Who's the actual owner?

Where and to whom do the territorial laws of United States apply? This is discussed here.
Post Reply
Geod Manson
Posts: 43
Joined: 2 years ago
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Who's the actual owner?

#1

Post by Geod Manson »

If one purchases a plot of land in a "Name" that is owned by someone or something else.
Do you own that plot of land? or;
Does the owner of the "Name" the land was purchased in, own the land?

yolewis
Posts: 2
Joined: 1 year ago

Re: Who's the actual owner?

#2

Post by yolewis »

Is the purchase in the "name" actually THE name? I've found on every agreement, being called a contract has a fictitious and fraudulent name listed..... Who is the registrant to the name is more imperative to identify who the true ownership interest holder to everything annexed to the civilly DEAD name. JANE DOE, UNMARRIED WOMAN

JANE DOE is a decedent
UNMARRIED WOMAN is a fiction outside the protection of the law - abandonment

User avatar
Logos
Site Admin
Posts: 122
Joined: 2 years ago
Location: hic et ubique
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Who's the actual owner?

#3

Post by Logos »

Geod Manson wrote:
1 year ago
If one purchases a plot of land in a "Name" that is owned by someone or something else.
Do you own that plot of land? or;
Does the owner of the "Name" the land was purchased in, own the land?
I think it depends on the nature of the deal:

In one example, if I buy a plot of land on Connecticut in the the birth certificate name which Uncle Sam owns, that sale doesn't cede the land to the Confederacy, rendering it U.S. territory. I think the proof of this is the fact that only 0.4% of Connecticut (the 5,544 sq. mi. land area depicted on the map) is ceded to the Confederacy. Looking at the map and noting where people live & own land, I think it's a safe bet that the total area on the map covered by all real estate sales ever transacted in b.c. names for parcels of Connecticut land well exceeds that 0.4%. Keep in mind that Connecticut, unlike the final 37 States, wasn't carved out of land owned by the Confederacy. This leads us to...

A counterexample of a real estate deal transacted in b.c. names regarding U.S. territory. Unless the buyer is granted the land via land patent, it doesn't truly become his, even if the buyer uses a non-b.c. name, e.g., that of a trust. Thus he could only get use of it in some sort of tenant-like capacity. I think the best case example of this is where one buys a parcel of the junk desert U.S. territory land comprising 80% of Nevada. Uncle Sam would still have TJ over your parcel unless he granted it to you via land patent.

Again, it depends.

User avatar
Logos
Site Admin
Posts: 122
Joined: 2 years ago
Location: hic et ubique
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Who's the actual owner?

#4

Post by Logos »

yolewis wrote:
1 year ago
Is the purchase in the "name" actually THE name? I've found on every agreement, being called a contract has a fictitious and fraudulent name listed..... Who is the registrant to the name is more imperative to identify who the true ownership interest holder to everything annexed to the civilly DEAD name. JANE DOE, UNMARRIED WOMAN

JANE DOE is a decedent
UNMARRIED WOMAN is a fiction outside the protection of the law - abandonment
I think we have the true ownership interest because we are the pro-creators. The gov't gave us those names to use so we could funnel our interests into the Treasury.

User avatar
Logos
Site Admin
Posts: 122
Joined: 2 years ago
Location: hic et ubique
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Who's the actual owner?

#5

Post by Logos »

Also, the name itself isn't fraudulent, especially considering that it was created for a beneficial purpose—to me, at least. However, fraudulent acts can be conducted using the name—a different matter altogether.

Many people seem to think the name is supposed to represent them, that gov't personnel seem to treat them as if they are the gov't-given name, so they believe there's fraud after they learn of its fictitious nature. I don't think Big Brother says the name is us. We've made some assumptions that, upon further study, turn out to be false and certain people are just taking advantage of our ignorance.

We assume many things to be true because they appear or otherwise seem to be so, even though we can seldom identify where or when Big Brother has actually stated in unambiguous terms what we assumed was so.

User avatar
Logos
Site Admin
Posts: 122
Joined: 2 years ago
Location: hic et ubique
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Who's the actual owner?

#6

Post by Logos »

Another problem people have with the gov't name is that it's typically spelled in all caps, contrary to the rules of English grammar—or so it seems. If the name were a proper noun signifying a man, e.g., "John Smith", then it would be incorrect to spell it in all caps.

However, the name comes from the birth certificate which is NOT identification, just as the Vital Statistics officials have honestly told us. Therefore, the name appearing thereon does not signify a man. Thus they can rightfully spell it in all caps like any other made up thing that isn't a legitimate word or term in the English language. Even though the b.c. is not ID people keep thinking the name thereon is "theirs" and that is signifies them.

Instead of becoming upset that the "Matrix" spells that name—its name—in all caps perhaps people should take the government's styling as a "heads up", and consider that "they" are tipping us off to the reality and being consistent with their assertions that the b.c. is not ID; if they had wanted to deceive us gov't could have been styling the name properly in upper/lower case all this time.

Substance begets form. Form is the expression/manifestation of substance. Instead of fretting about matters of form perhaps people should try to divine the substance behind it all.

Post Reply