Veritas
I agree whole heartily. It's an inelienable right from my creator and nasties
God, and not my creation, United States. United States is bound by the
constitution because that is the only sovereignty we the people granted our
creation..
On Nov 6, 2021, 5:53 AM -0600, veritas ghost <guyettedamien8@xxxxxxxxx>, wrote:
your born a man or woman and they cant take that away from you. mostly all
else falls to the side from fraud and/or coercion. plain and simple, just
like theres rights you cant give away if you wanted to.
On Fri, Nov 5, 2021, 2:08 PM surfboate <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There are men and there are fictions. What are you?
On Tuesday, November 2, 2021, 07:24:43 a.m. PDT, Charley Dan
<charleydan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Veritas screenshot brings some good points out on usage of words.
Natural person but no such thing as artificial man. Artificial person is
possible. Especially in this day and age of robots.
Other supreme court cases use employee of goverment and that is more to
my liking and trying to make it a habit. Artificial person is none
existent unless one is referring to one who does as told with no spine or
authority or mind of their own. Welcome to 90% of Americans in the court
room.
Quote to me the other day as inspiring. I'll be glad the day I walk the
street and hear people talking of morality, philosophy, and
sustainability instead of the latest Karishans (sp).
On Nov 2, 2021, 7:51 AM -0600, J_B <tf4624@xxxxxxxxx>, wrote:
think you folks are missing the bigger over all goal other than fixing
ones status
Claim the Minor estate. Yes folks you are all including I are Trust
fund babies. And when I mean it , I mean it most of you folks unless
your young have 100's of millions if not some have a billion + in their
account.
On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 9:18 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 — 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
