of the Stare Decisis doctrine. Stare Decisis originates from Common Law courts and it is in Common Law that the principles of precedent decisions exist. Precedent decisions do not have to be used in Admiralty courts: http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Admiralty

So an official agency sends another party a document. The document gets ignored (lethal in Admiralty), and so the agency sends out a follow up of some kind. If the document gets ignored again then the Common Law doctrine of ‘Stare Decisis’ gives the official agency summary judgement; the case is now already decided and cannot be argued.

Q. What is a Notice of Fault and Opportunity to Cure and why do I need to use one?

A. A Notice of Fault and Opportunity to Cure is correct procedure and therefore gives the Affiant uncompromised standing. There may be a very genuine reason why the Respondent couldn’t respond; maybe a death in the family, maybe they were hospitalized etc. So you are saying, “just in case there is a genuine reason why you couldn’t respond I am kindly granting you a further three (3) days to respond. You are being nice, and so you should be, as you want to stay honourable at ALL times.

Q. Do I have to put all the points on my affidavit?

A. No of course not. Make sure it is your truth and besides you can always create more affidavits at anytime. Affidavits create ‘your’ law; law between the parties. So if you are not happy with their law, create your own. Yours are far more powerful in every single way if done correctly. Your affidavit can have one single point or hundreds; it is your document so you can make it whatever you want and for whatever suits your purpose.

Q. Why is a private affidavit so powerful?

A. Basically because as a private man/woman you can operate under unlimited commercial liability and public entities cannot. You see all public entities have what is called a ‘scope of office’ – which is basically a job description and conditions for which they have limited liability insurance cover. For instance, if a Police Officer believes that you are becoming threatening or aggressive he can make the decision to use appropriate force to restrict and arrest you. Now if in the tussle you fell and broke your arm, the Police Officer does not have to worry about prosecution because using appropriate force in this situation is in his ‘scope of office’ and therefore falls under his limited liability insurance policy. But, if the Police Officer was to punch you in the face whilst you were sat in your car, he can now be prosecuted for a criminal offence. If the prosecution stands then his insurance would not cover him in anyway. Therefore he could do jail time, be fined and lose his job as his actions did not fall under his insured ‘scope of office.’ EVERY public official, agent and employee has a ‘scope of office’ – that’s worth remembering!

[Daozen]

http://freedompool.org/

Three Useful Tools

We want to establish facts for the record, but it is best to be careful making positive statements (that may have to be proven); instead, whoever is making demands, put it on them to make positive statements - make them prove it.

1) Negative Averment: An averment that is negative in form but affirmative in substance that must be proved by the alleging party. “There is no evidence that I am not correct in this matter and there is no evidence that you are not wrong in this matter, and I don’t believe that any such evidence exists.” You’re stating what is not; not what is.

2) Confession & Avoidance: A response in which the accused admits (via passive acquiescence) the allegations but asks for additional facts that deprive the admitted facts of an adverse legal effect. Accusation: "Is this your signature on this document?" Response(s): "Is there a defect in that instrument?" “Well tell me the defect is and I’ll correct it.” Frogdot 1246675 “Well, if there is no defect in the instrument, then why are you here?” “Why should I answer your question when you can’t even answer mine?” “Are you telling me that you are not even qualified to make any determinations on that negotiable instrument?" “Why are you here?”

3) Conditional Acceptance: A response, in honor without argument, that is a counter-offer. The only offer that is ever relevant is the one on top. Offer: "Let's go to town and go shopping." Counter-offer(s): "Sure, just come over and help me finish cleaning up the kitchen first." "I'll accept that upon proof of bona-fide claim in the form of a signed affidavit by you under penalty of perjury and under your own personal, unlimited commerical liablility within 30 days."

[Daozen]

From Lawful Rebellion:

6. Prepare a Notice of Default and once again continue with the above process. Once you have a ‘default’ judgement from the Notary you now have a bona fide lawfully binding agreement/contract.

Now if you so wish, every time that you need to inform a ‘public’ entity that you have a lawful agreement with Gordon Brown, d/b/a Prime Minister (or whoever) then simply make another ‘Certified Copy’ and send it to them; the affidavit copy and the default copy. If they still dare to proceed (extremely unlikely), maybe subpoena the CEO of the UK, in this instance Gordon Brown… it would be a laugh and raise a few eyebrows hey! In truth once you have a valid and lawful agreement you shouldn’t even be going to court, that’s their little playhouse of fairytales, so let them keep it and take care of your business administratively on the private side.

I remember studying what is sometimes (erroneously in my opinion) called ‘Commercial Redemption’ under Winston Shrout and I would hear Winston say the following statement on many occasions, “If you don’t like their law, then create your own.” For months I didn’t grasp quite what he meant and Winston is a great teacher (spiritually as well as commercially), and so I believe he was waiting for folk to ‘have the ears to hear’ this particular loaded message, yet I received the light-bulb moment early whilst watching and studying Winston’s ‘Commercial Lien’ DVD (which I highly recommend). My often research buddy and friend, Guy, had the very same light bulb moment a few weeks later whilst watching the exact same DVD without any interaction between us regarding this matter, and so we knew we were on to something when we shared our individual experiences. Then Guy met with Winston at a private seminar and informed him of what we were currently doing and showed him our private material; Winston was suitably impressed and informed Guy that our method was absolutely rock solid and the correct and lawful procedure. To be truly honest we already sensed this but of course it is always a pleasure to receive confirmation from someone who has inspired your learning. Since then we have had this information confirmed time and time again, yet as stated before, we didn’t really need this confirmation as our confidence in this process felt very solid; and once you realise who you really are I am sure you will comprehend, or already do comprehend, what I am talking about.

