Edited 34 Pager

EDUCATIONAL-MATERIAL
The following posts are from the Yahoo group, Reclaim your Securities. Bill, the fellow that started the group was
approached from someone in the know within the IRS. It was that individual who disclosed the rules of the game and
mentored Bill. The group began June 2012 and ended early 2013. It is not imperative that you read these posts but it
is highly recommended you do so at your leisure. They are eye opening. This group does not discuss, and was likely
unaware of the Power of Attorney (POA) process you received from us. This POA was discovered by accident by my
mentor. He found out that without the POA, or default POA, liens could be removed. The reason, no standing. The
POA process prevents that and in and of itself is a game changer.
Posts by Bill and by Peterpapoulias are the MEAT and the ones to pay attention to. The posts by Bill and
Peterpapoulias are offered as is, meaning we did not alter them in any way. Enjoy, Adam
Bill on Yahoo! A4V Group
#28717
YOU DON'T HAVE THE CREDENTIALS

Posted By: Bill
Sat Jul 14, 2012 11:51 am
You don't have the credentials that the agency requires to process the security. These have been in effect for
some time. See posting #48 at the group mentioned below. It explains the defects most people are operating
under.
#28722
RE: YOU DON'T HAVE THE CREDENTIALS

Posted By: trelifordjr
Sat Jul 14, 2012 1:23 pm
Its almost like saying you must contract with them and operate within the fiction to obtain a proper discharge.
#28724
Re: YOU DON'T HAVE THE CREDENTIALS

Posted By: Bill
Sat Jul 14, 2012 1:39 pm
When you entered the gates of Rome, you contracted to obey Roman law. Or else.
The agency is the gatekeeper. We have to use a key that works. They're a trustee in the strawman trust. We
replace that with entities they recognize but don't control. You have to wash the concept of ownership from
your bones, and think in security interests. When I teach people from time to time, I strip them of most of the
concepts they've studied. When we're done, they don't doubt who controls their lives.
Every time you hand them a piece of paper you've contracted; you've formed a trust. Do you want to be trustee
or beneficiary? Bill
1
#28727

Posted By: trelifordjr
Sat Jul 14, 2012 4:29 pm
Agreed, agreed. Rome is everywhere and one must release prior conditioning to really learn the truth and how
to properly operate within it. I agree, Bill, its like beating them @ their own game, using their own codes statues
etc. against them.
#28747

Posted By: jasnik3722...
Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:14 pm
What are the credentials that I need ?
#28748

Posted By: fdmfghr
Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:20 pm
Following this one with interest, but it is lacking crucial definitions....like many of us have been using the term
"beneficiary" and/or "grantor" [by birthright] and/or some other versions like 'beneficial equity holder of
statutory/ens legis account', etc. and stating at least these credentials very explicitly with forms of first known-
by name only. One can also include verbiage re fiduciary trusteeship role held by those making claims, but still
have no necessary success, so do tell us all why not? What further credentials can you enlighten us on?
#28759

Posted By: Bill
Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:13 pm
Two stages to it. See postings ## 48 and 100 at the Reclaim Your Securities Group for a fuller explanation.
Wish I could give you a magic sound bite. Bill [also mentions post # 41]
#41
Status - what is it?

Peterpapoulias
Sat Jul 14, 2012 8:13 am
It's all about status. This is true. But what is status? Well for the answer we need to understand the way it's all
setup.
The system is dead. Meaning its all paper. Paper is dead. But raises a question. If we read the cestui-que vie act
2
of 1666 we find that your estate was probated (proven up) and placed in a cestui-que trust (your BC). Your BC
is the debtor as it is borrowing from your estate to acquire title to property (a legal interest). You sign as
the trustee of the BC trust granting the authority to ledger against it. The cestui-que vie act of 1666 says that you
are a decedent (presumed dead) and that the judge will act as the executor and instruct you as the trustee of the
trust to do some performance to settle with the adverse party who is claiming tendency on your farm (estate).
They are maintaining that they are entitled to the produce (labor, energy) that your farm produces. But the
cestui-que vie act says if you can prove you are alive then all tendency reverts back to you. How. do we prove
we are alive in a dead system?
In admiralty and equity we must show we have the highest claim. That makes us the entitlement holder (highest
creditor). Entitlement holder is the key.
But how do we do that? People have tried but they are missing some key elements to success. Know this,
establishing entitlement over the debtor is how we establish that we are alive in this dead system.
We want to follow Rockefellers advice. Own nothing and control everything. Redeeming your BC (not such
what means really) the way PTK describes IS NOT the way to do it. It's like taking your car out of the race. We
just want a new driver.
More on this next time. Do your research. You will find that the. cestui-que vie act has been codified in state
law for every state.
#48 re. #43 and # 41
TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder

Bill
Sat Jul 14, 2012 10:04 am
TOPIC: THE TWO PARTS TO STATUS.............

"ted", When you sign that agency or bank coupon, which is the asset side of the presentment, you create a new
security. You OWN that one. This is NOT a good thing.
OWNERSHIP'S A LIABILIITY. They won't process any security from an owner. The owner's a debtor, a
trustee with the obligation to perform on the security (at least in their eyes).
THE SECURITY NEEDS TO BE PLACED INTO THE HANDS OF A QUALIFIED PARTY WHO HOLDS
THE SECURITY INTEREST, a holder in due course. Haven't security interests ruled society for centuries?
But you probably have a security interest in the strawman right? The problem is that yours, mine, all of ours
from 1999 through now, and most people still doing them, are fatally flawed because the living man doesn't
exist in the admiralty world of res. When you file that UCC, the secured party is AUTOMATICALLY
CONVERTED INTO A TRUST, and since a trust already exists with the same name, it reverts back to the
STRAWMAN trust in which the agency's a trustee. You're dead on arrival. Defect 1.
In order to process the security, you need a proxy who the agency will recognize as having a security interest in
admiralty, AND a second proxy who has all of their approvals and qualifications to collect on it. (Most do not.
Defect 2.)
Both of those proxies need to be constructed so the AGENCY DOES NOT HAVE RIGHTS AS A TRUSTEE
3
(defect 3 for many). The first must have a RECOGNIZABLE proper lien in the security. The other is the holder
in due course of the security interest AND has all the qualifications for the agency to do the processing. (Most
patriot liens are defective for a very simple procedural error-defect 4).
The trick is to thread the needle to acquire those bells and whistles without inadvertently allowing the agency to
get its hooks into them as a trustee. THAT'S WHERE WE'VE ALWAYS SCREWED UP (defect 5). Filing the
UCC as a living man is just one of the pitfalls that brings us back under their control.
So there are really two stages in getting prepared:
S ecured
P arty
L ienor
A nd
S ecured
H older
S P L A S H (easy to remember).
This is why people hit a dead wall when they ask about "status" looking for a short answer or magic bullet, or
profess that they have status. It's not an email or blog process any more than learning how to overhaul an
engine, but I'm living proof it can be learned.
Don't get me wrong. A properly done process isn't complicated. It's a fraction of what people have been through
if they've set up a decedent estate paying by the hour. But it's the understanding that's critical to success.
Ignorance IS FATAL. So when the Ice Cream man comes calling, you can tell him exactly what to do on your
behalf, and why. That's when the do-not-detain orders start happening behind the scenes.
Check out the posting just before this one from a "Peter [#41]." He' right on target. If you've ever done an
estate process, then presumably you know that the estate's a trust also. EVERYTHING'S A TRUST. When
you hand a guy a piece of paper, you've created a trust relationship, and HE now has the obligation to perform
(see my next posting on this). This blog is about wisdom from people like Peter. We are blessed.
Like anything in life, those who succeed are the ones who persist. I never look back at past failures because
there are none. (Your promissory notes that didn't work held the real lessons.) I'm climbing the ladder of
necessary experiences created by the Father in my ascension back to the Kingdom. I persisted until He saw fit to
bring me the insiders who had reached the point of conscience and enlightenment where they were willing to
talk about the real deal. Bill.
#100 repeated, but important
TOPIC: SPLASH: FINAL WORD ON STATUS, STUDIES, CONSENSUS---for this Group

