The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
5 votes

You were born with $300,000 Bond in your Corporate Name

If you are a typical American Citizen; when you were born, the US Dept. of Transportation took the original copy of your Certificate of Live Birth and used it to post a $300,000 Bond in your Corporate Name ( Your name with the spelling in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS..)..This money was Invested; and if you are an older Adult; is a considerable amount of money...It is used by Banks and Utility and Mortgage Companies to Pay Your Bills...Unknown to you; So when these Entities send you a Statement You likely just Pay it In Effect - Paying TWICE for the same thing...For the Whole Story; Below is the Report by a Retired Judge - turned Whistleblower:

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Funny, I didn't realize this was

You make us all look foolish with your drivel.

Subjects of importance.

Look at the bottom of any state issued "birth certificate"...

Take notice in the bottom left hand corner. There is a RED printed number and the name of a bank in the frame. On this certificate the RED printed number is "SS6755892" and the name of the bank is "AMERICAN BANK NOTE COMPANY".

Now, look at any bank issued "bond certificate"...

Take notice the bottom left hand corner. There is RED printed number and the name of a bank in the frame. On this certificate the RED printed number is "F406" and the name of the bank is "AMERICAN BANK NOTE CO. NEW YORK"

So, tell me why your opinion is anything more than gibberish. Second, tell me what the numbers are and why a bank is printed in the frame. If you do not know, why are you posting in a two year old thread and wasting all of our time?

The cheese stands alone. The proof is in the pudding.

ChristianAnarchist's picture

I looked into this 20 years

I looked into this 20 years ago and finally came to the conclusion (after seeing several guys head to prison) that it's all false. The whole idea hinges on corporate law and contract but it ignores the very basics of contract law - that is any contract is void if it does not have 3 basic properties: Consent between parties, adult parties of sound mind, and full disclosure. The supposed contracts cannot exist (and if they did they would be invalid) because we did not agree to them, they did not disclose the details, and if they were executed on us as infants we were not adults of sound mind...

So far I've never had any "sovereign man" address these 3 simple points...

Beware the cult of "government"...

Sonmi 541: "Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths."

The income tax also violates

The income tax also violates all three points, yet it still exists and destroys people's lives. Right?

I'm not really sure about this bond thing but still - the income tax would seem to be about as tyrannical.

It garbage like this that

It's garbage like this that harms the liberty movement. From the outside looking in those of us who argue the legitimate tenets of liberty get lumped together with all the conspiracy kooks and the trolls sent in to stir them up. This white noise just muddies the waters and makes people tune out and that's the real conspiracy.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed


Thank you for speaking the truth.

If you want to believe in conspiracies like this, that's fine. I don't judge people just for being skeptical of conventional wisdom. But what makes this "garbage" is the way people spew this: they try to make it seem like other movements (e.g., the liberty movement) are on board.

It's white noise.
It's a distraction.
It's a smear campaign against us.
It's a despicable form of entryism / unwelcome association.

We just had a Liberty person

We just had a Liberty person make a move in the direction of the account and has just been released from serving two years in Federal prison.

It's a tough battle I would say.

One needs to research and read HJR 192 passed per Congress....

in April of 1933 and discusses this very subject matter. It was not the Certificate of Live Birth that was filed with the Dept. of Transportation. It was actually the application for the Certificate of Live Birth which is believed by many researchers to be registered in and eventually housed and stored in Puerto Rico or even possibly in one of a few other countries. The reason the application is used in lieu of the actual Certificate of Live Birth is because the application is what contains the parent(s) signature(s). The application is used over the next several decades as a negotiable instrument and traded in the derivative markets. And the value of each citizens "Bond" varies between $500,000 and in excess of one million dollars and in some cases as much as several million dollars. There is a supposed remedy to this long standing scam commonly referred to as the "Redemption Process". I've read quite a bit about this subject matter over the years but never actively pursued the actual "Redemption Process". In the 1920's, Colonel Edward Mandel House wrote an excellent insightful covert/clandestine stratagem to manipulate literally every American Citizen to begin in the 1930's and to continue indefinitely. The Money Masters Strategic Plan of global domination has been well established and in place for a very long time going back many, many years (hundreds of years and many researchers would state even perhaps thousands of years). A subject open to debate. No one truly knows how long The PTB's plan has truly been in place. It's a subject truly open to pure speculation. If the "Redemption Process" can truly be actively achieved, I believe it is a subject worthy of investigation and perhaps worth the time and effort of pursuing.

