Hi Lovers
I was shared some information yesterday that I do not know the accuracy of but nevertheless got me thinking. In this situation a guy asked for allodial title to a VIN # of a car.
He received the title in the mail and went to pick up the car. The car was already paid for. Say what? Let me get this right, the guy asked for allodial title to the car, got the title, but he did not pay for the car but the dealer was paid for the car. It is said the police got involved because the dealer refused to give the guy his car. His car because he held the title to the car, not a permit like we all get. The police saw the guy had the title and told the dealer to give him his car
The guy asked the cops, so you do not have a problem if i drive this car with no license or insurance and the cops said, this is yours to do as you please with that title.
What I gleaned from this, again I do not know the truth, is that by holding the actual title the guy held priority claim to the car. In other words, with that title no other, not even the system or cops can touch that car, nor does the user need a license or insurance. We know that when we pay for a car the state gets the legal title so what we are seeing here is that whoever gets the legal title does not pay and has control.
The point here is that the holder of the legal title is the king over the thing represented by the title, paper. See, when we pay the car is registered with the state and we get a permit because the state got the legal title. Further, if we act as the purchaser we must produce government id some of which may make the king look like a debtor. So we work from our title (SOB) to make requests or via that what acknowledges the existence of our title and where the evidence is held, which the BC does since it is not personal id but is an extract of THE foundation document/SOB.
This is why they say you need a license and insurance because you are not holding the legal title, whereas, what this guy did he ended up with the title and the state paid for the car. This is backward to what we have been thinking. We are thinking the legal title holder has the liability but what I see is not so, the legal title holder does not pay because the legal title holder is the king over the thing.
The exception is that the title is held by another for another. In that case, the holder of the evidence of title has the liability because the title is not his title, he is the holder of title belonging to another.
The holder of legal title is the sovereign and does the state not claim itself to be sovereign. Perhaps the reason is because it gets the titles. Perhaps the reason we are not sovereign is because we do not get the title. This guy asked for the title and got it and the government paid for the car. So says the information i received.
Now, there was a bit of information lacking in the information I received, in particular, the guy said he wanted the title in “this name”, but it did not indicate which name. This got me wondering which name he meant and after thought I think the name is the one on the SOB. Why, because that document is evidence of our title, not the governments title. Further, we keep paying which one, has us serving mammon and two, the legal title holder is not the liable party because the legal title holder is the king and no one can tell the king what to do.
If you are reading between the lines here we see why nothing we do works because we are not dealing with the legal title aspect.
Years ago my cousin made a boat trailer by hand and had it registered. There was no document of title but they registered it as ‘Homemade’ and said, this trailer cannot be seized and I think the reason is that because he made it by hand, there was no document of title, thus no transfer of rights; my cousin holds the legal title to the trailer.
So it seems to me it is better to be the legal title holder rather than the equitable title holder. Legal title holder has right of possession.
Legal title: Ownership of property that is cognizable or enforceable in a court of law, or one that is complete and perfect in terms of the apparent right of ownership and possession, but that, unlike equitable title, carries no beneficial interest in the property.
When the government holds legal title it has the apparent right of ownership and possession, hence can dictate to the user of property the terms of use. For example, you must license and insure this car, or, pay the taxes or you will loose the property.
But, we have the right to request the title to property because the government is holding the evidence of our title, being the SOB. In other words, if you deal specifically with the SOB, being evidence of your title, and request the title to say a car be in that name on the SOB, you have the right to request and receive the title to the car. You have the apparent right of ownership and possession but no beneficial interest. The reason for that is because the government is holder the evidence of your title, the SOB.
What i see now is we have been thinking about this incorrectly. Since the government holds the evidence of our title to the name given us, the SOB, we can do business in that name/title, but, and this seems to be the crux of the matter, we should not be paying the price and then claiming the car is our car because it is not, we do not hold the legal title in that case. The government got it when the dealer registered the car. What we can do so the car is our car, so we hold the title, is ask for the title.
We do not want equitable title we want legal title. We keep saying we are heirs of God and all is given and i believe it is, but our problem has been how we go about obtaining property. To obtain what God has given us first off we cannot pay for it for that is to recognize another as superior or the lord. Further, one has to partake in serving mammon.
The fact the government is holding evidence of our title to the name property may be acquired in, all we have to do is ask. Put it this way, if you had possession of the SOB would you not have full control over the name on it and derived of it? Of course you would but we do not hold it the government does, but it is our title or evidence of it and that is why the government has to pay.
No one can tell the holder of legal title what to do, end of story. This is why the government does not respond to you. They are holding the evidence of our legal title to the name but we have not claimed it or acknowledged it as the evidence of our title they are holding. Until we do they are filling the role of king, the sovereign. By acknowledging the title is your title, legal title, title in allodium, you go from child under control of government to child of God with control over the legal name/account and dominion.
