Profile Photo

Dï5 – U.S.A.

  • Public Group
  • 1 month, 4 weeks ago
  • 111

    Posts

  • 140

    Members

hello

6 voices
14 replies
  • Author
    Posts
    • #3879
      Terry
      Participant

        test

      • #3880
        Terry
        Participant

          i found on annavonreits.com site by searching for what she has to say about filing and the UCC. in one of her articles she mentioned a Tim Turner. So I searched him up and found he was on trial in 2013. I have included his court case. They basically say he committed fraud and the the treasury nor anywhere else has an account with our names. The only entity that can ask for money is congress. It basically says its not true that we are entitled to any securities held in trust because they don’t exist and that he lied making people believe they do. Is there a case or info that rebutts this? If so please point me in the right direction. I am assuming he was missing a part of the process, but then I wonder why the Judge said those things don’t exist .

        • #3882
          Terry
          Participant

            I apologize if I have over stepped any bounds by putting another persons website up. Also if someone can forward this to Darren or Jody that would be cool, maybe he can interpret what the judge is aying in his denial of Tim Turners request for aquittle.
            Thanks in advance for any and all help,
            Terry

          • #3887
            Erick
            Participant

              I have read many of Anna’s articles on her website in an effort to wrap my head around things; she seems pretty legit. From what I now generally comprehend about the trusts and how they essentially keep them secret is that they are held in “private” so the “public” realm that judges sit in during normal “at law” court cases that are on the public record have “no knowledge” of anything held in private such as the trusts, and they will do ANYTHING necessary to make it stay that way, including abruptly leaving for a break and having the record stricken and locking willing suckers up that don’t waive their “benefits”. If you understand this detail and use the correct plea of abatement and then proceed as a plaintiff on the private side with your BC perfected interest and adverse claim using equity law, you’ll get a private hearing off the record where the judge is able to acknowledge private trusts and actually assist you because you’re coming to them as a “god” creditor in private instead of as a “loser” debtor in public. This seems to be the thing that Darren has figured out somewhat recently, and explains why so many have completely failed to drag the trusts out into the light of the public court houses. If you think about it, once you are in the private realm you wouldn’t want to invite the narcissistic ignorant brainwashed sheeple by leaving the key of truth laying obvious in the public record.

            • #3897
              Anonymous
              Inactive

                This Turner case should not be a deterrent for us to be afraid to proceed, we should all band together and submit paperwork together, as many as possible at the same time as Darren suggested!

                • #3935
                  Terry
                  Participant

                    I agree with what your saying. It just seems like the judge is committing a form of perjury going on record saying the trust is not true. But i guess he could say its not true in the way Tim was going about it. I sure am excited for Daren and those that are getting closer. I hope the process is just as easy here in the states. Anna’s site does talk about debt relief but the don’t disclose that info until you’ve changed and recorded you status. And I get that it’s not all about the money, but in my opinion if they talked about debt relief and being the beneficiary of your trust would bring people forward in bigger numbers. Anyway, thanks for your comment, I’m really getting into this stuff and especially if they have figured out the trust system..

                • #4247
                  Erick
                  Participant

                    there may also be something to the fact that the account is opened and the estate mortgage is created but technically while ready to become a trust, it is not technically a trust until there’s that second signature on it. that’s why once you’ve perfected your interest and put it in front of a judge, THEN you can say “do you disclaim the trust?” and they are f’d because they are looking at the necessary instrument to make it a trust.

                    • #4312
                      Anonymous
                      Inactive

                        Not at all Terry, the fact is, that Eric is right in that the Judge “has no knowledge of such things” IN THAT JURISDICTION. thats where people drop the ball- if you start talking about private matters in open court then the judge will immediately say that you need a psych eval!. there is a time and a place for everything- Private means just that. I venture to say the Mr turner had no knowledge of equity when he started doing the things he did. The Judge will always deny any knowledge of such things in public. It is there main objective to protect that trust at all costs.

                      • #4332

                        Technically you are incorrect to think it has anything to do with your signature for the formation of a trust. Signatures have everything to do with contract, and nothing to do with trust. Because Darren is mixing commercial law and Equity, it will be confusing unless you have studied them separately.

                        We live in a society with a strong bias and presumption for contract and commerce. However, if you learn the history they won’t teach you in school, and you study Equity, you recognize that people are involved in trust relationships a lot more than they realize, and have only been led to believe that it is contractual.

                        For a trust to exist only the relations of a trust as seen by the court is necessary. No party in a trust need know that a trust is being formed by their behavior. At the time of formation none of grantor, trustee or beneficiary may recognize they are playing their parts in forming trust relationships, and the beneficiary may have no knowledge of their participation in the relations being formed at all. That is the beneficiary doesn’t necessarily know that anything has been created with them in any role whatsoever.

                      • #4396
                        Erick
                        Participant

                          So the trust always exists, but would be an implied trust initially and what the second signature does is make it an expressed trust? Either way the judges are bound to not acknowledge them at all in the public because they do not exist in the public jurisdiction, hence our general ignorance about them having come from public education, etc. as evidenced by trying to get judges to acknowledge them in public courthouses.