Remember it is the agreement of the parties that is important. Their law is contract law, and theirs is built on fraud and deception, so create the contracts that you want, not what they want, and yours will be built on fact and truth. If they do not rebut or reply to your paperwork (they won’t) then you have a ‘lawfully binding’ agreement that no other party can lawfully or legally impair. By the way, if the respondent violates the contract then you have instant lien right, but that is for another day. My personal opinion is this; affidavits and maritime liens (which are affidavits of obligation from the private side) wipe the floor of everything in their laughable and weak fictional system.

Maxims of law. (Affidavit based)

An un-rebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce.

An un-rebutted affidavit is acted upon as the judgement in commerce.

An affidavit must be rebutted point-for-point.

(Research on Maxims with large sample listing)

If you don’t like the idea of creating and sending in such an elaborate affidavit as the one provided, and yet you have situations that would benefit from getting the other party into an agreement, then just a very few points can have an almighty effect. Example:

Affiant is a private living sentient man.

Affiant is not JOHN SMITH or any other artificial entity/legal fiction.

The Affiant is not liable to or for any Government statutes, rules and/or codes, including, without limitation, UNITED KINGDOM Codes and statutes and/or codes of any of Respondents’ political subdivisions.

The Affiant is not liable for JOHN SMITH or any artificial derivative thereof at anytime whatsoever.

The Affiant is not liable for any public debts/liabilities at any time whatsoever.

The Affiant is not a member of any society whatsoever and therefore the Affiant is not bound by any society’s statutes, rules or codes.

Now if the above six (6) points are your truths (and they should be) and you put them on an affidavit to the Respondent, the Respondent has to provide evidence to the contrary of all the 6 points if they want to rebut. I think you can see for yourself that they won’t be able to do that. I think you will also notice that you don’t even have to use the above 6 points; 1 would be enough for most cases, but try and think of any situation you are involved with that couldn’t be solved by having a lawfully binding agreement/contract such as the above.

Folks;

Stop messing around in fear, controversy, statutes, and other self limiting ways; many of the limiting ways I witness on this and many other forums. Create the law you want with the corporate entities. Once you realise who you are and why your true identity and power has been kept at bay, you will realise why a private sovereign affidavit is so powerful. Keep your original affidavits very safe and keep ‘certified copies’ on you at all times. An enforcement agent will only proceed so far after they have checked the validity of your paperwork; because you will have made sure of the following:

[Daozen]

Im still not sure if I need a UCC filing, as I am non US based, and the UCC has only been around since 1952... I don't recognize it.

[Daozen]

http://www.irmi.com/expert/articles/2003/orlando06.aspx

One of the principal differences between a maritime lien and a land-law-type lien is that a maritime lien does not depend on either notice or possession. The only type of maritime lien which does get recorded in any type of registry is a preferred ship mortgage. Thus, maritime liens are generally thought of as silent liens, and possession of the subject property is not a requirement for the existence of such a lien.

Another major difference between a maritime lien and other types of liens is that maritime liens may only be enforced under the maritime jurisdiction of a federal court, at which point the marine equipment can be "arrested" by a federal marshal to be brought under the jurisdiction, and thus control, of the federal court.

[Daozen]

Liens

http://www.kboi2.com/news/local/94483204.html

http://www.marineliens.com/maritimeliens.asp

http://www.jerrymeek.com/five-things...about-tax-law/

[Daozen]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCC-1_financing_statement

[lcam88]

Note: the cornell link regarding admiralty does not mention salvage!

Point of contention: Would it be a more powerful statement to declare a type of salvage on the apparent abandoned state the god-create human being as may be found, Perhaps from the aspect of spirit and soul? Then move to claim sovereignty and dominion in the domains and realms where the salvaged subject-matter then finds itself? That would be such a better form to novate away the existing "clutter" without having to enumerate all the things what we know about not to mention what we don't know.

Is anyone willing to contemplate this strategy here with me?

[Divine Feminine]

I'm just briefly following what you're doing, but wanted to echo the same advice of being careful about liens. Not too long ago I was researching statues in the state of Oregon for a friend when I came across one addressing liens being put on government officials/judges or something to that effect. I wish I still had the link, but I think this article covers it. Love the slanted reporting by NPR, lol....anyways.....

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=215838773

People such as Tim Turner, Rod Class and others like them, have gotten real savvy at teaching people about liens and it's starting to have an effect within the court systems. It appears they(government officials) don't like their own medicine thrown back at them, boo-hoo.


I can shed some light on this one:
http://www.kboi2.com/news/local/94483204.html

"And when she filed a claim on her title insurance, First American denied it."

"But the Ada County Recorder's Office has no record of the $45,000 debt against the Nielson's home."

"The letter from First American says although it denied the Nielson's claim, it would be paying the claim made by their bank, Wells Fargo."

I suspect this woman was 'paid off' as if she pursued a legal case it would have opened a huge can of worms that 'they' don't want the public to know. There's a whole lot more of 'non recording' going on at these Recorder's offices and both the banks and Title Insurance companies are involved. Title Insurance companies, (all of them) have what some call a 'wrap-a-around' clause in their insurance polices in the Schedule B exclusions section that basically says they don't have to cover you if the proper recording isn't done at the county recorders office. I've looked at a lot of policies and I have yet to find one that doesn't have this clause in it. You bet they don't want this coming up in court because once Americans on a mass scale figure out these boobs are clouding the titles of their homes by improper recordation procedures, they're going to be beyond ****ed and both the Title Insurance companies and the banks are heavily involved in constructing this debacle via the entity known as MERS in which they are responsible for both funding and creating.