Bill
Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:53 pm
TO ALL MEMBERS, Robyn & California Girl in particular.........I understand your frustration. You're
confused. You're floundering. You don't know what's right or where to turn. One person says this, another says
that. I suggest re-reading the introduction on the Group's home page.: "THE CURTAIN IS CRACKING." If
you open your eyes and ears, you may find that those who know how to unravel the Matrix are among us.
4
Patriots have long believed they could learn rocket science at a two day seminar. It takes 7 years past high
school to become a lawyer. 13 to become a brain surgeon. Those regimens have structured education, classes,
homework, and apprenticeships.
And yet we presume we can take on the Courts, the IRS, the banks, the world, and gain status as beneficiaries of
the public trust, after a weekend seminar. Somehow we see salvation in a handful of paper templates. We rely
on emails and advice from strangers at blogs. Is it possible that these outlandish preconceptions have
contributed to our problems?
At THIS Group, the word "status" does NOT mean sovereignty, common law, postmaster, kingdom of heaven,
Turtle Island, or living on the county. Those may be fine concepts , but THEY HAVE NOT RELEVANCE TO
THE DESIRE TO RULE ADMIRALTY AND COMMERCIAL, rather than fight them. I'm eliminating all such
postings to keep the information concise and streamlined, and avoid confusing beginners even more. No offense
intended to the members who posted them.
For our purposes, the concept of status means the prestige to control the admiralty:
- standing developed using the public's own rules and regulations,
- qualifications to cash out entirely if you so choose (yes, it's been done),
and
- mandatory credentials required by the agency to recognize our priority claim and process our setoffs,
acceptances, refunds, recoupments, directives, exchanges, dispositions, special deposits, claims, acquisitions,
foreclosures and revestitures.
THAT LITTLE LIST OF TRANSACTIONS IS A FORMIDABLE ARSENAL It's all one needs to function in
society, control property, and repel trespassers. If you understand the requirements and processes for making
them happen, then you don't need to be reading this.
But if you do not, then the significance of these transactions will remain elusive until you do.
THIS IS WHY I SAY THAT UNDERSTANDING IS 98 PERCENT OF THE REMEDY. It's really that simple.
You do not become Neo on templates and emails. With mastery of your securities and the trusts they create, it
doesn't matter if you are dragged into Court in iron, slapped with a summons, foreclosed, liened, or visited by
CID. Each one of those events is another opportunity to teach the public that the price is too high to mess with
you. Because, you're in charge and they will know it seconds after you open your mouth. It's the knowledge, the
confidence, the look in the eye, the ability to enforce on the fly.
WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING, you are likely to fold your cards at the first challenge when your heart seizes
in your chest.
It's the difference between Bruce Lee and everyone else.
As to consensus, I know a handful of people (at most) qualified to teach these things. It easily takes about 20 -
40 hours of discussion to gain a handle depending on intellect and experience, and another 40 - 80 hours of
home study and confirmation for reasonable understanding, or substantially more if you intend to read the
actual laws in their entirety and the many fine books on admiralty, trust, banking, estate, tax, and contract law.
It all depends on one's threshold for mastery. Do you want to master any Court situation? Get annual refunds?
Exploit the banking advantages? Master it all? You get out what you put it, until one day the memories of
floundering are too weak to recall.
5
What I've given you is a truthful roadmap to freedom and peace. It may seem like a lot of effort to control a
system that belongs to us. But I see it as a tiny sacrifice compared to ten years of higher education or the
decades some of us have spent chasing our tails.
For me, the one thing that was most tangible when I finally "got it" was the sense that I was no longer spinning
my wheels. At that point, TRUTH BECAME SELF-EVIDENT. And you no longer need a "mentor" to steer
you straight. This was the Lord's doing by having blessed me with a wonderful teacher who, for some reason,
decided to pull back the curtain he/she had spent years protecting.
See Posting #69 for a bit of insight into the attributes which support the desire to learn. Bill
#28704
Corrsepondence from the IRS

Posted By: texascacti
Fri Jul 13, 2012 3:10 pm
I'm not sure what to make of this. Today I received cp71c's for most of the years that I sent in A4V's. I may sent
in letters requesting abatements for all of them, but am wondering if anyone has any idea if this means anything
in relation to the A4V's or if this is just an anual thing they do. It's been a few years since I'd gotten any of these.
#28720 re: 28704
Re: Corrsepondence from the IRS-YOU VOLUNTEERED TO BE TRUSTEE ON THE

SECURITIES
Posted By Bill
Sat Jul 14, 2012 12:11 pm
HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED WHEN YOU SENT IN THE A4V........
If those securities were executed by the strawman, living man or executor (in most cases), they were defective
by definition. The strawman is a pre-programmed debtor. INCURRING debt is its entire arsenal. The living
man doesn't exist in commerce. The executor (and the others) lack the specific credentials the agency requires to
process unregistered securities (ie your acceptances).
So when they arrived, the agency deemed the strawman to be operating as a trustee for the Estate that's
stealing funds from the presumed beneficiary (The United States Treasury). It's like dangling a worm in
front of a fish. It took the bait, but unlike the fish, the agency gets away with it every time (almost).
Respectfully I disagree with Doug Riddle. It's not the least bit odd. It's completely predictable if you understand
that every banker's acceptance is a security, and every security presentment creates a trust relationship. This was
trust and banking law 101.
Be prepared for frivolous penalties or warning letters to follow. Trust law 102. Secure the trust property. The
Beneficiary Strikes Back. Everything's correctable of course. Bill
6
#28718
first timer, A4V clarification Please

Posted By: sbrkelly...
Sat Jul 14, 2012 11:55 am
Hi Everyone, If you could please help me to tie up some unanswered questions I'd much very appreciate it. I'm
new to this process I have read a lot online and have followed these threads but still am unclear about a couple
things.
I have recently sent in my first A4V's using Doug's example. I’ve sent utility bills, taxes, school loan and car
loan. No word yet. Is that the example still working. I have seen others but they are all mostly the same with a
couple added words depending on who it is. As I read your threads, I know that you are having success and that
makes me hopeful, but if there is something different that you do, I'd love to hear it.
Also, I understand the purchases are a no-no. I don't even understand how you could make a purchase... but If
I'm using credit. ( cards, loans, etc.) I'm making purchases with the credit. When does it actually considered
Debt? As soon as you get the bill? Could I legitimately use my credit cards for everything then A4V card bills
or is that crossing the line?
Anybody's experience would be a great value.
thanks
Kelly
#28721 re: #28718
Re: first timer, A4V clarification Please-WONT WORK

Posted By: Bill
Sat Jul 14, 2012 12:25 pm
TOPIC: THE AGENCY LIMITED THE PROCESSING OF A4V TO CREDENTIALED FILERS
Hi Kelly, sorry to be the carrier of this news, but the odds that your acceptances will be successful are tiny. Do
NOT stop paying your mortgage and taxes.
Here are some links that explain why: NOW ineffective
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Reclaim_Your_Securities/message/48
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Reclaim_Your_Securities/message/47 - shows same as #48
The agency imposed restrictions when they became swamped. Those credentials can be achieved but I can tell
you that almost everyone's status process dating back to Roger's in 1999 and Tim Turners in 2011 is defective
on various fronts. I actually thought Turner's was a joke when I first saw it.
As to the credit cards, you gave them a security when you signed the application. That's when the ball started
rolling. They have been trading it against the "line of credit" ever since. There are a couple of approved ways to
7
set-off credit card bills, but to do it right requires going back nunc pro tunc to the original app. Keep in mind, a
successful setoff will close the account, meaning bye-bye credit card. It's better to recoup the funds through a
bank draft account, but that too is a sophisticated (but doable) process.
As you say, you are new. Be cautious Kelly. This road has been traveled before with predictable results. Do it
right or not at all. You know its right when you breath out and it all just falls into place before your eyes. Then
you're answering, not asking, questions. Bill
#28729
Recurring Statement Question

Posted By: billycwilt
Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:36 pm
Hello All,
Just found your wonderful group!

Quick question: On a recurring monthly statement, is it best to "Return For Value" or "For Settlement &
Closure" ? I am assuming the latter would be a one time only total pay-off of the debt, instead of having to
hassle with small payments each month?
Cheers thanks!
#28734 re: #28729
Re: Recurring Statement Question

Posted By: Bill
Sun Jul 15, 2012 8:43 am
Billy,
You don't do a Credit Card on a monthly statement.
You have to go back to the original credit application which was the security future they're still trading and
settle that nunc pro tunc.
And you can't do it. It has to be a proxy secured party and a proxy holder in due course or the agency will trash
it. Once you settle, the account will close. That credit card will be as you've reclaimed the underlying security.
And if you don't reclaim the security, the agency won't process the setoff (except as a fluke). And that is a fact
straight from inside.
Billy, be very cautious about doing things you don't understand because others are. It's like dabbling in brain
surgery. You may not have any idea of the long list of possible consequences. Please read these short links
CAREFULLY especially the second one:
#28735
Re: Recurring Statement Question

Sun Jul 15, 2012 10:12 am
Hi Robert,
8
Its not on a credit card monthly statement. It is for an old car loan which I am being charged interested on
monthly since money is tight. Or would the info you've given me still pertain to this situation? Cheers
#28773 re: #28735
Final Questions Before Sending

Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:48 am
Wow- I discovered the "youhavetheright" website just after sending my previous email-I apologize for asking
such questions when all the info is clearly listed on the site after I joined it. After listening to all of the sound
bytes from the Doug and Angela call-ins, I feel pretty confident I have done everything right for my first A4V.
Bill, I am very confused on what you were referring to in your previous email to me. Maybe I did not clarify
what it is I want to A4V. I am A4V'ing a Capital One car loan, in which my mother receives a monthly bill for a
set amount to be paid in order to pay-off the loan. She has had the car about 2 years now. Now, after
reading/listening about using A4V to make a purchase, I am 99% this is a debt and A4Vable, but I also don't
want her being hauled off to jail either! Cheers!
#28854
Re: Final Questions Before Sending

Posted By: Bill
Sat Jul 21, 2012 6:16 pm
Billy, visit our little group, look over the postings in particular my last on #199 to gain perspective. Bringing
Mom in to this is the worst of all scenarios. I'm telling you this candidly, honestly and frankly based upon real
world experience. You do not have the knowledge yet to defend her or protect her property when they move to
repossess. It's your call. but perspective will be invaluable I believe. Bill
#199 THIS IS A BIGGY
ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED

Bill
Sat Jul 21, 2012 2:41 pm
THIS IS LIKELY TO BE THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT EMAIL OF YOUR ENTIRE PATRIOT
EDUCATION. When it's done, you'll understand what it is you've been doing....and what it is you've been
missing.........
DOES ANYONE KNOW WHY WE MARK THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE: "CHARGE THE SAME TO JOHN
HENRY DOE # 123-45-6789?" I have yet to meet anyone who understands the process of filing the BC and BC
Bond at Treasury.
The BC and BC Bond accomplish completely different tasks. The banker's acceptance noted on the BC
effectively says: "I never abandoned my claim. I realize I'm a bit late, but here's my acceptance signed by a
bona fide admiralty proxy. And to prove my claim, I've attached copies of UCC-1's demonstrating my lien
against the strawman trust and the assignment to another admiralty proxy."
9
We can express our claim this way because the public only presumed, but never expressed, a claim against our
securities. It can never make such a claim without filing papers with the agency that confesses a capital gains
tax liability for the gain. You take my securities; you pay the tax.
Did you know that the banker's acceptance SHOULD IDEALLY BE BACK-DATED to your 18th birthday? If
you did not, then the BC security was not claimed timely, and you cannot venture retroactively to settle liens,
loans and the like. (And you wonder why your acceptances fail?) If you accept it as of today, then you are
stuck with any bills which pre-date today. Does that make sense?
The reason we mark the acceptance "CHARGE THE SAME TO JOHN HENRY DOE # 123-45-6789" is
simple. WE ARE NOT PAYING ANYTHING AT THIS TIME. Read your B.C. Bond. It does two things, and
neither involves paying the accumulated debts of the strawman in the Individual Master File. (For all the people
who malign Winston and the other gurus, can you see that Winston knew exactly what he was doing?)
First, the BC Bond directs the Secretary to open an account for the purpose of offsetting future bills. Basically,
you're opening an account to leverage future securities.
HEY, ISN'T THAT WHAT THEY DO IN COURT as I explained in posting # 146 (Court, Securities, Case
Bond & Trusts--The Inside Story). They file the complaint or indictment and open a Court account to leverage
securities. The first security issued is the summons (civil) or an arrest warrant (criminal) - both of which
comprise an arrest of the vessel in admiralty. (Like everything else in the public, the term "criminal" is merely a
delusion to stimulate fear.) In both cases, they arrest the vessel to entice an owner, banker or creditor to appear
and post bond. THEY ARREST THE VESSEL TO GET TO THE SURETY. And who's the surety? THE
ESTATE, of course. That's the Admiralty Game.
AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE DO WITH THE B.C. BOND AND OUR BANKER'S ACCEPTANCE.
If you read the BC Bond you will see that it is "funding" this new leveraging account in the amount of 100
billion dollars........
Who's the surety for the funding?......THE ESTATE, of course. We are accessing the Estate through the
strawman, just like they do in court.
And where do the funds come from?........OUR LIEN AGAINST THE ESTATE, duh. That's why we include
copies of the UCC-1's.
So now you know that the UCC-1 notices of lien are serious business (IF you did them correctly which almost
no one does).
And now you know why we "CHARGE THE SAME TO THE JOHN HENRY SMITH # 123-45-6789."
We do it to access the Estate just like the Court's do. We charge the strawman account through the maritime lien
to access our funds in the Estate to fund the BC Bond account to pay future bills. Simple. One, two three.
One more thing. WHY ARE YOU MARKING YOUR SETOFF ACCEPTANCES "CHARGE THE SAME
TO....???" When you pay a bill by setting it off against a pre-paid account (the one you established with the BC
Bond), shouldn't you note the acceptance: "FOR CREDIT TO ACCOUNT # 123-45-6789?"
After all, the amount has already been charged against the account for taxes, electricity, debt service and such,
which is why they're sending you a bill.
10
Which means that thousands of patriots are DOING IT ALL WRONG. They are sending in a security to pay the
strawman's bill (banker's acceptance), and instead of telling the vendor or Treasury to credit the strawman's
account, they're telling them to charge the strawman again. Is it any wonder Treasury thinks we're all crazy?
Even worse, the blogs and groups are filled with people giving terrible advice. I have watched entire reputations
being built on bad advice. NOT BAD INTENTIONS, just your basic guesswork blossoming over the
anonymous internet into a culture of error upon error. No wonder commerce has a bad name among advocates
of sovereignty.
So if you accepted your BC as the living man, your Treasury process is defective.
If you charged instead of credited any bills, they're dead on arrival.
If you did Tim Turner's process you have no standing to make a claim (Treasury views it as nonsensical), so be
very careful about trying anything.
If your acceptances were signed by the living man, the odds of success are very small. [hence, authorized
representative]
If you did ZYA, you did things backwards (among other problems).
How do I know? The same way I knew about the Treasury process. I've paid my dues...I've listened to the right
people...it's in my heart.
So tell me again how success lies in the paperwork rather than the understanding?
I'LL SAY IT AGAIN.......WHAT YOU NEED IS BASIC COMMON SENSE FOUNDATIONAL

UNDERSTANDING LIKE THIS, AND THEN YOU WILL KNOW IN YOUR HEART IF YOU ARE DOING
THE RIGHT THING. That's when you can tell Agent Anderson to take a hike.
Please feel free to direct your friends to this posting if it may serve their needs. Bill
#28945

Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:53 pm
I feel I have missed a step in trying to educate myself on the matter. According to Mr. Riddle (again, if I have
all my info correct), the worst the IRS can do is send you a frivolous notice and try to intimidate you (or your
strawman is it?). If this isnt the case, how does one go about sending off a first A4V then? I mean after all, one
is protected by UCC law am I correct? Also, why would the lending company try to come reposes if payments
are still being made and they are happy with the payment amount? Really makes no sense to me...
Please let me know, Should or shouldn't I send off a first A4V to see what happens?
Cheers
#28947
11
Posted By: angelicnutri...
Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:02 pm
The only time I know I had problems was when I did the OID process, and many had this problem.
A few said they get FRIV PEN letters, I have not, unless the OID was involved.
Protected by the UCC law? I never heard this, but I don't see AFV as being a problem
How does the lending company know you are doing an AFV when you send the thing to the IRS?
So repossession, foreclosure or shutting off is an issue
Should you or shouldn't you?

If your in doubt- don't do it
Just keep paying with your hard earned sweat that are nothing more than worthless and kiss the feet of your
oppressor- it's the US Citizen way.
I am an American, at least I was willing to see what would happen.
I am also an Aries, we tend to leap and then look... so it is not always good to follow my reason.
I also did a firewalk and succeeded in that as well.
#28948

Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:19 pm
Great, thanks for the help Doug!
"How does the lending company know you are doing an AFV when you send the thing to the IRS?
So repossession, foreclosure or shutting off is an issue"
I must be dumb. Why would a company repossess if their required payments are still being met?
I wish I could do one of these A4V's on my own, but unfortunately I'm still just a minor so I don't really have
any bills or debt to pay for and I really want to share all this great wisdom with my parents so they can use
it...just don't want them to get into any trouble but slowly learning all of the codes and laws.
Cheers!
#28974 re: #28947
Re: THE TRUTH ABOUT OID

Posted By: Bill
Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:58 pm
The reasons people get frivolous penalties for OID filings are obvious once you understand the principles. The
Original Issue Discount is the difference between the value of the security you gave them and the value of what
they gave you. In a mortgage, it would be the difference between the value of the promissory note INCLUDING
ALL AMORTIZED INTEREST and the payment they made to the seller. A $100K note will be entered in the
banks books at the full amortized value, say $250K. But since they paid the seller $100K on your behalf, they
still owe you $150K. THAT'S THE TRUTH OF THE ACCOUNTING. Ask a banker. Since most everybody is
12
entering $100K for the OID, IRS instantly knows the filing is bogus.
Moreover, the strawman has no standing to file an OID. Instant frivolous.
Then there are the dozen or so other forms you need as well, and the proper dating with respect to the security,
and the specification of calendar years, and so on. ZYA was a joke.
Maybe a handful of patriots truly understand the accounting, status, and methods which the agency requires to
process the forms. If in doubt, think twice. Then think again. Bill
#28753
BEWARE BEWARE BEWARE

Posted By: Bill
Mon Jul 16, 2012 5:34 pm
Rarely do I talk in this kind of language but do NOT NOT NOT issue A CHECK ON A CLOSED ACCOUNT.
There are simpler, better, RISK-FREE ways to issue securities such as banker's acceptances. A proper
acceptance is all it takes if you have proper standing.
Won't go to jail? I've got friends who are in prison for that very reason. On the facts alone, you are getting
dangerous advice, with all due respect. Closed account checks are a prosecutor's dream. When you finally
break down and accept an attorney, he will try to convince the jury that the man who wrote thirty checks on
closed accounts had no intention of defrauding the government. Duh. A slam dunk for any prosecutor.
BETTER YET - NEVER DO ANYTHING YOU DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND AND CANNOT DEFEND
AGAINST ANY AND ALL CHALLENGES. Why do you think so many patriots are in prison????? Don't be
one of them. Bill
#28808
Now What?
Posted By: sonia99...
Fri Jul 20, 2012 4:29 pm
I used the A4V indorsements on several coupons and all of them were ignored. Is the next step to do a notary
protest? All of the institutions I tested on just played dumb, ridiculed me and then dishonored the instruments.
Perhaps the OSMO method is more viable considering we're up against matrix clones? Regards, Sonia
#28810 re: #28808
Re: Now What?

Posted By: Bill
Fri Jul 20, 2012 5:15 pm
13
Sonya, the next step is to learn why you don't have the status that will be recognized for setoff, why setoff's the
very last step in the progression to such status, how to get your commercial house in order so your directives
will be obeyed, and then how to do it properly, where to send it, what materials to include, and the bevy of tax
forms and filings needed to make it happen. Sending an acceptance to a CEO is like trying to get Pontius Pilates
to obey the orders of Yehoshua. They deal in discharge. Setoff's gotta be processed by a setoff accountant.
who has access to both sides of the books. Bill
#28811
Re: Now What?

Posted By: sonia99...
Fri Jul 20, 2012 5:20 pm
Obviously, I'm new at this. I had a statement from BofA for a credit card and I indorsed the back of the coupon
with the A4V, Exempt from Levy, signed, dated, Deposit to US Treasury and charge same to and included my
strawman name and SS# sans dashes. I got a call from them and explained it to them (HJR 192, etc.) and he got
irritated and hung up, after some mumblings. They did not process the coupon and I just received a new
statement without any credits from the previous one (dishonored? yes). So I'm learning as fast as I can and
working on understanding, which is why I'm guessing this group is here? [pg. 10, 11, reclaim ur securities doc]
Regards, Sonia
#28813 re: #28811
Re: Now What?

