Stop using Statutes and Common Law

A legal interest is a right in property governed by statute and common law. An equitable (beneficial) interest is a right in property governed by the law of equity.

Got a link to that?

Unfortunately not. Last time I published my work from there they shut down the manuals I was wirking from for months. Coincidence or isolated block I don't know but it's set me back months, I don't want to risk it, hence the edit above. Go in their manuals and look around for yourself There's lots to discover.

We should be thinking about moving away from legal land and sought the law we need to protect ourselves. It's not going to come easy, but when we understand everything is property and land law and we're using common law as a defence we now know we are in the wrong world!

interesting! subscribing

Lopsum wrote:interesting! subscribing

likewise

reading other, its trusts and contracts as we admit or give the name we become a government employee and acts and statutes apply and as a dead entity have no rights , the living man shall never lose his property
a home owner with paid in full status the title reads
"tenant" and the inhabitant has equitable title .
equitable deed belongs to the vatican .
when repossessions take place they are 99.99% empty
so the magic bank fraudsters take equitable title.
by changing jurisdiction to being the man ,accept no paperwork with the fiction ,the inhabitant cannot be ousted as the man in possession has no need to prove ownership . has any others read this it was on a info email and sadly lost.

teddy2 wrote:reading other, its trusts and contracts as we admit or give the name we become a government employee and acts and statutes apply and as a dead entity have no rights , the living man shall never lose his property
a home owner with paid in full status the title reads
"tenant" and the inhabitant has equitable title .
equitable deed belongs to the vatican .
when repossessions take place they are 99.99% empty
so the magic bank fraudsters take equitable title.
by changing jurisdiction to being the man ,accept no paperwork with the fiction ,the inhabitant cannot be ousted as the man in possession has no need to prove ownership . has any others read this it was on a info email and sadly lost.

From what I understand we do not stipulate a trust in covenant format, ergo are in a contract as a "debtor". The banks however use implied techniques and as the property is securitised and title held in trust for an investor should the "debtor" breach the contract the investor wins as they have stipulated a trust and we don't have a clue what we have done. Property real or personalty may ultimately belong to a higher authority, but we can deal with what we have and certainly deal with it all much better than we have been. We just need a little guidance from each other. Fuck we'd burn in hell before the corps, gov or vat helped us!

The "tenant" this is a position one would want to be in so long as we are in the correct capacity, as stated above I don't think its in the correct capacity, however, if it were.... one would then have entailed interests putting us into equity and with the power to convert them into fee simples, settlor and beneficiary   ....

hood winked us for sure , the book i refer to has brought the many discussions on past forums in to a quick ref read and potent , the price of a bar meal yet easier to digest . as gaining knowledge dispels the chakra of woe .
equitable title i comprehend is the one with possession
these "institutions " the "security" would that not be our energy not the property as money fiat our energy in abundance with the bond birth cert trust.
they never bring anything to the table yet gain all
the road of the court system for remedy is a long and not for the faint hearted , so perhaps to counter there worthless documentation as we agree in a different jurisdiction . your obviously well on this path
and to those of us now able to seek with conviction
can only be a game changer.

I have just now been reading many of the things said in the above posts, yet they leave me with many questions that remain unanswered to date.
Firstly, this country has been in bankruptcy since Sept 1931/3 can't remember which? If this country is bankrupt, then there cannot be any creditors as all are bankrupt...right/wrong?
If, we the wo/man are said to be debtors, surely this cannot be correct since only the wo/man have the ability to bring credit into our lives with the signing of a note.
Banks would fool us into believing that when we sign for a mortgage, we owe them the money, yet this is not so, we write and provide the note as creditors. Feedback please...

Please define "we" in the statement "we are all bankrupt"?

"The country is bankrupt."
Is a country a legal person with the same rights, duties and obligations as all other persons or something else?

Landlubber is right we are all bankrupt and have been indefinitely since 1931, however, that isn't the first time the gold standard was removed, it was removed in 1911 and reinstated in 1925 coincidently when a series of acts were implemented specifically to do with lands and property! If we were not bankrupt then we would not be solely dependent on credit. There is no logic for any other rationale.

