I offered an example of an updated version of what we use, but you can use whatever acceptance language you wish.

Just take the original notice and write the acceptance upon it. This is the living man coming to by way of accommodation to subrogate the rights and defenses on behalf of the United States as the foreign beneficiary (with respect to the United States) of the Republican form of government to PROTECT the trust and ensure that either the "the agencies thereof" or the "employees of those agencies" fulfill their duties on behalf of the INTENDED beneficiary of the usufructuary interest: the United States, for all of these guys are usufruct of the people; they are BANKRUPT and to bring claim while in bankruptcy is a crime against humanity (listen the Conversation audios regarding the DC Lawyer)

This is about operating the usufruct and that operation creates a NATURAL split equity trust where in one side (Naked Owner: the living soul) is the Trustee with respect to ensuring the duties of the usufructuary are fulfilled, thus insuring the PROFITS of the usufruct and at the same time, subrogating ALL rights and defenses of the usufructuary and the occupying army is BOTH administrator and usufructuary over the PUBLIC estates (ie: NAME), thus has a DUTY to conserve the peace because the "substance of the object of the usufruct can not be diminished" and if one had dominion over the Earth BEFORE this "inferior usufruct" was established, then one RETAINS that dominion while subjected unto this "inferior usufruct". [end]
Recommended reading: the 3-feasences

Was talking with someone recently and we both came the conclusion that all one need do to kill just about any case should be to remove it to the Probate Court with the Verification of Complaint (rebuts the presumptions) and ask for the proof of claim as to the jurisdiction and authority the Attorney and/or Agency bringing claim has to administrate a Decedent Federal Reserve Bank (SSN = Federal Reserve Bond) and now, you can use the oath of office and the actions of the attorney as a Breach of Trust if no proof of claim can be forthcoming and the attorney refuses to back-off.

The CR(tm) has many uses and remember, each "non-answer" means no proof of claim to administrate the estate and each "crime" is just one of the 3-feasences:

non-feasence = civil
misfeasance = misdemeanor
malfeasance = felony

And District Court is where one goes to "compel performance" by an "employee of the United States" of whom is "anyone with oath of office" under 28 USC 1361 for that "employee of the United States" has a duty to BOTH the court and the plaintiff as conservators of the peace (as UN Peacekeepers) to take the "peace offering" (AFV/RFV, CR(tm), and Verification of Complaint) to the plaintiff of whom now is compelled to answer with proof of claim regarding inadequacies, jurisdiction, and Things demanded for payment; ELSE  no further action is to be taken other than restoration of the Defendant Postliminy [In the civil law. The right of postliminy; the right or claim of a person who had been restored to the possession of a thing, or to a former condition, to be considered as though he had never been deprived of it Dig. 49, 15, 5; 3 Bl. Comm. 107, 210. In international law. The right by which property taken by an enemy, and recaptured or rescued from him by the fellow subjects or allies of the original owner, is restored to the latter upon certain terms. 1 Kent, Comm. 108] for any other action would be tantamount to an act against peace.
~ Boris

Re: On the subject of jurisdiciton
In my case with the Order of Notice that " Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, d/b/a Christiana Trust, not individually but as trustee for Pretium Mortgage Acquisition Trust" (that's what they used on the Order) , would I just ask for "Proof of Claim" as to the jurisdiction and authority the Trustee bringing claim has to administrate a Decedent Federal Reserve Bank. I just want to keep it short and sweet and to the point but I don't want to leave anything out.

I did read about the feasances that " every single court case is all about a- feasance ..."profit" or "benefit"
( usufruct ) resulting from a breach of  duty... UCC 3-307.

3-307. NOTICE OF BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY.
(a) In this section:
(1) "Fiduciary" means an agent, trustee, partner, corporate officer or director, or other representative owing a fiduciary duty with respect to an instrument.
(2) "Represented person" means the principal, beneficiary, partnership, corporation, or other person to whom the duty stated in paragraph (1) is owed.
(b) If (i) an instrument is taken from a fiduciary for payment or collection or for value, (ii) the taker has knowledge of the fiduciary status of the fiduciary, and (iii) the represented person makes a claim to the instrument or its proceeds on the basis that the transaction of the fiduciary is a breach of fiduciary duty, the following rules apply:
(1) Notice of breach of fiduciary duty by the fiduciary is notice of the claim of the represented person.
(2) In the case of an instrument payable to the represented person or the fiduciary as such, the taker has notice of the breach of fiduciary duty if the instrument is (i) taken in payment of or as security for a debt known by the taker to be the personal debt of the fiduciary, (ii) taken in a transaction known by the taker to be for the personal benefit of the fiduciary, or (iii) deposited to an account other than an account of the fiduciary, as such, or an account of the represented person.
(3) If an instrument is issued by the represented person or the fiduciary as such, and made payable to the fiduciary personally, the taker does not have notice of the breach of fiduciary duty unless the taker knows of the breach of fiduciary duty.
(4) If an instrument is issued by the represented person or the fiduciary as such, to the taker as payee, the taker has notice of the breach of fiduciary duty if the instrument is (i) taken in payment of or as security for a debt known by the taker to be the personal debt of the fiduciary, (ii) taken in a transaction known by the taker to be for the personal benefit of the fiduciary, or (iii) deposited to an account other than an account of the fiduciary, as such, or an account of the represented person.

