charly - maybe im reading you wrong. but if i said something that seem a
bit off, wasnt meant to be. Ill just say this there is more than one way
to skin the cat. More than one way to get the same outcome on false
tickets and other things from the fake Pigs
On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 1:56 PM Charley Dan <charleydan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
To all this Declaration of status fuss by different methods is a waste of
time.
Unless I decide to fraudulently profit from selling it. I've seen no
benefit from ding it yet.
When I get a citation I notify of my status with the article 1817
statement on jurisdictIon and done it for many others to be set free.
Usually once and sometimes twice encounters and they get the message to
leave one alone. Especially for those who got out of jail.
On Nov 2, 2021, 10:20 AM -0600, Rick Miller <ricky520057@xxxxxxxxx>,
wrote:
Thanks JB. I am sending you a private email on this issue. Thanks for
your input.
On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 8:29 AM J_B <tf4624@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Rick-
Dont use Anna'S way of correction. You have to give notice to the
Secretary of state of the uSA. This is the legal way to give notice
according to their own writings. Whether you like or not, thats the way to
do it. Of course make it a proper court of record. Witht that. Next time
you go to court and you challenge Juris Diction in human capacity by
special devine appearance. The judge has no choice but to throw it out and
cant adjudicate something that has been made a court of record. By doing
it their way you have you I's dotted and T's crossed. They cant presume a
damn thing at this point when it comes to your Status as a man/woman.
On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 11:24 AM Rick Miller <ricky520057@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Charley, what is your position on filing all this status correction
paperwork? Anna von Ritzcracker and even David Straight seem to think you
have to give the corporate agents formal, written notice of who you are
rather than you just knowing who you are and when necessary, expressing who
you are. Your thoughts?
On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 6:18 AM veritas ghost <guyettedamien8@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
i share charleys surprise here. infants are wards of the court, theyre
(municipal courts) are pushing unconstitutional presumptions on people.
this is my opinion but i dont think they will take you seriously after
stating your an infant as you just admitted jurisdiction instead of
challenging it. with what you stated it seems more productive to go the
path of simply plaintiff in error, but as charley does i advocate for
obliterating their feigned presumption of jurisdiction.
On Mon, Nov 1, 2021, 8:39 PM Charley Dan <charleydan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Really?
Another "element" that proves you are applicable to al cods, ordances,
ules and statutes is that you accepted or requested a "DRIVER LICENSE"
and
through that nexus You are considered to be "Operating a State Agency" and
must follow all the same statutes etc. which are for "RESIDENTS" DEF.
"EMPLOYEES" or "OFFICERS"
Article 1, section,8, clause 17 defines jurisdiction of the United
States an I'm not in it.
I can habe a driver's license and it means nothing. Use it to rent a
car. Marriage license means nothing. Because United States does not have
jurisdicton. Read court cases and it is quite clear citizens is a fancy
word for employee oath taker.
On Nov 1, 2021, 7:12 PM -0600, Stephen Schwika <
dmarc-noreply-outsider@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, wrote:
IS HOW THEY CONTROL THE MASSES - Possible Cestua Que Vie Trust Acct.
ACCESS
Brad,
I wish to TALK not TYPE too much. SEE TH BELOW LINKS
Listen to THIS SHIT regarding "No INFANT can be prosecuted" . Once
the/their GUARDIANSHIP is removed one then is FREE. It's [the infancy
status - that continues until "NONAGE" (correcttion of an error, nonage is
a proper legal term in FL, in another state: possibly called emancipation)
is achived] a parent child corporation - a self-powering municipal
corporation .
The solution is RULE 19 . I am still listinng to the first one.
Kindly discuss this with me upon listening to and understanding same.
The "PLEA OF INFANCY" stops all prosecution efforts, istruction how
to revert control back to "you" since you , "did not intend to give ypyour
"rights" by accepting the mere "privledge" involving The "INFANT" status
that was "without your knowledge or approval" through BAR Association
trickery and deception "legally" (but not lawfully) labeled upon you by
your mother accepting and "signing" the (infant "delivery" - into
"commerce" making you (One part of you - not the other "living" man or
woman portion, a owned corporation and "corporate" property undr a
concervancy or guadianship of your other contractual (by mother signing at
"delivery") fictitious corporate daddy - the State ) with the delivery
receipt "receipt" enabling same called the "birth certificate" where
afterwards (if father fails to claim the property before e years od -
TITLE
goes up for "salvage" and is purchasd by The Roman Catholic Church, Mormon
Church, etc.) THEY (through a contract with the U.S. gov. - their "human
trafficing" business associates) unless properly corrected buy your or a
parent's proper and timely "administrative" NOTICE - and request for a
"NONAGE" Claim/petition for "correction" to be achieved using RULE 19 _ OR
"POSSIBLY" ANOTHER unknown to me METHOD) otherwise THEY have total control
(plus "legal" jurisdiction) of you and ALL your "spendthrift trust"
assets, and you are left as the bankrupt surety for ALL BILLS, EXPENCES,
LIABILITIS, MALACIOUS FO-PROFIT PROSECUTION ATTEMPTS, ETC. ...when
otherwise THEY should b paying everything due (monthly, etc.) out of the
Cestue que vie trust account's (your) availabl assets. Go figure...