Cyril's picture

Disclaimer: I'm no citizen

Disclaimer: I'm no citizen and still rather fresh immigrant to this country (but I did read the Constitution, at least. And more.)

No offense but this sounds rather far fetched if not more or less silly.

This actually sounds like calling for competition in (yet another) sort of legalese championships. (legalese, pejorative = legal, obscure jargon)

Since I am no lawyer, only law abiding, I can at least back up to what I usually stick to, anyway :

as a self-reliance and natural, voluntary compassion and compulsion "fanatic" ... I absolutely LOVE to pay my own bills for what I consume in goods and services (and preferably, ONLY what I consume... which obviously isn't easy in all these socialist countries we have to cope with. Hmph).

Hence, the idea that by some old legalese magic my American son would actually not be required to pay his bills in the future thanks to his "corporate name" granted / allocated by The State...

is not only eerie to me, but also very much undesirable.

The free, prosperous, peaceful American society, in my understanding, was to believe in the old and wise (IMO) saying rather contrary to this or to well known harmful welfarism - the saying which states :

"Well, you get what you pay for."

It is a saying I always took purposely in a broad sense :

You pay = for bills, debts, but also risk taking, investments, ...

You get = as goods, services, but also as rewards, business successes, skill learning, experience, ...

My .02

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

I do not believe it

How can you contract into something with someone at that age?

Why don't they just give you a mortgage and car loan at the same time? :P


Operating on your beliefs?

Rather than digging in for facts? Ever been burned doing that? Know what is really sad? There is an expert opinion on this 2 replies down, posted BEFORE you posted. With someone who has done extensive research on this and shared his knowledge graciously for years RIGHT UNDER YOUR NOSE, you fall back on what you believe.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.


Of course, I am only human.

I also believe in the myth of Santa Claus. If I am a Corporation, how come I do not have limited liability?

I do sense people are grasping at straws as well. The bills are going to have paid with either sweat and/or blood.

Politicians have not been tried and jailed for treason and now as time has passed everyone else will be left holding the bag. The illness will have to run its course and then it is up to the recovery.

This does give me an idea though...may people Incorporate a marriage?

ie. Joe Public and Wife inc.




JULIUS BRAGG!!! - if youre

JULIUS BRAGG!!! - if youre still around it would be great if you could come educate in all that youve learned about what the 'real' law is.

Its a bit of a different flavor than 'the oracle's perspective, and it seemed the most legit that ive ever read on this site.

if only he didnt disappear.

My research shows that this

My research shows that this is probably true, BUT my research also shows that the often claimed idea of reclaiming this money is farcical at best. I have not found any instance where a person has filed a ucc-1 lien against any other entity, thus resulting in a billion dollar payoff!! and if it has, surely you would have heard about it.

Here is what I believe happened:

America was formed. A constitution was written to protect the "People" from an oppressive government. The "People" at the time the Constitution was written were white, land owning men. It may be debatable that free blacks, and married women were also "People" under the Constitution.

The northern states, being morally ahead of the south for whatever reason, began moving away from slavery. This left the south with a major advantage with regards to textile production and overall prosperity.

The north convinced the Congress to pass the 13th Amendment (a previous 13th Amendment was lawfully passed but ignored and eventually washed away by congress see. )

The 13th Amendment made "INvoluntary" servitude unlawful, while at the same time declaring "voluntary" servitude to be lawful by proxy.

This was both good and bad for slaves. Before the 13th Amendment, blacks were protected as property, harm against a slave was a harm against the slaveholder. The 13th Amendment removed this 'protection' and made the freed slaves stateless entities. So harm to a freed slave was no crime.

Congress stepped in and made a statutory civil rights law (1866). However, congress has limited power in the states of the union so the law had little or no effect in the states.