Posted By: Bill
Fri Jul 20, 2012 5:31 pm
Aside from all the things I mentioned, you would not state "charge the same to..." Sonya, much of the patriot
movement is in Commerce 101, and really procedures shouldn't be attempted until you graduate and are
interning so to speak. I you visit the Reclaim Your Securities I suspect you'll have your eyes opened a notch.
As part of your security agreement with the debtor trust (strawman), presumably you agreed to pay all of
its debts. This means: "FOR CREDIT TO..." Good fortune either way.
Bill
#28986
Reverse IRS tax liens

Posted By: jim77524
Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:51 pm
An "Notice of Lien", is NOT a true lien. A true lien is filed with the Secretary of State, under the UCC-11.
Learn to research this title and have proof to reverse and terminate a Federal or State tax Lien. Along with the
instructions to Stop withholdings and terminating the IRS 668.Go to- http://stopliens.weebly.com
#29043 re: #28986
Re: NOTICE OF LIEN

Posted By: Bill
14
Thu Aug 2, 2012 11:07 am
A NOTICE, INCLUDING A NOTICE OF LIEN, IS A DIRECTIVE FROM THE BENEFICIARY OF THE

TRUST PRIOR TO TAKING ACTION. They are foreclosing on the trust under the presumption that the
presumed trustee (the strawman) is taking funds that belong to the presumed beneficiary. The correct way to
resolve it is to quash the presumptions using their paperwork. Bill
#29160
Sent mine in yesterday

Posted By: stacey.howard11
Wed Aug 8, 2012 8:14 am
I sent in two credit card statements, and a medical bill yesterday, according to Doug Riddles method. Has
anyone had any recent success? I was wondering if this process was still working and how long it usually
takes......
#29181 re: #29160
Re: Sent mine in yesterday

Posted By: Bill
Thu Aug 9, 2012 11:16 am
The odds are substantial that your acceptances will be ignored. The agency policy changed a few years ago such
that you won't have the standing to file the necessary forms to (i) balance your books, (ii) unbalance the
vendor's books so that the agency collects the withholding tax from them, or (iii) order a setoff, AND you
probably do not have the status to draw an instrument that will be recognized. Sorry, but that's the gospel truth.
The reason you're asking about success is because you are searching for some way to convince yourself that the
message from your gut is incorrect. Wishing you well, Bill
#29087

Posted By: joseph_toman
Thu Aug 9, 2012 1:11 pm
And just what is this statement based on: "The odds are substantial that your acceptances will be ignored."
You do not need forms filled out to exercise your exemption. If you do then you are a slave and not a living
man. Utter nonsense.
#29188

Posted By: rhs8963
Thu Aug 9, 2012 1:33 pm
Okay Joseph,
15
You've made this statement before so I'd like to address a question to you:
Apparently you didn't like what the previous poster said so you responded. What I haven't seen you do (and I'd
love to hear your take on this) is what would you do in this situation?
Thanks in advance
#29190

Posted By: joseph_toman
Thu Aug 9, 2012 2:10 pm
I am not sure exactly what you are asking. I have only had success with all my A4V processes. What situation
are you referring to. My problem is with the statement:
"you won't have the standing to file the necessary forms to

(i) balance your books,
(ii) unbalance the vendor's books so that the agency collects the withholding tax from them, or
(iii) order a setoff, AND you probably do not have the status to draw an instrument that will be recognized."
To me that is nonsense. You do not need to file forms to exercise your exemption. If you think you do then
you do not understand the process or your exemption. As a living man you direct them to adjust the account or
get their name and employee number and issue a complaint or non judicial lien on them PERSONALLY. Why
do we have to complicate the matter. Tell them to follow the law or be liable for not following the law. Seems
quite simple. Ignorance of the law is NO excuse.
We tend to treat these bastards as friends and fellow citizens when in fact they are unregistered foreign enemy
agents working for the Queen and the Crown Banks who are extorting the wealth of our country and stealing the
substance of our very existence. We "ask" instead of demanding. We confront them in fear instead of
commanding them to perform their lawful duties. They are the criminals not us. They are supporting a system of
stealing from Americans and thinking it is patriotic. So why do we think we need to be nice and civil to them.
FWCK them, i.e., Fornicating without consent of the King. May they go to hell.
If you understand the process then it works and if it does not work the first time do it again and again or as
many times it takes for them to do their duty. Stay on point and no discussion or training is needed by you for
them.
I get tired of straining my eyes reading emails that ask for proof. One does not need proof if you KNOW and
UNDERSTAND what the law and remedy is. JUST do it. If they don't get it then get names and oaths and
employee numbers.
Look at your process and be sure you know what you are doing. For example if you are A4V a certain tax
period like 2004, be sure to use a 1040V for that year 2004 and a 1040 form stamped "NOT LIABLE" for that
year. If you mix the years then you need to do it again. Give attention to details and you should have no
problem. If they do not respond do a notary certificate of non response. If you are the creditor then act like it
and take control of your affairs. Perhaps I am ranting. Sorry. Just my thoughts.
16
#29158
Re: AMAZING conversation with IRS about offset

Posted By: for4sale1234
Tue Aug 7, 2012 9:50 pm
All
Only the debtor lives (is a resident of) in the District of Columbia. A secured party creditor does not reside in
the District of Columbia. Food for thought
#29183 re: #29158
Re: AMAZING conversation with IRS about offset-USING DC TO YOUR ADVANTAGE

Posted By: Bill
Thu Aug 9, 2012 11:31 am
Mike, I WANT my claimant to reside in the corporation. More importantly, I WANT the holder of my claim to
reside IN THE DISTRICT. This is one of the essential ingredients that makes them recognizable to admiralty
institutions and gives them the power to collect my collateral. The entire public judiciary exists to process
security interests for DC residents. Patriots have been trying to create security interests for 13 years, and mostly
they're defective. But when is properly constructed, most of the time the patriot doesn't quite understand and
appreciate the significance and the power to control their securities be it their BC account or the indictment
some Court issued against the Estate's credit. Bill
#29618
Re: how to A4V a mortgage ?

Posted By: rhett_madison
Sat Sep 1, 2012 7:13 am
Every house in the USA is owed by the Fed. this is way they make you sign a Mort-Gage, you will never get a
title to your home, and you will never own it, ever.
#29619

Posted By: rhett_madison
Sat Sep 1, 2012 1:49 pm
Has any one in this group ever heard of the term "Mort-Gage backed Security" and if you have can you tell me
What it Means?
#29626 re: both of the above
ANS. A MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITY IS REALLY AN ESTATE-BACKED SECURITY....

Posted By: Bill
Sun Sep 2, 2012 5:10 pm
17
RHETT, JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING YOU SIGN IS A SECURITY (see 15 USC 78c(a)(10)) [Securities
Act]. In every case, the recipient opens an account and issues a number, then deposits the security to fund the
account from which they will leverage new securities. For instance, when your hospital birth record is deposited
with the municipal Registrar. For instance, when a Court opens a case account, assigns a case number, deposits
the indictment or complaint, and leverages (meaning issues against your credit) new securities such as arrest
warrants, summonses and the case bond which is sold through the USDC/Northern Illinois clerk's office to
investors for profit. I call this process the Uniform Securitization Scheme (USS). They do the same thing with
credit card applications, mortgage notes, bank drafts, virtually all securities. I just posted a file ("Flowchart
BOA") taken from Bank of America's 2010 Rule 424(b)(5) prospectus filed with the SEC. It shows the exact
scheme by which you are enticed to act as a surety on investment contracts while you think you're applying for
a credit card or mortgage. Hence the term: mortgage-backed securities. That too is a fraud. They are not
"mortgage-backed," they're "Estate-backed." If you understand the USS you've taken a giant step in
understanding the world around you. In time it will become an open book. No wonder Yehoshua overturned the
moneychangers' tables. Bill
#29627

Posted By: Bill
Sun Sep 2, 2012 5:17 pm
THIS IS LIKE TAKING A FIRST AID COURSE AND ASKING HOW TO DO BRAIN SURGERY.
There IS much to it. You need to address the original security nunc pro tunc, and the property itself. This
requires a bunch of filings. The acceptance is the cherry on top, at most. Then there's the past three years
payments. Those few sentences are inadequately summarizing an extensive accounting process (not
impossible, but extensive) if you want to achieve success. The important thing is knowing how to defend
what you've done which is easy if you truly understand it. In fact, if you understand it's pretty transparent to
you, the bank and your collection agency. But lets face it, most people want quick, not success. The moral, with
all due respect, is: do NOT try it if you don't know how, or chances are you'll be like the thousands of others
years later singing the blues ("I'm getting evicted next week. can you help me?") Bill
#29607
Re: Need a Hail Mary to save my vessel from being sold my the towing company
Posted By: zykue3
Fri Aug 31, 2012 6:35 am
If you want to know what your rights are, read the constitution of the United States of America...look up title 42
USC 1983 to know what to do when these public servants act beyond their oaths of office.
#29628 re: above
Save my vessel??? - AN AMAZING QUOTE...YOU'RE A MINOR, PERIOD.

Posted By: Bill
Sun Sep 2, 2012 5:24 pm
18
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THERE IS NO CONSTITUTION IN EFFECT. The judiciary is operating as
Courts, not lawful courts. In fact, their own statues forbid corporations from using the term "court." Everything
is in admiralty, involving security interests issued against securities and the trusts created when a security is
presented to someone. That creates a trust relationship in which they, the Trustee, are presuming that YOU are
the trustee, and they are the beneficiary.
Want to stop that? LEARN what's going on and how to reclaim your securities. Here's an AMAZING
AMAZING quote from Treasury regulations regarding Treasury Direct accounts:
31 CFR § 363.6 What special terms do I need to know to understand this part? Minor means an individual under
the age of 18 years. The term minor is also used to refer to an individual who has attained the age of 18 years
but has not yet taken control of the securities contained in his or her minor account.
Constitution? Hey, you're a minor in the eyes of your public officials until you reclaim. Yup, 80 year old
minors, Only in America. Bill
#30028
ACTUALLY, A4V WORKS WHEN DONE CORRECTLY. MOST ARE NOT.