Can listen to everything explained yourself - do NOT let your ens
legis HEAR this inportant info.... it OWES you tens of millions of
dollars for you serving as the "receiver of srvice and process" for IT
since you were about 2 weeks old. Must send the alleged Birth Certificate
"owner" (of the ens legis) a (notary Public "receiver" sent and "timely"
21
day response received) Notice (by affidavit) to respond, and then (after
their non-response based "failure-to-respond") a bill for $50 per hour
since back then for unpaid "monthly" services and money due to you.
Another "element" that proves you are applicable to al cods, ordances,
ules and statutes is that you accepted or requested a "DRIVER LICENSE"
and
through that nexus You are considered to be "Operating a State Agency" and
must follow all the same statutes etc. which are for "RESIDENTS" DEF.
"EMPLOYEES" or "OFFICERS" of the government... Threfore, must dump the
(if/when actually unneeded) proof of State Agency operation Driver
License,
unless you actually are a (tuck, bus, ambulance,towtruck, limo, or other
"commercial" and "for-profit" employed as same "driver". Then things get
easier, otherwise simply claim (non-prosecutable) "infant" status for
everything, stopping everything in its tracks. Listen to brother boris
explain everything...
Rumble <https://rumble.com/> — IAMSOMEDUDE.COM "Boris" DOCS:
http://www.lawofboris.com/files/10212021.zip
Borris TalkShoe is "Surfing with the Alien"
Hosted by: Law of Boris
Phone Number: (724) 444-7444 Thurs ?time
Call ID: 82668
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=82668&cmd=tc
*** lawofborris.COM [sign up videos, files, private stash on
Rumble-get link from LOB FOR TELEGRAM chat AND rUMBLE
stephen
570-443-7892
----- Forwarded Message -----
*From:* Some Dude <iamsomedude2@xxxxxxxxx>
*To:* Stephen Schwika <motiond@xxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Saturday, October 30, 2021, 01:15:35 PM EDT
*Subject:* Re: Assumed Name Certificate - strategic amendment (text
desired)
this is more like a "fee schedule" and I do not think it will fit on a
Minnesota dba filing. but i could be mistaken;
i would just download a form and see for yourself ...
but, i think you should watch/listen to the 10-21 and 10-27 calls on
the private stash
https://rumble.com/vo269p-zoom-meeting-10.21.2021.html
https://rumble.com/vod8fb-zoom-meeting-10.28.2021.html
On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 4:09 AM Stephen Schwika <motiond@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
*Minn. A.N.C. Name Holder* : for STEPHEN JOHN SCHWIKA
[[ I think the below is about ALL I AM ABLE TO do ]]
*:Stephen-John: Schwika.* – ATTENTION: Notice of Liability
pursuant to $250k "unauthorized" (private property) use fee for
”name use” of Minnesota (Secretary of State) certified “ASSUMED
NAME” (SEE ABOVE). For (any evidenced written or corporate) use of
Name Holder’s “Private non-corporate Business/Trad” name, any
derivative - variant names, copyrighted name(s), the use of name holder,
Assumed Name Certificate’s registered “fictitious” business entity or
“other variant ” as any presumed surety, the Name Estate for U.S.
certificated “PERSON” [Name Estate] decedent (birth certificate)
TITLE holder possessing valid standing, Full Faith and Credit, plus
highest
“security” interest in and FOR ALL PURPOSES OF THE OBLIGATION OF THE
“PERSON” [Name Estate] wherein, above shall not be held liable in ANY
COURT
in pursuance of and reliance on 12 USC 95a Sect. 2, wherein same “PERSON”
[Name Estate] is entitled to ACQUITTANCE and DISCHARGE FOR ALL
PURPOSES OF THE OBLIGATION OF THE “PERSON” [Name Estate]. Named
“PERSON” [Name Estate] shall not be held liable in ANY COURT for or in
respect to ANYTHING done or omitted in good faith in connection with
the administration of, or in pursuance of and in reliance on, this
section,
or any rule, regulation[code, ordinance or statute], instruction, or
direction issued hereunder… under full and complete INDEMNITY via. General
Orders 100 section 38. The RECEIPT [Birth Certificate] and the
[Estate?] name/title on same is being used in pursuance of and reliance on
12 USC95a Sect. 2 for discharge of any U.S. associated debt, plus
discharge
of liability, in pursuance of and reliance upon same section further
evidenced by (recorded) Dual Secretary of State (Federal and State)
"authenticated" Birth Certificate with other "verified" (sworn - true and
correct) document evidence supporting the private property $250,000 "NAME
USE" fee – due within seven (7) days of verbal or other notification of
(each incidence of) unauthorized name [Name Estate - TITLE] usage.
*I am unsure if ALL THE ABOVE IS PERFECTLY ACCURATE or appropriate to
be used in (my) pursuance of and reliance on 12 USC95a Sect. 2. Possibly
some changes, additional points, or EDITING - may be required.*
I would appreciate a little assistance hammering this NOTICE out a
little MORE in order to optimize / and for accuratizing same... Dean do
you think this WILL ALL FIT IN THE MINN. ASSUME NAM CERTIFICATE'S "NAME
HOLDR" field (form) space available...
Any helpful feedback on this TOPIC / objective (HOPEFULLY - to be
automatically "Printed-out" ON the Minn. A.N.C. FORM) will be greatly
appreciated -
Please advise,
stephen
570/ 443-7892 ...kindly call me