Id like to point out that we should bring our attention to what credit is, this may help make a little more sense of the direction of this post, in latin credit means trust, everything is paid in good faith we all trust that it will be paid but it never is. When something isn't pacd in credit its a breach of trust, nuff said on that.

Its important we remember how credit should be displayed in an accountancy format. Credit is debt and debt is credit, its that simple. Having credit is bad, having debit is good debit is the currency someone is owed. We get confused with this simply because of the banks accountancy ledger they show us in statements at cash machines etc.

When our account is showing we are "in" credit they are showing us their side of the accountancy ledger, they are showing us that they owe us credit! When we see debit they are showing us their side of the accountancy ledger, they are showing us we owe them. This is why we all think credit is a good thing, when in practical terms it is not, credit is always the currency someone owes to another. And guess what where ever there is debit there is credit, a credit is an IOU I don't care what form the IOU is in its an IOU that is used to pay someone in credit in good faith in trust, never in money always in currency, with credit which is always a debt instrument an IOU and you can not satisfy a debt with a debt, its freaking insanity the lot of it. Why is it this way...... because we are all bankrupt!

its heartening that this site has many well clued up folks inc newbies , the kabal have kept us down a tad too long
we all have done our own research and perhaps got to a
gate keeper and unsure how to move forward yet relentless searching is the answer.

With what both LL & waffle have written, together with the post on banks do not lend money

https://goodf.forumotion.com/t115p25-it-s-officialbanks-don-t-lend-money#3234

It all makes more sense. However I need to learn more about trusts & learning about moving over to the private side. Does anyone have any GOOD sources for me to research as currently the best I seem to find is on ytube, most of that coming from US, was looking more independent UK based & NOT gov't source. Preferbly something not too long winded & simply explained.

Much appreciated. LS

honeyaisle wrote:Please define "we" in the statement "we are all bankrupt"?

"The country is bankrupt."
Is a country a legal person with the same rights, duties and obligations as all other persons or something else?

Technically, Honeyaisle, we, the people, are all bankrupt simply because there is no money of intrinsic value in general circulation. We pass on promises to pay, yet those promises can never be fulfilled by any of us.

The term, the country is bankrupt, comes from the fact that the government, its people and the banks are bankrupt. It's a situation where not one single wo/man can pay their way out of bankruptcy. If you think otherwise, then I ask, what with?

Is a country a legal person? That's a tough cookie, because a legal person does not have the same rights as a natural person. A legal person is a corporation...so, is this country a corporation?

landlubber wrote:

honeyaisle wrote:Please define "we" in the statement "we are all bankrupt"?

"The country is bankrupt."
Is a country a legal person with the same rights, duties and obligations as all other persons or something else?

Technically, Honeyaisle, we, the people, are all bankrupt simply because there is no money of intrinsic value in general circulation. We pass on promises to pay, yet those promises can never be fulfilled by any of us.

The term, the country is bankrupt, comes from the fact that the government, its people and the banks are bankrupt. It's a situation where not one single wo/man can pay their way out of bankruptcy. If you think otherwise, then I ask, what with?

Is a country a legal person? That's a tough cookie, because a legal person does not have the same rights as a natural person. A legal person is a corporation...so, is this country a corporation?

Thank you dear heart. Much appreciated.
If a citizen is bankrupt there is nothing to do any paying with. Assets are stolen/seized/returned and sold to put funds to creditor(s) and there are extreme limitations put on that bankrupt citizens income. (personal experience.)
Possibly I don't know there have never been solvent corporation solvent commerce. Where does the first 'bit of money' come into being?
Is it simply you and me both believe this pencil is money and give it an 'intrinsic' value to get the ball rolling then 'sell' the idea to friends and families to get it rolling faster and further. The only things that have intrinsic value to life here is air light warmth and they are freely available everywhere as in without charge so one does wonder where all this commerce insanity sits in the scheme of things.

We are not Bankrupt, the Government is...... we are the ones, the only ones bringing any substance into this commercial game.

You have essentially two options in the game: Hold debt titles(legal) or claim your substance (equitable asset/title).

You might want to think about that, at the heart of it all its about substance and substance is the arena of Equity.