                          It also makes some sense that people trying to make natural law arguments would have no success in public court since that is only dealing with the at-law and common law precedents, whereas natural law is hiding in “private” equity, something historically you’d have to be privileged to know about how to access or even it’s existence as a separate jurisdiction within most court systems.

                        • #4655
                          Brian Peter
                          Participant

                            Anaxerian,

                            You seem to be highly knowledgable. Can you join the Forum for Corredsponding US, UK, Canada, and Aus Laws?

                            I think the most knowledgeable people in the USA Group should start leading Zoom calls and see if we can get a little group together that can expedite transforming DI5 documents into USA ready. Each state can further tweak if necessary, but it sure would be nice to have a USA group perfecting these documents and helping DI5 develop the process for us to go through the same way they are for Canada. Then subgroups can perfect each state if there’s necessary nuance on a state by state basis.

                            I can’t say I’m even close to an expert, but I’m trying to learn quickly and am studying many teachers at once. There is a teacher “KL” who I think has a good grasp on some important nuances and pitfalls. I’ve reached out to him and he is not aware of DI5 or the perfecting interest with adverse claims, but he is very skilled at the trickery of language and the trust that reaorganized the debt to England that became our Constitution. I haven’t seen many teachers as skilled at the trickery of language and astute and the Black’s Law Dictionary meaning of the words in the Constitution and the million pitfalls that come from not understanding them correctly.

                            The biggest one is how we are consistently tricked into Article I jurisdiction in court and then fall under the Trading With the Enemy’s Act. Consistently staying under Article III jurisdiction (outside of getting your private equity hearing) is an important detail for people to dodge that as they work toward perfecting their interest in the private equity hearing. It’s an easy error to make and I only bring that up because I want this type of expertise to be eyes on the documents as we transform Canadian into US documents.

                            In any case, I think getting the best minds on a Zoom call and trying to keep pace with the Canadian DI5 leadership should be the goal of the USA group. Although I don’t have any answers or understand the technicalities and nuance myself very well, I think the quicker we get a USA group working on transforming the documents and helping build the same type of process and funnel they’re building for Canada, the better.

                        • #4265
                          Terry
                          Participant

                            I guess we’ll find out when Jody goes to chancery soon.

                            • #4489

                              It’s the transfer that creates the trust, with Security Agreement, on certificate and/or off, creating an indenture. Not the signature. Like I said before, signature’s are about contracts, or service agreements, but not trusts. A signature alone will never, ever create a trust. And, if the proper trust relationships are established, the courts will see a trust as long as the proper relationships are formed, with an intent and a purpose for a res from the grantor/settlor. Finally, again, none of the parties need to recognize it is happening.

                              This is well established, and why I am reiterating it. The signature may be necessary and relevant for Darren’s process, but it is not because it is creating the trust.

                            • #4664

                              From the “Wisdom Sistem”, the signficance of the signature. As I said above, it comes from commercial law, not trust law.

                              Completion of security certificate 63(1) If a security certificate contains the signatures necessary to the security’s issue or transfer but is incomplete in any other respect (a) any person may complete the security certificate by filling in the blanks in accordance with the person’s authority; and (b) even if any of the blanks are incorrectly filled in, the security certificate as completed is enforceable by a purchaser who took the security certificate for value and without notice of the incorrectness.

                            • #4667

                              @Brian Peter

                              I don’t feel like initiating leadership right now.

                              Once I see enough of the documents to feel I have a comprehensive understanding of Darren’s process, I may step into that.

                              I also am busy caring for an ailing mother. Although that left me with time while she was in rehab, it is very active now, and until I settle into it, I can’t even pretend to tell you what and when my availability is. I should have a lot better understanding of that, in a week, or two, though.

                              So, we’ll see what happens.

                              FWIW, the translations from Commercial Codes are fairly straight forward in the US, because the translation to and from the UCC to the STATE OF Commercial Codes is always straight forward, and sometimes literally uses the same digits for indexing.

                              From what little I know of KL, his expertise supasses mine on the Common Law side, and the reasons you like him. I only learned of him recently, and was curious about the name change part of his process. I have done something similar but different, to make the distinction between the living wo/man and the dba entity clear, but I think what he has done is probably better. At the same time I do believe both our Status Corrections are more at Law, and do not provide access to the rights, title, and interest in our name as used by the state, and the proceeds there of.

                              When you fully understand the Equity side of this, whether Darren’s way, or Christian Walters way, it is about righting a wrong, not chasing a “pot of gold.” I say this because although Darren’s way makes all this easier, people who have not studied Equity will approach it as battle, as you are supposed to approach the Law side, and in doing so whether they have success with a Chancelor or not, they will have lost the spirit of Equity. If you really get Equity, you realize the whole approach to relief vs remedy is not simply in what is cited, but who you are when citing it, and the “energy” of your behavior.

                        Topic tags

                        You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

                        We are all close together

                        A problem, a question, an emergency?
                        Do not hesitate to visit the help centre, we can help you.