I think it's too late to do CR(TM) since I have till December 15 to answer.

When you mention "District Court", is that State or County?
Thanks Bob
Re: On the subject of jurisdiction
It's never too late to initiate a CR(tm) "process," but if one is in a non-judicial, one must be willing to take this all the way and stand on their rights.

While the judicial may be "non," writ of possession is not. They STILL must go thru the court to remove the current occupants ...or am I mistaken?

Re: On the subject of jurisdiciton <[hidden email]> wrote:
That's where I'm confused about CR(TM) process for the non-judicial state. Although, this process I will be sending it to the trustee and send in a copy to the court, right?

While the judicial may be "non," writ of possession is not. They STILL must go thru the court to remove the current occupants ...or am I mistaken?

No they don't have to go thru the court after they send out the" Order of Notice. They petition the court for the Order of Notice to all persons entitled to the benefit of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 USC sec 3902 et seq./

Basically all it is; is if you were in the active military service of the United States then you may be entitled to the benefits of that relief act. If you object to a foreclosure on the above mentioned property on that basis, then you must file a written appearance and answer in this court.

As soon as that date expires they can do whatever they want and this is why the CR(tm) exists ...it too is non-judicial, only thing is that it appears that one goes into US District Court to compel the attorney who initiated the claim to deliver peace to the plaintiff for he is an "employee of the united states" to PRESERVE the peace because that is their damn job, not run this shit thru their paper-mills: their FIRST duty is to the Court and the Court's first duty is to facilitate the restoration of peace. ~ Boris

Re: On the subject of jurisdiction
I need some clarification on doing the initial CR(tm) process. I want to get it ready so I can send it out tomorrow. 
1. Do I AFV/RFV the Order of Notice and send that in like the old way / stamp and signature on back? Do you notarized it?
2. On the paperwork to send in:




Redemption; and this is why the CR(tm) exists ... it too is non-judicial, only thing is that it appears that one goes into US District Court to compel the attorney who initiated the claim to deliver the peace to the plaintiff for he is an "employee of the united states" to PRESERVE the peace because that is their damn job, not run this shit thru their paper-mills: their FIRST duty is to the Court and the Court's first duty is to facilitate the restoration of peace. ~ Boris

Re: On the subject of jurisdiciton
I offered an example of an updated version...
http://underground-cantina.83190.x6.nabble.com/file/n1483/acceptance_language.pdf ...of what we use, but you can use whatever acceptance language you wish.

Just take the original notice and write the acceptance upon it. This is the living man coming by way of accommodation to subrogate... [Civil Law. to substitute (one person) for another with reference to a claim or right] ...the rights and defenses on behalf of the United States as the foreign beneficiary (with respect to the United States) of the Republican form of government to PROTECT the trust and ensure that either the "the agencies thereof" or the "employees of those agencies" fulfill their duties on behalf of the INTENDED beneficiary of the usufructuary interest: the United States, for all of these guys are usufruct of the people; they are BANKRUPT and to bring claim in bankruptcy is a crime against humanity (listen the Conversation audios regarding the DC Lawyer)

This is about operating the usufruct and that operation creates a NATURAL split equity trust where in one side Notary is not required.

(Naked Owner: the living soul) is the Trustee with respect to ensuring the duties of the usufructuary are fulfilled, thus insuring the PROFITS of the usufruct and at the same time, subrogating ALL rights and defenses of the usufructuary and the occupying army is BOTH administrator and usufructuary over the PUBLIC estates (ie: NAME), thus has a DUTY to conserve the peace because the "substance of the object of the usufruct can not be diminished" and if one had dominion over the Earth BEFORE this "inferior usufruct" was established, then one RETAINS that dominion while subjected unto this "inferior usufruct".

I will put the " Acceptance of Initial " collection attempt" on the front side and reverse side Accepted for Value... On the Order of Notice.

The bottom one that has " Completed CR accepted / contract/ agreement : Annex A (reverse side), it that one for the Turnabout documents? Do I need to do  the "Verification of Complaint" along with the " Intial CR(tm) process? [end]

Usufruct Surrender
IMO, Boris's paradigm is based on the reality of the military occupation of the united States of America that started on April 15, 1861 when President Lincoln by the power vested in him (as Commander in Chief) summoned both Houses of Congress to convene on July 4, 1861. 