Today the Common law is generally speaking Statutes and the Case Law that is developed by Judges interpreting what they deem the legislator/scrivener actually intended when the bill and subsequently the enactment was passed, as a lot of that law was written often before the judges themselves were born, the results are circularity and confusion at times. Their is also Equity, this is morality, conscience and substance, I suspect a lot of you when referring to Common Law actually mean Equity.

The only jurisdiction where the real Man can be heard is in Equity, Chancery to be precise.

Apart from that you are most likely in a probate court where claims are made against an Estate, and you have been set up to have no standing to be heard.

I would warn you that ignoring statutes is like throwing the baby out of the bath tub with the dirty water.

For example it can be proved that their is no Statutory Authority to charge a Domestic Dwelling "used for living Purposes only" Council Tax (as it is a commercial rating charge).

Yet the Courts and Local Authority have no trouble enforcing this charge, now if you ignore statutes you will remain unaware of such things, and you will remain unaware of how and why Acts can be ignored or re-interpreted in Court, because their are other presumptions and forms of law at work.

Like I said the failure to read Statutes correctly has enabled a huge fraud to be perpetrated on all of us while we were looking the other way, because to be quite frank, everything has been published, and given public notice if not hidden in plain sight.

I'm years on leaving trust law, contact law,common law etc. My experience now, the NI number of the trust or,sate own birth certificate,as I'm I'll health disability illnesses unable to self care or work etc.
I'm unable to break out of with drawing my consent lot current medical care housing department benefits systems NHS, I feel lost my lawful rights more each day.
So is there anything way many like me, to live with out big bother and access services in lawful purposes in contact law?

Hi all

Another great thread guys. Lots of info.

Ferry Man - your comment makes sense to me. We can't discard ANYTHING when we know they can flip-flop in and out of different jurisdictions at will.

Real me - have you looked into commerce?

Cheers!

So I learned a bit on the subject,as I'm trying not to contact with public servants in public company,my conditional acceptance of offer, yet state system control more as trust law I'm look on as a trustee so,why I felt need call lawyer know they part of bar council etc, knowing my disability not, I'm unable to be out of state system,IE housing benefit system so statutes are able to be enforced,this right, as I tried putting in writing aslo I require what questions required in NHS safeguard referral comments made unfounded, I tried to rebut them,it's not working.

Hi Real me

Sounds to me like you have done your homework but your problem is in making yourself understood by those around you. You obviously need and deserve the benefits of the system, but you would like more control over your affairs without losing such. Nothing wrong with that my friend, we're pretty much all in the same boat to some extent.

Much as it pains me, i'm afraid i don't have an answer to your predicament. Doesn't mean others won't though, so keep trying.

Cheers!

I thought as much, thank you for your response,if anything, one needs ones own way of living out of state system and natural resources health,

Ok now I'm block access to all disability reasonable adjustments in housing company its company employees in repairs, too on top block access to in stuaute law is law company lawyer service, too I read up on housing act 1988 protection from hatessment act 1977, now more push me out,using new public servants,link into health care system,using UK care act 2014, now since July to Oct now now use wet room shower, unsafe living with complex disability physical, medical equipment high care support, only by unpaid my private ferinds, so,now housing employees all work on line work men too from home,lot one's knows one's rights,yet no longer anyone awake,to state control systems, able to live safety in own rented home, change in lot of effects many like I,I'm looking to get access what I need with how to respond back to bullies, keep on at me

I've recently registered with the Common Law Courts website, which I'm sure most of you are aware of. I also came across The Universal Law Community and would be keen to know whether anyone on the forum has any views about ULC, link here: https://www.universallawcommunitytrust.com/

Many thanks

I have 3 friends in the UCLT . The woman running it is very well informed.
Its something I am looking into my self . She is the one in the video in the
'Know who you are ' thread

I tried the Common Law Court ,I would personally not recommend it.
They took money and provided nothing.

I have 3 friends in the UCLT . The woman running it is very well informed.
Its something I am looking into my self . She is the one in the video in the
'Know who you are ' thread

I tried the Common Law Court ,I would personally not recommend it.
They took money and provided nothing.