The language of the 1866 civil rights act stated:

    Section 1
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.

The phrase "not subject to any foreign power" was a limiting term as the states were foreign powers with regard to congress, therefore there was constant debate as to whether or not Congress had the authority to make a law applicable in the states of the union. This section listed a series of "civil rights" that the new lesser class citizen was entitled to.

To clear up any concern, Congress created the 14th Amendment to make the law Constitutional.

The 14th Amendment states:

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

First it should be noted that the term "persons" instead of "People" was used. Secondly it should be noted that the word "citizen" used a lower case "c" for the first time in the Constitution.

Even in the 11th Amendment, "Citizen" was still capitalized.

The purpose of the lower case "c" was to distinguish between a "citizen" of the Federal Government that being a "person" in the 14th Amendment; and a natural born Citizen, those being Citizens of the states.

If the 14th Amendment made everyone equal, then there would be no need for the 15th and 19th Amendments, allowing blacks and women to vote.

The 14th Amendment MERELY created a Federal class of person, it essentially transferred the ownership of the slave to the Federal Government, the slaves were again protected as property.

Being Government property, the government could consider all "citizens OF the United States" as chattel, a thing of value. This was also true of whites or foreigners that were born in D.C. or the Territories.

Eventually, white, state born Citizens began to declare themselves as "U.S. citizens" or "citizens of the United States" in order to receive benefits of some type. They "elected" to become a member of the new class of citizen, under the "democracy" of the UNITED STATES thereby abandoning their Citizenship in the States, and abandoning their status as one of the "People".

All persons that declare to be "citizens of the United States" "civil rights" and are not protected by the bill of rights or the Constitution. Notice that the 14th Amendment said that representation shall be apportioned, but made no mention of "direct taxes", notice that the 14th has its own due process clause. All of these things exist because the 14th Amendment was merely a new, lesser class of citizen for the newly freed slaves.

    Status of citizenship of United States is privilege, and Congress is free to attach any preconditions to its attainment that it deems fit and proper. In re Thanner, D.C.Colo.1966, 253 F.Supp. 283. See, also, Boyd v. Nebraska, Neb.1892, 12 S.Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 162, 36 L.Ed. 103; Application of Bernasconi, D.C.Cal.1953, 113 F.Supp. 71; In re Martinez, D.C.Pa.1947, 73 F.Supp. 101; U.S. v. Morelli, D.C.Cal.1943, 55 F.Supp. 181; In re De Mayo, D.C.Mo.1938, 26 F.Supp. 696; State v. Boyd, 1892, 51 N.W. 602, 31 Neb. 682.
    "United States citizenship does not entitle citizens to rights and privileges of state citizenship."
    [K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236, 256 P. 545 (1927), 48 Supreme Court. 527.]

    "We might say that such regulations were unjust, tyrannical, unfit for the regulation of an intelligent state; but, if rights of a citizen are thereby violated, they are of that fundamental class, derived from his position as a citizen of the state, and not those limited rights belonging to him as a citizen of the United States; and such was the decision in Corfield v. Coryell."
    [The United States v. Susan B. Anthony (11 2nd. Jud. Cir.] 200, 1873)

    "The right to trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment…and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment…have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment…and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment…and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment…it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the 5th Amendment, and trial by jury guaranteed by the 6th Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the 14th Amendment. We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of National citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the 14th Amendment."
    [Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78, 98-99]

SO to answer the question, it is my belief that anyone that tries to reclaim those chattel funds is acknowledging their status as a person, and not their status as one of the People. You cannot be both a 14 Amendment person and one of the "People" of the Constitution. It is either one or the other.

If someone wants their value, then they have to admit to being a 14th Amendment chattel property, or at least the object of it, and to do that ruins your status as a free human on the land.

Why can one not remain a

Why can one not remain a "Person" (member of the original "People") while claiming against the UNITED STATES claims to you as chattel property without your consent at birth? Are they claiming that your parents gave up your sovereignty at birth with a certificate? That would seem impossible?

As a member of the "People" is it legal for the government to also set up your NAME through the birth certificate as a Corporation simultaneously and without your consent?