For more information about this "reality" see:
http://www.stevegartin.com/legalshisory.htm. Here is a good excerpt:

"Martial law and or Martial Rule are branches of the law of war, which is a branch of the law of nations which is Roman based international law; Justinian's code and regulation which has been in effect since April 15, 1861. The U.S. CODE sits under the Lieber Code and not the "We the People" constitution?

Congress sits under the commander-in-Chief as do the STATES, COURTS and all LAW enforcement.

If Lincoln and those who came after him did away with the common law what was put in its place?

The answer here is Roman based law represented in the Codes of Justinian."

The "law of usufruct" is part of military law (Lieber Code - part #38 implements the usufruct principle).

But I believe our people's captivity under "military rule" truly began MUCH earlier, in 721 BC when the Assyrian Empire conquered the Northern 10 Tribes of Israel.   See the Military Rule page for more information on that history.

So, if military rule is the "reality" of our current situation here in America, then, we need to develop a remedy based on starting from that reality.

Using the UCC is honoring a system used by our captors. If the UCC is used to "surrender" and make "peace" with our captors, then it may in fact be the escape clause that the Creator promised to provide for "His people" in 1 Cor 10:13.

Was not Daniel blessed and protected while serving the King of Babylon?
Isn't the "daughter of Zion" (true church today) told to "Go to Babylon. There you will be rescued."? (Mic 4:10)

And read Jeremiah 27-30 to see how usufruct was the commanded remedy for God's people in the Babylonian Captivity, as a TYPE for us today.

Also study this related UCC-1 filing and UCC-3 filing.  Click on the Document Number links at bottom of page.

Also read Boris’s OUTLINE http://iamsomedude.com/outline.html

for more research material.  Here is an alternate link to this research.

Here is Boris’s 5/17/2014 update

video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWXFtUcmUeE
Here is a webcast with Jim Hebin, a friend of Boris: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/evolvequest/2014/05/29/the-path-of-the-peaceful-inhabitant-wjim-hebin

Here is latest YouTube from Jim Hebin entitled "Completing the Usufruct":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lq4QVg1E5E

Here is latest success story: Boris audio with Dee 8/15/14
More discussions about Boris’s approach can be found on another blog in a post entitled “Usufruct Surrender Remedy“, and also in this thread.
Notice that the use of the word "surrender" necessarily implies that "you" must be Owner of something in some respect in order to "surrender" it. 
Why else would they even be sending "you" a "bill"? 

Boris uses "naked owner" to describe why they are approaching you for the "NAME". 

In Trust, and in military seizure, ownership usually has been split into legal and equitable title.

The State seized (by pledge or military conquest) LEGAL title only. 
The Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) is evidence of equitable title (indemnification), which title you are holding now when you appear to be alive on the record (via UCC-1 or other county record) and claim that equitable title. 

This equitable title is the 'reversionary interest" that re-vests to you upon your "appearance to be alive", and this equitable title is what you indeed "surrender" to State, which then now holds BOTH Legal and Equitable Titles, causing the usufruct to end (page 407, point II "Merger") and extinguishing the associated debt by operation of law - 12 USC 95a(2).

Boris's article entitled "Equitable right to setoff" has related material supporting the above.

IMO, this is how I see Boris's "Usufruct Surrender" technology working.

4-7-2015:  Boris is said to be reviewing what is wrong with his approach: 
"If one's guru was mistaken, and failed to create the immunity he was preaching by ending up in jail, does that NOT cause one pause to consider what false premise is poisoning the well?  

What is wrong with what Boris is preaching, that caused people to suffer and have to sacrifice to bail him out?  Why continue the wrong, instead of ask the question:  what did he do wrong? 

Isn't the existing fact, that our 'great leader' was HUMBLED... and that he is studying to find out WHY... enough to cause one to reconsider what is wrong in what one may currently believe that is not true?" - Post from https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/peaceful_inhabitant/info 

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
4 comments:
1.
C EvanJuly 8, 2014 at 11:53 AM
Ok...I did this in open Court and no one cared...
Reply
Replies
1.
xris DavidAugust 6, 2014 at 6:01 AM
C. Evan.....what exactly did you do in open court?
Reply
2.
AnonymousOctober 16, 2014 at 5:11 AM
If there was anything else that created controversy that could be the problem! There are some steps to be taken and it requires more than just stating, no? Did you have the evidence to support that you have surrendered the Certificate of Birth in fulfillment along with doing the UCC and assigning reversionary interest, etc. C Evan?
Reply
3.
Bildo SchmildoOctober 18, 2014 at 5:57 PM
Having supporting documentation is a must.
Reply



For more information: Contact Us

See Also:

Legally Cancel Your Student Loans. http://studentloan2.com

Void Judgments: http://void-judgments.com

http://releasemytaxlien.com Is here to show you how to release your IRS tax lien. It works every time guaranteed!



Copyright All Rights Reserved