Posted By: Bill
Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:25 am
THE PRIMARY REASON YOUR A4V's FAIL IS THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE STANDING TO ORDER A
DRAW FROM THE PARTICIPANT'S SECURITIES ACCOUNT AT THE FED (the private account), i.e., you
don't have standing to use the checkbook. There are two reasons...
First, The strawman is a debt conveyance. It was created SOLELY to transmit your portion of the public debt
to your public Estate. It was created TO BE CHARGED, ie. "arrested" (meaning placed under commercial
distress) so that the public Estate, your BC account, will "appear" in the admiralty and post bond (i.e. pay the
bill, issue an appearance bond, etc.) so the vessel can be released. It has NO capacity to authorize deductions
from the creditors (private) account.
Secondly, the living man also has no such capacity. NOT because "they can't see it in the public," which is a
patriot cliché meaning "I don't know how the system works." But for the following two reasons, one of which is
self-evident:
(a) The term "abandonment" is defined by the legal franchise as an act which shows intent, and an act which
shows actual abandonment of property with the intention of not reclaiming it AND leaves it available to be
reclaimed by others. So once you fail to claim your securities at age 18, under Treasury Reg. 31 CFR 363.6,
YOU ARE A MINOR beyond age 18 if you have not claimed your securities. Then, at age 25, you are
considered lost at sea under the doctrines of cestui que vie (1666) and Escheats wherein the property reverts to
the feudal lord which is the Crown of England ever since William of Normandy conquered Great Britain. To
this day, the Fed reports to the Bank of England. PUBLIC OFFICIALS CAN NEVER CLAIM YOUR
SECURITIES THEMSELVES since they would then owe immeasurable capital gains, transfer and penalty
taxes, but they CAN and DO create constructive trusts in equity wherein they control your securities by duping
you into acting as trustee so they can presume themselves to be the beneficiary. So, from the public
perspective, the living man has abandoned all claims against public securities like the BC and SS
certificate.
19
(b) Beyond that, ask yourself WHY they bothered with the entire BC charade in the first place? The sole reason
for depositing the Certif. of Live Birth as a security with the County is to convert your living estate (your
inheritance from the Father) into a public Estate, an obligation to act as surety for the strawman - that is, an
obligation to pay your portion of the debts incurred by the United States. In other words...
THE ENTIRE COMMERCIAL SYSTEM WAS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO KEEP YOU, LIVING
FLESH, OUT.
THIS IS WHY YOU ARE FAILING. To claim your securities in any manner such as A4V, you FIRST
need to re-establish status through an entity they can see but not control, and THEN engage a proxy to
reclaim the securities that have been abandoned at sea. I hope this helps dispel the myths. Bill
#30032
Re: ACTUALLY, A4V WORKS WHEN DONE CORRECTLY. MOST ARE NOT.
Posted By: artie2011z
Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:54 am
Great post as usual Bill.

Continuing research who can the public see but not control? Beneficiary / depositor / authorized representative
for the Grantor (can these be revealed in public?)
I am hesitant even in private to act as an executor so I am researching this "when there is no Executor then a
creditor can become an administrator." Corpus Juris Secundum
See attached for another example which includes accepted for value by drawee
As Bill and Doug have said, understand before doing.
#30033
Posted By: imran_jamali
Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 pm
Ok Bill. So, can you give us a detailed step-by-step process on how to " to re-establish status through an entity
they can see but not control, and THEN engage a proxy to reclaim the securities that have been abandoned at
sea."
Also, if you mention this in court...such as a criminal hearing, will the prosecutor, clerk, commissioner or judge
know what you're talking about? Both county court and Federal court? Imran
#30035 re: above
Posted By: Bill
Sun Sep 30, 2012 4:58 pm
Imran, the judge will surely know if YOU know what you're talking about. That's the germane issue.
20
Moreover, when you reclaim your status, there's no need to appear in the flesh. Keep in mind, the public defines
an "appearance" as any presentation or submission to a court. We let our paperwork constitute an appearance,
and that appearance is always in the unincorporated court of record which has been mirrored by the
corresponding incorporated Court. All such Courts, be they criminal or civil, are "civil" (Fed. Rule of Civ
Proced No. 2), meaning entirely commercial corporate entities which deal in trading your securities.
As to a step-wise outline, you can no more learn how to be who you need to be through these sorts of postings
than you can learn to be an engineer, or doctor or airline pilot. It's too bad no college would dream of setting up
such a curriculum. So it's helpful to have a connection with someone who does. Bill
#30019
Stopping government agencies

Posted By: carlabrown47...
Fri Sep 28, 2012 12:44 pm
Hey
I have a good question if I give my employer a copy of my ucc-1 and a copy of my trademark name will that
stop child support agency from garnishing my pay checks
#30030 re: above
Re: Stopping government agencies

Posted By: Bill
Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:43 am
NO, BUT IT WILL GET YOU FIRED IN TIME. Patriots desperately need to cultivate the ability to think like
others. What does an employer want?...PRODUCTIVITY WITH THE FEWEST HASSLES. The garnishment
is already a pain. And most non-cognitive minds have been trained to view such controversies as impugning the
employee's integrity. After all, if you're a deadbeat with respect to your own children, how can the employer
trust he's getting an honest day's work? With that likely mindset, do you see how anything you do to fuel the
notion that you're an oddball (like placing the employer in the middle of your controversy) is likely to convert to
a red target on your back. Unless you work at Target, that's not such a good thing.
Anything you attempt should be directly with the agency. Once you regain status and reclaim your securities as
I explained in posting # 30028, it would be very expensive and ugly for the offending agency to even dream
about continuing to operate the trust they've created in your name when they deposited the Court order in their
accounts as if they were the beneficiary. Hey, that's YOUR trust, and that Court Order is YOUR security. Once
you have status and pay it off, woe unto he that presumes to terminate your interest in your own security. VERY
expensive indeed. Bill
#30013
Re: RECENT AFV SUCCESS STORIES

Posted By: ronbono
21
Fri Sep 28, 2012 7:19 am
Did I need to send an Executor letter with my Accept for Value to the IRS?
#30016
Re: RECENT AFV SUCCESS STORIES

Posted By: angelicnutri...
Fri Sep 28, 2012 8:54 am
According to David Clarence- that would put you in jail. The executor letter is a separate and final step. Don't
do any processes after the executor letter. The executor is the last one. According to DC, the executor or
executrix is the highest office in the land, as judge you don't bring people in after the matter is settled, that
would render previous decision null and void.
You may ask them to do things, don't necessarily expect they will do it, however. It has stopped them when I
used it and that is all I care about. Because many people don't listen to things, decide to do it differently (even
me) I hesitate to tell people about this as it is potentially dangerous, according to DC.
You need to do your best to listen to and read the information available and look up the definitions of the words
so you know what you said.
#30031 re: above
TOPIC: THE TRUTH ABOUT EXECUTOR LETTERS

Posted By: Bill
Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:53 am
IN MOST CASES, A DAVID CLARENCE TYPE EXECUTOR LETTER IS USELESS FOR PUBLIC
PROCEDURES. For all the reasons I cited in posting 30028, a letter written from a living man "does not
compute." In a world of fictions related for the sole purpose of transforming private flesh into public sureties,
there is no place for a soul or truth. A fiction IS a lie for the purpose of obtaining an outcome of law that would
otherwise be impossible.
Terms like "highest officer in on the land" are clichés that weaken our resolve to actually figure things out until
they are self-evident.
There are many ways to deal with the agency, the best is to use their own paperwork that they've set aside to
turn off the spigot. (And no, it can't be taught to you in an email, sorry). Bill
#30192
A4V new version? any input?

Posted By: tinknockkr
Sun Oct 14, 2012 4:45 pm
Asked a question this is what I got back....I believe it accesses the BC trust and transmits the credits to the SS
trust for distribution as directed by the grantor?.. New one on me? Doug? anyone? see process below.....
Statement front top - pay to the order of the united states of america without recourse autograph date
22
inside a red ink box that you make
" I agree to pay posted amount of $100.00 for full closure and settlement of this account and all accounts in
privity." Signed: FIRST MIDDLE NAME (birth date)
by: x.... First-Middle: Last, AR autograph todays date" in red ink
imo serial number bonded

end statement
----------
coupon front
Pay Credit account # card company name (spell out in red ink->) "Minus One hundred and no/100
DOLLARS**********
to the order of the United States Treasury Without Recourse (in the amount box ->) negative sign in red -
$100.00
sign date red ink lower right
--------
back of statement
top write private and confidential
acceptance of value First-Middle: Last, AR Grantor date
CHARGE the same to First Middle Last # Birth certificate number
Credit the same to FIRST MIDDLE LAST # SSN
CHARGE the same to FIRST MIDDLE LAST # SSN
CREDIT the same to Credit card account #
imo serial number bonded
------
back of coupon indorse sign date
pay to the order of USA without recourse on demand for valuable consideration
for deposit to credit on account SSN for further credit
to credit card account number or redeemed in non-negotiable federal reserve notes
---
buy a one dollar international money order
fill out like the coupon front and back
put the imo serial number on account statement front and back and write bonded"
I understand the Charge/credit portion but not clear as to the IMO significance....any input?
Thank you..
#30202 re: above
Re: ACCEPTED IS ACCEPTED. WHY GET FANCY?

Posted By: Bill
Mon Oct 15, 2012 4:14 pm
IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO REINVENT THE WHEEL. All you need is "ACCEPTED FOR VALUE"
or simply "ACCEPTED" as banker's have been doing for a century. You can find samples of banker's
acceptances on the web. We don't have to direct them, they already know where to secure the funds and direct
the credits, by the bill, the original security. The acceptance creates a new security and the recipient is obligated
as Trustee to make the deposit and exchange it for an equivalent. If he does not, his rights of recourse are
23
discharged anyway, so he has nowhere to go unless you give it to him by failing to understand what you've
accomplished. When he breaches the trust, it collapses and the grantor is entitled to a return of all securities.
If you feel compelled to direct them, you can tell them to charge it to the STRAWMAN NO. 123-45-6789
as Elvick noted years ago. The Strawman is where all public bills are charged.
The wording is NOT why your acceptances are failing. They are failing because you don't have status. Very few
patriots have achieved setoff authority because they continue to believe the patriot myth of secured party
supremacy. Despite the money you spent on seminars, you can NOT achieve status through a debtor/creditor
relationship with the United States. It says so in their statutes. Debtor/creditor is a diversion. So is bailee/bailor.
A bailee is liable only for negligence. If he can figure out a non-negligent way to control your securities, he's
permitted to get away with it. This is why your Tim Turner and Tony King and "Mr. Howard" processes were
doomed from the start. You also can't command a setoff as the living man because nothing living has capacity
in a corporate venue.
Get your status sorted out, and they will start to take notice. No need for closed account checks and other high-
risk items that are easy to prosecute in front of sheeple jurors. There are no shortcuts to understanding what
you're doing. Bill
#30378 re: below
YES, you CAN collapse/terminate the SSN and BC trusts.

Posted By: Bill
Fri Nov 2, 2012 12:28 pm
Many misconceptions floating around about terminating the SSN (and the BC). The truth is:
1. You CAN terminate the trust that is represented by the SSN. Better yet, you can also terminate the parent, the
trust that is represented by the BC file number. I'm talking from experience as the agency records reflect that
mine are closed.
2. There is no such concept as terminating a number. The number is merely a designation which is used
to represent various simultaneous things. For instance, the BC number represents:
A. A certificate drawn by the County Registrar and deposited into an account created to accept that deposit as
funds (a pledge). That certificate is a securities future representing a bet against future access to our credit. It is
also a bill of lading indicating that a shipment of cargo was received, in this case by the United States.
B. The resulting trust created by the deposit of that security. A trust is created because there was never any
return of equity on the security, so the recipient became a Trustee obligated to perform.
C. A Treasury bond issued from that account which is exchanged for currency when the Fed "buys" the bond.
That's what's being released from escrow when Optional Form 91 is properly used.
D. A mortgage against our credit as the result of that currency exchange.
24
E. A lien against our real property, our bodies. That's what's being released with Optional Form 90.
F. The funds which are attributed to the Fed account upon receipt of the bond, and which serve as the surety for
the SS bonds.
G. A U.S. Government Contract, just like it states on the 90 and 91.
As to the SSN, it represents the account in which the birth bond is deposited, the resulting trust, and a
U.S. Government Contract which is underwritten by the birth bond - exactly as it states at the top of the
90 and 91 if you complete them properly.
More importantly, the SSN trust serves as TRUSTEE OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE TRUST. This is
the part almost no patriots realize. Why do you think the Court, the gas company, DMV, the banks, and
every other public entity depository "charges" the strawman? Read 26 USC 2603 - the trustee pays the gift
tax. Basic trust law: THEY ALWAYS BILL THE TRUSTEE FOR THE DEBTS OF THE TRUST. The
strawman SSN trust is truly a utility for transmitting debt to the estate, to the BC trust. It's a portal.
There are various ways to collapse, terminate, kill - call it what you will - one or both of those trusts. Once you
understand the system, suddenly you can't swing a dead trust without seeing yet another exit sign. If you just
give notice of the termination, it may still work but you will not gain the proceeds of the collapse, the return of
your equity. That depends on the actual method of termination. [similar to the letter John got from lawyer, my
name at my birth was registered without my consent………..]
Also, it's a big mistake to assume that the public owns the SSN or those accounts. They---own---nothing.
Every security, deposit, trust, and derivative issue begins with the certificate of birth. THEY BELONG
TO US. When they issue an Indictment, Citation, Warrant, Order, or even a utility bill, that liability charged
against the strawman is also an asset to us, an account payable on their books that they owe to us, a derivative of
OUR original pledge. UNTIL YOU REALIZE THAT, YOU REMAIN A SLAVE.
Whether you remain in or out, whether you collapse the trusts, terminate all contracts, cash out, or use the
agency as a collector, it all begins with understanding the nature of the system, and then returning to
competency. Bill
Re: can't find 20 CFR 404.1905/1901

Wed Oct 31, 2012 5:47 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Get Free"
My question is why wouldn't we want to terminate this number? Because this number connects us to the
benefits that keeps us a slave? Or could it be that if the system was done properly then they would pay for all
the bills as they were supposed to under this system?
On Wed, 10/31/12, T R wrote:

From: T R
Subject: Re: can't find 20 CFR 404.1905/1901
Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2012, 8:22 AM
I understand HOW Boris as well as others WANTED to use this "law" for the termination of the agreement for
the social security number. But I do not read it this way. The president can establish the totalization agreement
with foreign countries - we are foreigners to THEM: however, I am not seeing where the SSA will ALLOW
such termination. Once the SSN has been established, it is "yours" sort of speak - nothing terminates that
25
number. Besides whatever the president does really has nothing to do with us - it is THEIR laws.
THe form SS521 - I have heard people use for the termination but again my understanding of this form is once
the CLAIM has been established - you can hold off on the collection of the social security payments. It does not
terminate the number. And from late, this is not something we want - any termination of THEIR SOCIAL
SECURITY NUMBER.
Can someone please explain why I may not be understanding this correctly?
From: John
Subject: Re: can't find 20 CFR 404.195
Date: Tuesday, October 30, 2012, 4:06 PM
http://www.ssa. gov/OP_Home/ cfr20/404/ 404-1905. htm
§ 404.1905. Termination of agreements.
Each agreement shall contain provisions for its possible termination. If an agreement is terminated, entitlement
to benefits and coverage acquired by an individual before termination shall be retained. The agreement shall
provide for notification of termination to the other party and the effective date of termination.
#30363
Bank Refusal of A4V: Recourse??

Posted By: valyae_j
Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:15 am
I recently A4V'd a bank loan and received a call that it was being refused due to some act of 1977. I was told
that I would receive this in writing. One week later I received a generic letter not addressing the instrument I
sent. They also included a copy of the original loan document. I then sent the bank a "notice demand" package
justifying my A4V document and called to inform them that I would be taking action in the form or reporting
them to the IRS CID and Comptroller of the Currency. I also sent them a completed copy of a IRS 3949A form.
No word back since then.
My question is, has anyone ever reported an institution to the OCC or CID for refusing an A4V? How did that
work out? Also, if my A4V is accepted by the IRS, (IRS Technical Support Division c/o Treasury UCC
Contract Trust), how will I know, (I heard it takes 45 days)? If the Treasury cuts a check to the Bank does their
refusal even matter? Won't they have to close the account anyway?
Any feedback would be greatly appreciate. Thanks!
#30379 re: above
Re: Bank Refusal of A4V: Recourse??

Posted By: Bill
Fri Nov 2, 2012 12:40 pm
MORE THAN LIKELY you did not have correct status to authorize offset of the contract. The strawman
has no such capacity, and the living man is a nonparty. Also, the offset needs to be executed nunc pro
26
tunc. The assets to fund the instrument need to be properly acquired by an entitlement holder. The
instrument needs to be properly assigned. The claim must be made through the agency, not directly to the bank,
using the agency's proper forms. If you know what you're doing, you can have the offset confirmed as proof of
setoff. You also probably do not have authority to issue a 3949-A that will be recognized. THAT COULD BE
RISKY BUSINESS OTHERWISE. It's not a pleasant day when a mortgage becomes a criminal case. And
finally, the agency does not cut a check. It balances the books. As it stands right now, you lost your asset, the
bank note as a general deposit to the bank's general fund. That means THE BANK TOOK ACTUAL LEGAL
TITLE TO THE FUNDS. They can ignore you till the sheriff evicts. The real issue is the need to gain the skills
to reclaim the assets. Bill
#30652
Accepting Criminal Convictions?

Posted By: jtlbsos
Wed Nov 28, 2012 2:48 pm
Hey guys I have a question. I have been told about a process that shows how to wipe clean a criminal conviction
and essentially get you out of prison as well if you are still in. This is the process that was told to me:
1. Fill out an ACCEPTED FOR VALUE / EXEMPT FROM LEVY Document front and back one side red the
other blue. and at a 45 degree angle.
2. obtain the following documents from the conviction case.
a) Warrant or affidavit of arrest

b) search warrant or incident report
c) Indictment or complaint information
d) plea agreement or paperwork on plea
e) order of judgement and sentence (warrant of commitment)
f) Mittimus
3. then obtain a bid bond GSA Form SF24 , performance bond GSA Form SF25, and payment bond GSA Form
SF25A. Fill these out accordingly with the CUSIP ID# then send all that to the
Department Of Justice
600 East St. NW Rm 7300
Washington, D.C. 20530
Is this right or have I been given the run around or is there just something small missing that needs to be added?
#30714
Re: Accepting Criminal Convictions? Bond who?

Posted By: imran_jamali
Thu Nov 29, 2012 2:19 pm
What bond are you guys talking about??? I asked the judge point blank in my case, on the record of
performance bonds, financial instruments, commercial securities, etc. and he said he didn't know of any.
27
Can you guys please back up and go over this criminal stuff, step-by-step in a clear, concise manner?
Imran
#30744 re: above
Re: THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CASE BOND...and everything else.

Posted By: Bill
Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:12 pm
HERE'S YOUR ANSWER. Once the Indictment has been deposited generally into the Court's securities
accounts, the Court leverages securities out of the account against a presumption of access to the Estate's credit.
The Case Bond is floated into the markets through Fidelity. The CUSIP number can, and has been, tracked
many times.
The arrest warrant (and a summons in a civil case) are also issued. They serve as vouchers seeking a bank's
consent to transfer Estate (private) funds to the Court's depository account to pay for the Case Bond?
To better understand, let's examine a standard check deposit at BOA. The bank endorses the check PAY TO
THE ORDER OF BANK OF AMERICA, which is a banker's acceptance by the Payee's bank that monetizes the
instrument (converts it to money of account). BOA then steals title to the funds by issuing credits to the
depositor's account (a general account). It places a hold on the credits and forwards the check to the Payer's
bank for authorization to release the hold. If funds are available, the Payer's bank will endorse the check (yet
another banker's acceptance) and return it to its customer, the Payer (at least they used to). If funds are
insufficient, BOA will cancel it's endorsement and RETURN THE CHECK TO THE DEPOSITOR/PAYEE.
Notice that the credits move to the Payee and the security moves back to the issuer who issued the security. You
can always return to this transaction to understand most any event in the world around you.
For instance, a case in an incorporated Court. The Court (JUDGE ROSE WILLIAMS) deposits the Indictment
by endorsing it "FILED IN CASE NO. 1:10-CR-123456." THE STAMP IS A BANKER'S ACCEPTANCE.
Doesn't it signify acceptance, opening of an account, issuance of a number, and a deposit? Doesn't the
indictment have a Payer (strawman), Payee (Plaintiff), implied amount (penal sum on the charges), a date,
signature, and place of payment (the Court)? Doesn't the Court maintain securities accounts in its normal course
of business, making it a securities intermediary per UCC 8-102(a)? What else could it be if not a banker's
acceptance?
That's what it was in your case and everyone's case.
By the way, the Clerk is a pimp (to quote Vito Corleone). The Clerk is a bank teller acting for the Court. The
concept that the Clerk is the Court is one of our legendary patriot misconceptions.
After depositing "the check" (Elvick, Shrout, Kennedy and Smith were on the money), the Court then issues
credits to a general account, meaning it steals title to the deposit (to the funds - see my last posting) ON THE
PRESUMPTION that the funds will eventually be made available by the Payer. They ALWAYS presume the
funds will be available until proven otherwise by an NSF notice from the Payer's bank. Then, just like BOA, the
Court issues a voucher to the Payer's bank to certify the existence of the book-entry credits - the funds.
Regarding Court, THE VOUCHER IS THE BENCH WARRANT OR SUMMONS. These are nothing more
than securities issued to secure acceptance by the Payer's bank - endorsement. That's all that's going on.
28
It's well disguised of course. For the masses (messes) at large, the transaction is disguised as law.
For lawyers, it's disguised as equity - a violation of a presumed contract to comply with statues.
To patriots, it's disguised as an admiralty arrest of the vessel, as Jack Smith taught for years, to get the creditor
to appear and post bond.
But the core issue - the real issue at work - the underlying issue that controls your life is that they are seeking
authorization by the Payer's bank (you) to establish the Payer as surety on the account.
Who's the Payer? THE ESTATE of course. They are seeking your consent to ESTABLISH THE ESTATE AS
SURETY for the funds credited to the account represented by the Case Number...
Meaning, AS SURETY FOR THE CASE BOND they already issued.
I repeat...FOR THE CASE BOND which they already issued on the PRESUMPTION that the funds WOULD
BE MADE AVAILABLE when you appeared physically, hired a lawyer to appear, gave your name, sent in a
motion (which creates a general appearance even if you protest jurisdiction), or just entered the Courtroom and
said "I'm here on that matter."
Read the definition of Bond in 48 CFR 28.001. A bond is a two party pledge to the Government in which a
principal (the strawman) and a surety (the Estate) guarantee an obligation to perform. All they want is the Estate
to step forward and ACCEPT liability as SURETY (payer) to fund the securities account identified by the Case
Number.
BANKER'S ACCEPTANCE.
The concept that they just reach into the Estate any time they want and take the funds is more patriot
misconception. Yes, THE BC IS A PRESUMPTION OF THE ESTATE'S AGREEMENT TO ACT AS
SURETY. But just like a bank check, they MUST go back to the source and have the security approved.
They MUST get your SPECIFIC consent to have the Estate act as surety on the Bond (the Case Bond).
They MUST get YOUR banker's acceptance. Any time you want to understand the public system, JUST
DIAGRAM HOW THEY PROCESS A SIMPLE BANK CHECK.
SO what you have is the Court issuing CREDITS TO A GENERAL ACCOUNT (stealing title), a securities
account represented by the Case Number under the PRESUMPTION that the Payer's bank will authorize the
funding on behalf of its client, the Estate, the presumed surety.
How do they secure the Estate's consent?
THE APPEARANCE BOND. The appearance bond is your BANKER'S ACCEPTANCE of the arrest warrant
voucher. Make no mistake about it - YOU ARE THE BANKER. They are seeking YOUR INDORSEMENT
- your BANKER'S ACCEPTANCE - the authorization to presume the Estate is the surety on the Case Bond.
If you decline, if you tell them "the Estate does not consent to act as surety on the bond," then they have a huge
problem. Like any depository institution, they can either:
29
Recall the Case Bond, cancel their endorsement on the Indictment/Complaint security, and return it to the
prosecutor/plaintiff's attorney marked NSF (insufficient funds), or
They can ACCEPT LIABILITY AS SURETY FOR THE CASE BOND. Meaning, the public trust known as
JUDGE ROSE WILLIAMS, the gambler that issued the Case Bond on the presumption that the Payer (the
Estate) would agree to convey its credit, is the only possible source of the funds.
This is why they will resort to shameless incivility to get the appearance bond. They don't want to be stuck with
the liability. Because when they steal the Estate's equity by depositing the Indictment security generally, they
have terminated your interest in it and they become liable for the income and capital gains taxes on the taxable
termination (26 USC 2612, 2603).
When you sign the Appearance Bond in admiralty, the creditor is agreeing to provide the real property
(your body) as security. THIS IS WHY TIM TURNER'S DEBTOR/CREDITOR RELATIONSHIP IS A
TRAVESTY. The desired relationship Trustee (them) / Beneficiary (us) where we can hold them accountable
for breach of trust.
When you sign the Appearance Bond in equity, you are agreeing to MAKE A GENERAL APPEARANCE as
the Defendant in a corporate Court of inferior statutory law.
Which means, you have also CONSENTED TO THE ORIGINAL GENERAL DEPOSIT. You have
consented to the transfer of private funds to the public side of the ledger for deposit to a general account
under their control (legal title) rather than a special deposit under your control. THIS IS HOW THEY
TAP THE ESTATE, not by some backroom grab.
The Arrest Warrant is the voucher to secure that acceptance. Nothing more.
What would happen if the Appearance Bond was noted with a banker's acceptance and the reverse side was
indorsed: "FOR SPECIAL DEPOSIT ONLY TO ACCOUNT NO. 1:10-CR-123456 FOR RELEASE OF REAL
PROPERTY." And one added: "NOT FOR GENERAL DEPOSIT OR REISSUE OF SECURITIES. SEE
JUDGE ROSE WILLIAMS FOR PAYMENT OF BOND NO. 1:10-CR-123456."
Definitely NOT recommending this to ANYONE. Does anyone still think that UNDERSTANDING is not your
ticket out? Bill
#30902
Re: IRS or U.S. Treasury?

Posted By: dan.y_el
Sun Dec 9, 2012 3:04 pm
Loud n Clear
Why is there so little rate of success?
#30965 re: above
Re: IRS or U.S. Treasury?

Posted By: Bill
Tue Dec 11, 2012 5:21 pm
30
WHY IS THERE SO LITTLE SUCCESS? PEOPLE are lost in the details of technique like the color of the ink
while having almost no understanding of the system they are trying to crack.
We have ALWAYS had a system of even exchange (barter). Prior to 1933, commerce consisted of a
commodities market where goods and services were exchanged for equal value. Milk for bread. Silver
certificates for goods. We gave equity; we received equity. By definition, the exchange was of equal value. If
not, someone suffered a loss. Exchange and loss are incompatible.
HJR 192 simply changed the system from commodities to futures: PROMISES TO PAY. We still exchange.
The exchange is still supposed to be of equal value (equal consideration). Dollar for dollar. Unit for unit. But we
no longer exchange milk for bread. We exchange securities (security futures). A bank draft for a depository
receipt. A mortgage note for a bank draft. A credit card invoice for a store receipt.
How is a store receipt a security? Take your supermarket receipt to the service desk and tell them you left a bag
at checkout. They will provide the groceries. The store receipt is a depository receipt that shows the amount of
the deposit, the date, the payer of the groceries (the market), the payee (recipient of the groceries - you),
location of payment, and the name of the store as a signature.
Security.
It had to be a system of even exchange or else the government would be guilty of theft. But there's a problem:
1. They are NOT returning even exchange. They are NOT returning equity in most cases. A Court gives you
nothing. A bank gives you nothing on your deposit. A bank gives you only a partial return on a mortgage note.
2. Therefore, they commit a theft at worse, or a taxable termination at best under 26 USC 2612.
3. And tax fraud by not reporting the gain when they terminate your interest in YOUR security.
Most every transaction in the public involves tendering a security, be it an indictment, bank check, credit card
application, or mortgage note. The recipient is supposed to return equal value, but they never do. If the recipient
fails to return equal value as usual, then he must place the item into trust or face the consequences of theft.
We are the beneficiary of that trust. If we were not, then they would have effectively stolen your security. A
public official canNOT steal or claim YOUR securities. They can't afford the tax, or the criminal liability (10
years in prison - see 18 USC 2073). Therefore, by definition, each of these trusts involving every facet of our
lives consists of YOUR funds being held in escrow for YOUR benefit.
Those trust depository accounts are "escrow" accounts. Nothing magical. Basic trust law. If I give you property
and you fail to return equity, the property is considered held in trust (escrow) for my benefit. THIS IS THE
MEANING OF 26 USC 2612 AND 2603. If you claim special deposit and demand a return of your
securities and they fail to comply, you've got a taxable termination (of your interest in the securities) for
which the PARTY HOLDING THE INSTRUMENT is liable for the taxes. [may include banks]
The problem is that they always presume that the security was deposited generally to an account at their
disposal, thereby reversing the roles. Everything in the public is backwards. They are operating under the
presumption that the Plaintiff is the beneficiary and YOU are the trustee. But once we correct the faulty
presumptions, they revert to the trustee obligated to follow the public indenture, and we revert to our rightful
role as beneficiary of the funds.
31
A4V completes the return of equity. It restores the "even" to the exchange. It restores the asset that was
acquired under false presumptions. BUT IT IS NOT CHILD'S PLAY as so many have discovered. You
MUST have status and know how to claim it. The "how" is based upon the "why," which reflects your
understanding or lack thereof. In most cases, the understanding is based upon various patriot misconceptions,
which is why thousands of people are frustrated and broke. We are all capable of doing better. Bill
#31103
TOPIC: WHY YOUR ACCEPTANCES ARE FAILING.