Very interesting... I would be interested to see the results of test cases in practice as a legal layman. Any supreme court examples?

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.

If you sign up for Facebook,

If you sign up for Facebook, and dont read the rules, and click "join", you may have inadvertently granted ownership to Facebook inc. of some of your property, (photos, quotes, videos, etc.) You can't then go back and charge Facebook for use of your property that you presumably knowingly gave up.

Same thing when joining the non mandatory democracy called the UNITED STATES. Your parents presumably knowingly signed you up to join. They, and you, as a free American were so free that they had the right to elect to join the new democracy.

    That the general principle of such a right of electing, to
    remain under the old or to contract a new allegiance, was
    recognized, is apparent from the case of Com. v. Chapman, 1
    Dal., 53, and other cases cited. Those who adhered to the
    new government and transferred their allegiance thereto,
    became citizens of the same. All who were free, had this right of election, else they were not free. No particular color nor descent was required to confer this right of election. It resulted from freedom, and the necessity resting upon all to make an election. When it was made, and the individual determined to adhere to the new state, he was necessarily a member and a citizen of the same. He sustained the same relation to the new government by choice, which he had sustained to the old by birth.
    [Appleton concurring 44 Maine 528-529 (1859)]

As an adult however, you have a choice to correct your parents errors, or to remain within the new government. The new government is a simple easy life, filled with easy credit, building permits, licenses, and administrative laws with fines for violations, that help to fund the street lights, pretty bridges, city parks and other luxuries of the new democracy. The alternative is a life of self reliance, fighting for survival, living off the land, farming, hunting, fishing, and so on. Your parents were doing you a favor!

That is until Ron Paul came along and woke you up!! Hooray for that. Except that you are now questioning all of these things but without being prepared to live a simple life without car loans and credit cards. So you are at turning point. Do you begin fighting to reclaim your status as a capital "C" Citizen, or do you remain a civil, congress created, lower case "c" citizen with limited rights?

That is the question.

    "United States citizenship does not entitle citizens to rights and privileges of state citizenship."
    [K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236, 256 P. 545 (1927), 48 Supreme Court. 527.]

As a member of the "RETIREMENT PROGRAM" of the UNITED STATES government called "SOCIAL SECURITY", you are "Federal Personnel". You are no different than an enlisted military man:

    usc title 5, 552(a)(13) "federal personnel"

    (13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).

    To most Americans, Social Security is a retirement program.

    Social Security
    Social Security is a retirement program for Americans who have paid for coverage through payroll deduction or self-employment taxes.

So is this lower class

So is this lower class citizen issue the reason people are constantly asked "are you a US citizen" at those check points I hear about.

I doubt the border patrol

I doubt the border patrol guys know anything about it. But in theory, yes! Only a "citizen of the UNITED STATES" aka "U.S. citizen" is required to show any papers throughout the states of the Union. This is because they are "residents" of the states. A "resident" is someone who is in a place on a temporary basis, not on a permanent basis as you would be led to believe. Just like a hospital "residency" is merely a limited time, a residency in the states is a limited time, because the fixed permanent location for "citizens of the UNITED STATES" is in the District of Columbia, or other federal zone, and NOT one of the states of the Union.

This is why the 14th Amendment is crystal clear that a lower case "c" citizen is:
1) a lower case "c" citizen OF the United States

    The most natural meaning of 'of the United States' is 'belonging to the United States.'"
    [U.S. Supreme Court, ELLIS v. U S, 206 U.S. 246 (1907) 206 U.S. 246]

2) a lower case "c" citizen "resides" in the states:

    “Resident” and “inhabitant” are distinguishable in meaning. The word “inhabitant” implies a more fixed and permanent abode than does “resident;” and a resident may not be entitled to all the privileges or subject to all the duties of an inhabitant. Frost v. Brisbin, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 11, 32 Am. Dec. 423. Also a tenant, who was obliged to reside on his lord’s land, and not to depart from the same;
    (Black's Law Dictionary)

3)That a lower case "c" citizen OF the United States may be "born OR naturalized", and doesnt have to be "natural born".