I will say this again because it is a bit of a mind bender. The one entitled to legal title to something does not pay for it. That one is the king or lord. This is how we go from tenant to landlord. As each and everyone of us has a document held by the government that is evidence of OUR title, not the governments, we can when we so choose take control. As holder of our legal title the government recognizes we are the kings, lords, but, we have not recognized ourselves as such let alone stepped up to the plate.
I was told of a guy who came into court screaming, what are you fucks doing to my name. He screamed and yelled and had them all flustered, finally the judge said what do you want and he said, this case dismissed and bang, down came the gavel, case dismissed. This guy knew the government is holding the evidence of title to his name and acted on it taking no guff.
Now, back to our guy who allegedly got the title to the car. By obtaining that car in the manner he did he did not have to purchase insurance and was not required to hold a driver license. Such applies not to the legal title holder but the equitable title holder, in this case the government or public. This may explain why if you have a car that was registered by the dealer the government will not pay for the insurnace and will seize the car if uninsured etc. The government in that case holds the legal title you did not ask for but gave up when the dealer registered the title.
In that case the government has the legal title to the car so it may be to be free of the need for license or insurance one must obtain a car by asking for the title. That way the car if registered has the requester as the legal title holder, the king over the car and no or cop one can touch that car.
From what I am seeing now there are two ways we can interface with the system. The way we have and we pay, or ask for the title and the government pays. Hard to fathom I know but based on what this guy did to get the car, true or not, the fact is he who holds legal title is in control and is it not said, own nothing but control everything?
So, the government holds the evidence of our title to the name property can be obtained in. That is our title not the governments therefore although we do not hold the SOB, we are the legal title holder or owner of the name property can be obtained in. That puts one in control of the holder of the SOB. If we held the SOB we would have to pay but we would also have absolute ownership of the property and no other could take it. But as the title to our name is our title we have full right to request the title to this and that, house, car, etc. Since the government holds the SOB the public, Ontario, Canada, would be the beneficiary.
Big thing as I see it is we must claim the SOB as evidence of our title which would make us as the legal title holder and no one can tell the legal title holder what to do. They can tell the legal title holder what to do but the legal title holder does not have to listen. We must request title to property and that it be in the name on the SOB, the evidence of our title.
Now some of us made the claim to our title but all we did was tell them how it is, we never gave them the servants something to do like the guy who requested title to the VIN #. In other words, it is one thing to indicate to the government that you know it is holding the evidence of your title but if you not give them something to do there is no point to the communication is what I am saying.
Bottom line is everything stems from the SOB, the evidence of our title to the name. If we not act like that title is our title, and we have not, then the government uses that title to acquire control over us and our silence or ignorance is allowing it to continue. Like the guy in the court story above, obviously he came to know they were messing with his name he has legal title to and he said enough is enough and took charge.
This is a reason i say, time to start acting like a king because a king who knows he is a king, your majesty, does not take orders from servants.
A king does not require a bank account he has servants that take care of that stuff. He does not go out and purchase a car, he tells his servants he wants one and which one. A king does not sign anything binding on his, he has servants to take care of business. The king does not receive bills and then send them to government and the king does not enter into contracts unless he consents.
The BC is evidence that the government holds the evidence of your title, nothing more. SOB is the foundation document of the BC. Who owns or has the rights in the a basement (foundation document) controls whatever is built on it.
So, we each is a king/queen, your majesty, and the government our servants. Servants because they hold the evidence of our title making us the legal title holder and king.
So we are on the similar page here, we can obtain property and necessities by buying them or by asking for them. Ask and it is given. Ask and you shall receive as it seems our friend did who asked for title to a VIN#. Again, I do not know the truth of that story but neither here no there. What matters is, who has legal title is the one in charge, in control. The SOB is evidence of such title but our title not the governments. The government is holding it is all and so long as it does, it has the responsibility to pay because the public not you is the beneficiary. The government is entrusted with the evidence of your title it does not own it. As it is evidence of your title, you are or can be in charge whenever you wish to grow up and take charge of your life.
So we are clear, being in charge does not mean the king goes out and contracts for a car or hydro and then asks his servants to pay for it. He goes to his servants to do that and this is what we have failed to do and why in my view, actions we have taken to date failed.
So what makes you the king, highest authority over your name and names derived of the title, is the fact the government is holding the evidence of your title to the name given you. Therefore, you are with full authority to be in control. Not own, control. Legal title holder has control but you have to exercise that control. No need to tell the gov you have control unless you are going to give them something to do. If they fail to do as you ask then you may determine that by holding the SOB the government is NOT holding evidence of your title because if they do not do as you request, they are saying we do not have to, and only the legal title holder of his own title can do that.
Do you get what I am saying. If you instruct the government as holder of the evidence of your title to do something and they do not then that evidence cannot be evidence of your title but the governments title because the legal title holder is subject to no one, or as some would say, is the soveriegn.
Again, if in fact the SOB is evidence of your title to the title, then when asked to do something the government must do it because it is holding your evidence. But if it not do as you ask then it must be because the SOB is not evidence of your title to the title/name. If such was to go that way, at that point you may wish to give back all government documentation and if not, you do so knowing you will be its subject/child til death.
I love you