Posted By: Bill
Sun Dec 23, 2012 3:06 pm
THERE ARE MANY REASONS THEY DON'T PROCESS YOUR ACCEPTANCES. Briefly:
- Doing it wrong. This is the NUMBER ONE reason. It requires a series of accounting documents that transfer
the payment instrument properly, process the foreclosure and disposition, quantify the loss, and identify the
source that's holding the funds. This is just business accounting, but it requires a good understanding of why
your books are out of balance and the nature of the funds that you are owed.
- You don't have standing to transfer the funds. A citizen can't do it except under extraordinary exception.
- Errors in the paperwork. This is huge. Most patriots are completing only some of the forms, and those are
backwards. ZYA was a good try, but WRONG.
- Communicating with the wrong parties. A shotgun approach, three, four perhaps five offices, confesses that
you don't know what you're doing. Is that how you'd pay the electric bill?
The list is long, but those are just some of the big issues, and they're SIGNIFICANT. Deciding to do an
acceptance after reading a few postings is like trying to overhaul an engine likewise. When you gain the
knowledge to do it right, it all makes perfect sense. Bill
#31158
discharge car loan

Posted By: bryantgeorgen
Fri Dec 28, 2012 7:22 pm
Has anyone here successfully discharged a car loan using this or any other process? If so, please let me know.
I'd appreciate anyone with information that you know works to send me a personal email to bgeorgen at ureach
dot com.
Thank you.
Bryant
#31169 re: above
32
Re: discharge car loan? - WE DO IT ALL THE TIME...but not like you think.
Posted By: Bill
Sat Dec 29, 2012 9:47 am
Bryant, MILLIONS of people discharge car loans every day when they pay with Fed Res. notes. You meant to
ask if anyone has successfully OFFSET a car loan. And that blessing is reserved for just a limited handful of
people.
I am not trying to embarrass you with semantics. What does it really say when you ask a group of high school
students how many have successfully performed brain surgery (with the intent of using their answers to
rationalize how YOU might try it also)? If one of them said, "Yeah, I do it all the time," what result might you
expect if you were to try it?
Set-off is simple in concept...IF you understand what you're doing. Here are some examples:
1. What's the meaning of the phrase "for value?" "For value" means against a pre-paid account. The
majority of people attempting setoff have no idea what they're actually trying to do.
2. What's an acceptance? Most people are unaware that an acceptance for value noted on an invoice
security is a new security. Most are unaware that it's an endorsement very much like the "Pay To The Order
Of" endorsement a bank stamps on the checks you deposit. Most are unaware that when you accept it for value,
you are paying the invoice security by authorizing a draw against the pre-paid account by charging [charge is
to draw the funds] the funds to the strawman. In other words, the ESTATE IS CONSENTING TO ACT AS
INDIVIDUAL SURETY (see SF 28 and OF 90) ON THE BILL. [could be the birth security account or SIN???
Pre-paid account] How many people understand the concept of individual surety as it relates to securities such
as bonds? NOT MANY. Which is why their process commonly fails.
3. What is the expected action by the recipient of the acceptance? Most people trying A4V expect the bill to
disappear. That's because they do not realize they have issued a security. The outcome is the same as any
bank transaction. The recipient is supposed to credit the account, draw the funds from the pre-paid
account, endorse the security (noting it paid), and return it to the source - you. [like bank cheque]
4. Why does it NOT work?
First, many people are asking the wrong people to process the instrument. Contrary to PROFOUND
PATRIOT MISCONCEPTION, banks (and that includes Courts) do not have a secret draw against your Estate.
Their license entitles them to monetize the instrument by issuing credits to accounts (see 31 USC 3128) ON
THE PRESUMPTION THE FUNDS ARE THERE TO BACK IT (just like a bank check). They simply take the
acceptance written on your check and enter it in the reserves or trade it on the Banker's Acceptance Market.
THE ONLY PARTY THAT CAN PROCESS THE DRAW AGAINST THE PRE-PAID PARTICIPANTS
SECURITIES ACCOUNT maintained by the Fed on your behalf is the Agency. Agency and vendor must both
be engaged for the acceptance to work. [not sure yet what the agency is???]
How do I know that Courts don't have a direct draw against the Estate? Why do you think they move mountains
to get you to sign an appearance bond? The appearance bond is the Estate's consent to act as individual surety
on the securities account thereby underwriting the derivatives they issue from it such as a summons, arrest
warrant and case bond. In other words, when they deposit the Indictment security, they are issuing credits
to the account just like a conventional bank ON THE PRESUMPTION THE FUNDS WILL BE THERE.
They need the Estate's consent through you to continue the charade.
33
Another reason acceptances fail is that since early 2008, MOST PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE THE CORRECT
STATUS to have them process the security. This capacity has been narrowed to be very restrictive. Most A4V’s
which do not have standing quickly find the trash can. Your old Treasury process is currently inadequate, and
the Tim Turner filings unfortunately are considered a joke at Treasury. Treasury recognizes that the users don't
understand commerce and therefore have not earned their faith and credit.
Also, almost no one understands how to properly complete the fairly complicated paperwork authorizing
processing of the security. In fact, most people don't even know the proper forms, and VERY, VERY FEW
understand the concepts which govern the forms. Concepts like disposition, deemed disposition, sales,
withholdings, and even acquisitions and abandonments. Without that knowledge, most patriots have no idea as
to the particulars of what they're actually filing (why you check this box, why you use this form, what is
actually being reported). In most cases, patriots are using just some of the forms, and some of those are
completed BACKWARDS. Literally backwards.
None of this is intended to imply that people are dumb or have bad intentions. But the analogy about brain
surgery is accurate. The only difference is that the risks of attempting setoff without understanding which end of
the scalpel to grab are not so obvious. With brain surgery, you get a corpse. With setoff you can wind up with
frivolous penalties, liens, foreclosure, loss of your house, divorce, and destitution. Slow death by misery. But all
people tend to see is the idea of getting out from under the mortgage payments.
The second you do that, YOU have foreclosed on yourself by the trustee's unjust enrichment causing the trust to
collapse through revestiture of title. By the way, YOU are a trustee on the mortgage trust even though it doesn't
say so. After all, who pledges to obey the terms of the trust indenture? Who pays the monthly fee? Who pays
the taxes? Who is required by the indenture to purchase insurance and maintain the property? Who pledges to
obey the terms of the indenture? So who is the real trustee? After all, the Grantor and beneficiary are NOT
bound by the terms of the trust. So IN FACT, the strawman is both Grantor and Trustee of the mortgage -
A PRESUMPTION THAT WILL CONTINUE TO KILL YOU UNTIL YOU CORRECT IT.
So, without this sort of knowledge, why would you even think about accepting your bills? Because of emails
and postings from strangers you never met??? Is that logical? Remember Argyles advice in Braveheart: "First
I'll teach you to use this (Wallace's brain), and then I'll teach you to use this (the sword)."
If you have to ask "Does anyone have success doing discharge" or wait with baited breath for someone to post
the next clue (in a puzzle that is FAR TOO EXTENSIVE to EVER learn by email), the outcome is pre-
ordained. WISDOM IS LEARNING FROM SOMEONE ELSE'S MISTAKES. Bill
34

Edited 34 Pager

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Edited 34 Pager

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Edited 34 Pager

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EDUCATIONAL-MATERIAL

Bill on Yahoo! A4V Group

YOU DON'T HAVE THE CREDENTIALS

RE: YOU DON'T HAVE THE CREDENTIALS

Re: YOU DON'T HAVE THE CREDENTIALS

Re: YOU DON'T HAVE THE CREDENTIALS

Re: YOU DON'T HAVE THE CREDENTIALS

What are the credentials that I need ?

Re: YOU DON'T HAVE THE CREDENTIALS

Re: YOU DON'T HAVE THE CREDENTIALS

Status - what is it?

#48 re. #43 and # 41

TOPIC: SPLASH: Secured Party Lienor And Secured Holder

TOPIC: THE TWO PARTS TO STATUS.............

So there are really two stages in getting prepared:

#100 repeated, but important

TOPIC: SPLASH: FINAL WORD ON STATUS, STUDIES, CONSENSUS---for this Group

It's the difference between Bruce Lee and everyone else.

Corrsepondence from the IRS

#28720 re: 28704

Re: Corrsepondence from the IRS-YOU VOLUNTEERED TO BE TRUSTEE ON THE

HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED WHEN YOU SENT IN THE A4V........

first timer, A4V clarification Please

Anybody's experience would be a great value.

#28721 re: #28718

Re: first timer, A4V clarification Please-WONT WORK

TOPIC: THE AGENCY LIMITED THE PROCESSING OF A4V TO CREDENTIALED FILERS

Here are some links that explain why: NOW ineffective

Recurring Statement Question

Just found your wonderful group!

#28734 re: #28729

Re: Recurring Statement Question

Re: Recurring Statement Question

#28773 re: #28735

Final Questions Before Sending

Re: Final Questions Before Sending

#199 THIS IS A BIGGY

ATTENTION PLEASE--SECRETS OF YOUR TREASURY PROCESS FINALLY REVEALED

If you charged instead of credited any bills, they're dead on arrival.

I'LL SAY IT AGAIN.......WHAT YOU NEED IS BASIC COMMON SENSE FOUNDATIONAL

Re: Final Questions Before Sending

Should you or shouldn't you?

Re: Final Questions Before Sending

Great, thanks for the help Doug!

#28974 re: #28947

Re: THE TRUTH ABOUT OID

Moreover, the strawman has no standing to file an OID. Instant frivolous.

BEWARE BEWARE BEWARE

#28810 re: #28808

Re: Now What?

Re: Now What?

#28813 re: #28811

Re: Now What?

Reverse IRS tax liens

#29043 re: #28986

Re: NOTICE OF LIEN

A NOTICE, INCLUDING A NOTICE OF LIEN, IS A DIRECTIVE FROM THE BENEFICIARY OF THE

Sent mine in yesterday

#29181 re: #29160