nzlconcerto on Nostr: The biggest problem we all have. That is giving the government your attention. Why ...
The biggest problem we all have. That is giving the government your attention.
Why not send them a message? Forget you have a constitution. Think, how is it I'm liable for their policies and their debts that they apply to us? Remember, you live in a country where consent matters. Rule by consent.
Ask yourself, why is it by default I have to comply with someone else's rules?
Surely, if someone else is applying rules to your property, they must be the property owner.
How is it they can do this to us? If they have control over us, how was that done to us? I can tell you. We are the trustee and executor of thier account that we administer for them. We keep claiming property ownership as we are the trustee in the relationship.
A couple of quotes from Romley Stuart, and these hit the spot:
Q. "He who holds legal title cannot touch the equity without a licence."
Q. 'The only way to confirm equitable title is to grant legal title. The one who accepts legal title accepts and confirms that the one granting it must have been the owner in the first place. The legal title becomes a written confirmation of equity."
So, we are on the wrong side of the relationship. We are the slaves, the trustee. How do we become the beneficiary? Do we even want to be the beneficiary in their jurisdiction?
I'd say no! But they have hold of the purse strings, the currency that we keep claiming over.
What would happen if, in their jurisdiction, we gave back all their property, even all your fiat currency earnings? What would that make you in their jurisdiction?
You see, most can't see the solution in front of their eyes. Give them what they want, give them the money. We'll take the equity.
Remember, giving back all our property does not destroy the account. It only changes the equity relationship.
This is securities 101 and is all laid out in the UCC articles. He who holds the certificate is the securities intermediary. Carryout, either verbally in front of a high court Judge or by paperwork the return of their property.
Why not send them a message? Forget you have a constitution. Think, how is it I'm liable for their policies and their debts that they apply to us? Remember, you live in a country where consent matters. Rule by consent.
Ask yourself, why is it by default I have to comply with someone else's rules?
Surely, if someone else is applying rules to your property, they must be the property owner.
How is it they can do this to us? If they have control over us, how was that done to us? I can tell you. We are the trustee and executor of thier account that we administer for them. We keep claiming property ownership as we are the trustee in the relationship.
A couple of quotes from Romley Stuart, and these hit the spot:
Q. "He who holds legal title cannot touch the equity without a licence."
Q. 'The only way to confirm equitable title is to grant legal title. The one who accepts legal title accepts and confirms that the one granting it must have been the owner in the first place. The legal title becomes a written confirmation of equity."
So, we are on the wrong side of the relationship. We are the slaves, the trustee. How do we become the beneficiary? Do we even want to be the beneficiary in their jurisdiction?
I'd say no! But they have hold of the purse strings, the currency that we keep claiming over.
What would happen if, in their jurisdiction, we gave back all their property, even all your fiat currency earnings? What would that make you in their jurisdiction?
You see, most can't see the solution in front of their eyes. Give them what they want, give them the money. We'll take the equity.
Remember, giving back all our property does not destroy the account. It only changes the equity relationship.
This is securities 101 and is all laid out in the UCC articles. He who holds the certificate is the securities intermediary. Carryout, either verbally in front of a high court Judge or by paperwork the return of their property.