4) that no State shall make laws abridging the privileges of these new Federal citizens while they are in the States. (Natural Born upper case "C" citizens were obviously already protected against this)

5) that States cant deprive 14th Amendment "persons" of their life, liberty, or property. (Again, natural born Citizens were already protected from this)

6) and lastly the 14th Am section 1 final sentence refers to "citizens OF the united States" as being "within its jurisdiction" of the States, instead of "subject to" as it used in the first sentence. This is because 14th Amendment citizens are Subject to UNITED STATES jurisdiction but only "within" State jurisdiction.

    Section 1.
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The 14th Amendment created 2 new classes of citizenship, this was in addition to the already established upper case "C" natural born Citizens, and the already established, but short lived, upper case "C" "Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" as both were found in the original Constitution.
This was also in addition, and as a replacement to, the 1866 Congress created third class of citizen. The lower case "c" statutory citizen of the United States per the 1866 Civil Rights Act.

Since then, Congress has created at least one more statutory citizen of the United States as found throughout the United States Code.

    Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. [26 CFR 1.1-1(c)

(its is singular and refers to THE UNITED STATES entity, and not the several States United.

SO, there are 6 total types of citizens in the United STates of America.

1) Natural Born Citizen. A man or women born in one of the 50 states of the Union, that has not elected to give up that status. Also known as a State Citizen.

2) A Citizen of the United States at the time of adoption of this Constitution. These People are long dead and was a temporary status to allow the founders and their ilk hold office.

3) 1866 civil rights citizen of the United States. This was a recently freed slave. Replaced by the 14th Amendment citizen.

4) 14th Amendment citizen of the United States. This is ANY person, born or naturalized, anywhere in the country, that signs up to become such citizen with limited rights. Originally encompassed mostly freed slaves, but others began joining up, probably unintentionally.

5) 14th Amendment citizen of the State. This is a lower case "c" citizen of the State, which is actually a "resident" of the state. Technically the 14th Amendment ONLY says that citizens of the United States are "of the State wherein they reside". This could mean that they are "of the State" (meaning from) but not a "citizen of the State".

6) A statutory citizen of the United States. This is ANY of the above that signs up with the UNITED STATES in any capacity without reserving their rights. see UCC 1-308. An Amish person that signs up for social security becomes a statutory citizen of the United States for example.

I hope this helps.



I read these freeman posts

I read these freeman posts from time to time, but have never spent the requisite time to investigate the matter deeply. It seems like we have a lot of baby steps to get through before any of the freeman issues could be successfully dealt with (if they are indeed real).

Does anyone have any links to the Doc speaking on freeman issues? The Judge? Woods?

Have there been any successful freemen who have just completely dropped out of the system?


"Does anyone have any links to the Doc speaking on freeman issues? The Judge? Woods?"

To my knowledge, no reputable person in the liberty movement has ever given the freemen any heed. And as we know, reputable persons within the liberty movement do occasionally talk about "conspiracy theories" (aka the obvious reality of corruption in politics), so we can conclude that they're willing to appear "fringe" in order to talk about important issues - it follows that if they don't talk about the freemen, it's not because they don't want to appear "fringe," rather it must be because they don't think there's anything to the freemen movement.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Oh Brother....

Something always struck me as "off" about this whole freeman movement, and so I started looking into it to see what it's really about. I actually read some of their materials, watched some youtube videos of lectures by freeman-theorists, watched videos where people described their attempts to apply the theories in real legal cases, etc.

My conclusion was that there is no legal/historical/any basis for essentially any of what they're talking about, and that different freemen simply make it up as they go along, which accounts for discrepancies between different freeman-theorists. So why does this movement endure? Well, because the freeman theorists use elaborate intelligent-sounding language which confuses people (ironic considering that this is what they accuse the legal profession of doing) and misleads them into thinking the freeman-theorists are really onto something - but they're not. Basically, the freeman-theorists are just stringing words together meaninglessly and then claiming this constitutes some arcane legal argument which only they can understand.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

This link keeps coming up as not able to find

because of the server issues

This does not apply to me. Sorry. I will have none of it.

Born too early one might say.

