Critique my understanding of the theory/method.

I am very confused by the multiple theories on this website. I understand it's a learning process so I guess I just need to have some input on my grasp of how to practically live a sovereign life. I would appreciate it if people could chime in.



I am trying to build a basic protocol for going live on Project Sovereign. So I need to know if I am correct in my assumptions of the total process and if I am confusing to many contradicting theories.



***************************************

1. UCC filing to establish I am the creditor of the strawman.



2. "Without Prejudice, All Rights Reserved" on all my signatures.



3. In the event of a court case, for example, driving without insurance, I would not take responsibility for the laws which bind the strawman. I would not stand in the strawmans place but instead show up as a sovereign and creditor of the strawman

*****************************



Ok, so I would appreciate lots of input and critique and help. Now I have 3 questions.



1. My SSN is the biggest contract I have with government, yet I didn't sign it "without prejuidice, all rights reserved" So how do I effect the same result as if I just signed it today with my remedy?



2. To accept for value or dishonour charges? There seems to be two strains of thought here and I would like to know what would work best with my above plan (if the plan is even workable)



3. In my court room example above, I state how I think a true sovereign would behave. However I'm sure there are other methods. What is the one that will cause me the least hardship.



a: when in admiralty court, use admiralty law to advantage. "Where is the international maritime contract I signed" or if judge says it's stuatory court, ask where the criminal procedure is laid out in law for statutory court.





b: Argue whether admiralty court has jurisdiction over a sovereign.



c: act as a sovereign conducting business in harmony with common law.

" What is your name"

"Do you have a claim against me"

"Do you know anyone who has a claim against me"

"I demand the order of the court be released to me at once"



*******************************

Thanks for your help and I find everything here very informative. If I left anything critical out or have anything wrong in my steps to practical sovereign living, plz help me out, thx.

Here was my thought process when building a protocol. This is here to help you help me, and just so I can put my thougts together.



Choices:



1. Seperate completely from strawman? or assume creditor status?



Seperating completely would mean I would have to live a recluse life. I'd have to live without standard banking, automobile, job, house, etc. I would have to find alternatives to all of these things because they require a SSN in one way or another. If these alternatives were easy, I'd be all over this scenario. However, they aren't easy so I think it's more practical to assume creditor status.



2. Accept for value or Dishonour charges.



While the accept for value theory is very intriguing, it is also alot more work. It seems to be tied with adjusting various "accounts" and moving non-existent money between accounts to balance things out. At the same time, the dishonour method seems to be flawed because by dishonouring it, you are arguing the charge, and by arguing the charge you are admitting that the charge is directed at you. You are assuming debtorship of strawman. This is inconclusive. HELP. maybe the "accepted for value" is the better of the 2 since it is accepted for value and the value is worthless.



3. Where is the real remedy? The UCC? The Constitution? or with God and in accordance with his law?



The UCC is man made and I'm sure it has faults. I'd hate to take remedy in it and get stung later on. The constitution isn't all that usable since I'm not a party to it and I can't legally demand anyone uphold it. The constitution also an agreement between the constitutor (debtor) and the creditor, so really it wasn't made for the debtor's benefit even if I was a party to it or I could legally demand they uphold it. It seems like the only real remedy is that I am above government, because I was created by God. And if I take my true position under God, I am naturally above all fictions created by man.

[Jerseee]

sixthbeast,



First things first.



Can you control something that you did not create?



If you have to applyfor something--the it is not yours. (Driver's license, social security number, bank accounts, etc..)



Go to the downloads section of this site and read up on banking and money. There many questions will be answered--if not you can e-mail me and I will walk with you to understanding the matrix as much as I can.

Originally Posted by Jerseee

sixthbeast,



First things first.



Can you control something that you did not create?



If you have to applyfor something--the it is not yours. (Driver's license, social security number, bank accounts, etc..)



Go to the downloads section of this site and read up on banking and money. There many questions will be answered--if not you can e-mail me and I will walk with you to understanding the matrix as much as I can.

JERSEE, COULD YOU ELEBORATE SOME MORE ON THIS.

I KNOW MOST OF US HAVE MOVED AWAY FROM REDEMPTION OR STAYED AWAY FROM IT ALL TOGETHER. IS THERE ANYTHING RELEVANT ABOUT THE UCC/REDEMTION PROCESS WE SHOULD BE AWARE OF?

IS THERE ANYTHING USEFUL AT ALL?THANKS.

[Ice]

If you are Sovereign, why give it up and put yourself under any other rules, regulations or law ?



When members figure out that we can put any attacker in the position of having to deal with us in our Sovereign status ... I may start popping in more frequently.



I really wish you folks would catch on.



Think on ( yep, I'm repeating ) this:



If you apply for a license, is there a valid contract in place ?



Answer: No. ( No full disclosure, therefore, no contract. )



When asked if you have a license: "Not in my true name. Under duress and threat of use of force against me and my property I acquired a license under a fictitious name... because they can't give me one in my true name." ( Or something to that effect. )



The point: having a license does not give "them" jurisdiction or a valid contract.



Apply the same logic to anything else they would use to claim "contract" or "jurisdiction".



Think on these things for awhile.



CYA

Ice, i'm trying to catch on.



I guess where I get confused is when I sign for the fiction, do I become a surety? So if the fiction has a contract, I am in essence bound by that contract?



But what you are saying is that I am not bound by assumed contracts, only by what is fully disclosed. And I guess the vehicle code isn't fully disclosed?



I guess I will find out when I go to the DMV and read whatever it is they want me to sign.



Thanks for your help everyone.

[Jerseee]

Thanks Ice.



PJT04,



You can respect another government's rules but you are not bound by them unless you want to be. I'm not suggesting anarchy or the like--what I am saying is there is a difference in governments. Remember, the created cannot be greater than the creator.



sixthbeast,



Leave redemption alone for now--it is only confusing you. You first need to learn the basics. Redemption is mostly operating in commerce. You need to know the difference first then dabble in UCC stuff if you want. However, I do not recommend that anyone deal in UCC redemption--if you don't know what you're doing.

[Ice]

Black's 6th; Fraud:



"An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him <u>or to surrender a legal right</u>. A false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, <u>which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury</u>."



"Constructive Fraud as well as actual fraud may be the basis of cancellation of an instrument."

[El Paso Natural Gas Co., v. Kysar Insurance Co.]

[605 Pacific 2d. 240 (1979)]



Note: Instrument = Contract !