Mary Croft speaks eloquently on this sort of material. Quite pleasant listening. She has written books & presented many documentaries.

HOW I CLOBBERED EVERY BUREAUCRATIC CASH-CONFISCATORY AGENCY KNOWN TO MAN 100 pages. ... a Spiritual Economics Book on $$$ ... Remembering Who You Are

by: Mary Elizabeth: Croft

    When we appear in court and the matter is called, we ought to say that “I am here by special appearance to correct a mistake. The Crown appears to believe that I am the party charged and that I am “recognized everywhere as a person before the law”. This is a mistake and the only reason I am here is to correct it.”

    If judges do not simply dismiss the charges, then, likely, they will threaten us, in order that we give them the name; but we MUST NOT acquiesce. We now know they are trying to get us to make joinder with the legal name which, if we did, we would be, essentially, expressing our desire to reverse our decision of having waived our human “right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law”.

    We could respond by saying, “my name is not registered and it is my private property; so, unless you can show me a law which requires me to give you my private property, then I refuse your offer to contract.” The Surname belongs to the Crown and the given names belong to us, but when they put both given and surname together, it creates the name they use in order to trick us into submitting to their jurisdiction.

    If the judge continues to insist that we provide the court with our name, we could say, “I am sorry, but you have not provided me with any proof that I am under any legal obligation to provide you with my private property, but I am curious about why you require it, since my only purpose here today is to assist the court by correcting a mistake. Is the reason you want my name so you can make joinder between me, a man, and your legal name, so you can deem me a “person before the law”, in order to give you jurisdiction to administer your Statutes and Acts against me?”

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

This whole topic is new to

This whole topic is new to me. But I'd be interested to hear if:

"The Surname belongs to the Crown and the given names belong to us, but when they put both given and surname together, it creates the name they use in order to trick us into submitting to their jurisdiction."

Has any relation to Brazilians formerly having only one name, like "Pele," but now most of them have two. Any relation to economic development and central banks infiltrating their country?

I am not an authoritative sourse for your query.

Perhaps, for any question.

I gander the answer you may find is, "Yes." The subject is so confusing & cloaked, suffice to say, I don't know.

The British "Crown" took over much of London city & government financing near 330 years ago. The King & Queen became ceremonial, as I recall. The Crown is an independent "City State." It is the apex of the English financial empire. Other financial centers around the world have a central bank at the center of what could be variously called a "City State." Hong Kong was one for over a century, until 1997.

The Vatican is somewhat similar in the center of Rome. It is run by the Catholic Church, not Rome nor Italy. It has divided interests between religion vs finance.

Sorry I cannot be more helpful. I am writing w/o expertise. My eternal predicament.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul


PLEASE try this in court. And youtube it. I'd love to watch this.

Eric Hoffer

Court proceeding are public record. Many are filmed.

You may ask. beware of whom you ask. Many free video interviews available. Few, if any, of her in court.

COURT: Who’s Who and What to Say
by Mary Elizabeth Croft

As originally posted on: Spiritual Economics Now December 9, 2010

My [Mary Elizabeth Croft] position on going to court has always been: never voluntarily go to court. Live men and women are not meant to be in any place designed solely for the business of fictional entities. When we attend court, we are deemed dead, in fact, they cannot deal with us until we admit to being dead….a legal fiction….a trust. Court is for titled persons: judge, prosecutor, defendant, bailiffs, cops, and attorneys. Live men and women are not recognized, so it makes sense to send in a dead person – an attorney – to handle our cases …. except for one thing: they do not know how the system works, due to their indoctrination. If you can find one to do as you say, then you will prevail, but most of them would rather hang onto their BAR cards than behave honourably. The only thing that dead, fictional entities want from us is our life energy, and the only way they can get it is by our agreement. Without us, they cannot function, so, they are desperate to get us into court, to have us pay the debt which they created by charging the trust.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

No recollection of film crews following me into court.

Been to court many times. More than I can count. Gaggles of newspaper reports filled the galleries when I appeared in court. I sat in the witness stand... Stood in front of the judge... At the defense or plaintiff tables. But, all in all, I preferred fishing.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul