CW-2010-03-23

Merging titles-BC;

Floyd: About “indenture”, in Black’s it says:- ‘ a formal written instrument made by two or more
parties with different interests’.
When we are doing an indenture, are looking to set up an agreement with the private and the
public?
CW: It is not so much an agreement as a relationship between 3 parties. The grantor, the trustee
and the beneficiary in relation to a specific trust res for the benefit of the third party, the
beneficiary. It’s more a relationship than an agreement.
The indenture is the intent and purpose of the grantor put down in writing (or it could be oral).
Floyd: I was thinking with the indenture regarding the BC specifically is that we are giving
instructions to the public to bring the private in.
CW: It is really colourable.
Floyd: The indenture is to give notice in chambers to get the whole strawman account.
CW: The only thing we are going to be writing an indenture forming a trust on is going to be
When O close down the Master strawman trust account and whatever is left from paying the debts,
the remainder is going to be transferred over to the new trust and I would need an indenture for that.
I’m forming this new trust just to put the funds in, in the private.
That would create an LLC on the public side, and the public is not really going to know anything of
what I’m doing.
I’m going to operate on a face mask premise of a second strawman, being a LLC and I’m not telling
the public what my business is, because if I did I’d be commingling my own trusts.
Floyd: How would you get before a Judge to activate the indenture or LLC or whatever?
CW: How would you normally form a trust through a LLC?
You don’t do it with a judge.
I am going to have to notice the public with certain things I am doing.
What is the certain thing that I am doing?
How am I doing away with the public side of the trust?
We are going to merge the titles and terminate the trust.
Merging the public and private side of the trust doesn’t involve an indenture.
I am going to give orders to pay the past, present and future debts.
I’m going to be giving orders to discharge on the public side and orders to set-off on the private side
to zero, close and settle the accounts.
And then I’m going to order the remainder into a new trust that I am going to order formed, and it is
going to spill over into the new trust.
That is where the indenture comes in.
Then I am going to sign that LOC simultaneously on the public side so that I have a face mask I can
do commerce without generating a profit.
And I’m not being effectively connected to the United States business or trade.
I am going to generate interest off the privately held assets in the new trust on the private side and
that interest is going to be deposited in that LLC on the public side.
I’m going to terminate the strawman and the BC on the public side.
I’m going to form a trust on the private side and a LLC on the public side.
I’ll be operating the public side myself through the LLC.
It is the new strawman for me.
13.20
Jacob: Is the reasoning for terminating that trust to: 1 it no longer has a hold on you, and 2.
Because you believe there are abundant funds in there ?
CW: No it is the principle upon merging titles it simultaneously terminates the trust.
When you terminate that strawman trust, now anything associated with it, when you pull the roots
out automatically the tree dies.
Everything is terminated with it.
That strawman account was my face mask, so the LLC becomes my new face mask that interfaces
in commerce.
It only takes one penny of money to pay all fiction debts.
All that money has been held in trust since 1933.
It is necessary to close out the debt associated with the strawman, the war debt all past debt, and all
future debt.
It is the existence of this debt that keeps everything happening.
The Republic of America is in trust. You can’t access it.
The 2 titles to be merged are the BC and the SS account.
Along with the live birth certificate, which is the private title to the real man.
The BC is the title to the strawman - its counterpart.
The private is the live birth, that is the title to the private.
The title to the public is the BC.
Merge those 2 titles and the strawman entity terminates.
What happened is that with the BC, when you turned 18 and didn’t take over the account, so they
formed a new account (the SS account) which became a spillover of the foreign situs or BC and
now the funds are being held in SS.
So I am going to terminate the SS, the BC and the certificate of Live Birth, merge them and that
will terminate all of those accounts.
So I am going to make a payment for past, present and future debts on that strawman account and
the remainder is going to spill over into this new trust that is formed in the private.
Because they sold the gold, they will try to give colourable IOU’s which I am not going to take.
I am going to play it this way:
I am going to form a new trust, and you take all those assets and you put them in that new trust
because I am not taking those assets and commingling them myself [that is the bait, they are trying
to get me to commingle it].
I am going to put it back in on the private side and maintain it on the private side.
Now you owe me an obligation and so now fulfill that obligation by generating the interest on the
public side and you place that interest in my new LLC.
And that interest is going to function as debit or credit, however you want to look at it. It may be a
credit card or cheque account and be colourable.
The LLC will have the same name or similar, but will have a new SS number.
And that new SS is a 98 number, and that 98 represents a non-resident alien that is not
effectively connected with a business or trade, like off the W8BEN.
If the strawman is not terminated, then liability continues under the discretionary trust.
That 2010-01-26, for about the first hour I described this process.

The grant deed (also warranty deed or title of trust) is the ‘thank you’ note thanking you for your
deposit put under trust from the county.
The county is thanking you for the special deposit that you made with them.
But you didn’t know that because you didn’t understand it to be a trust.
The BC is a thank you receipt for the special deposit into the State forming a trust.
So that BC represents that special deposit, so does that warranty deed.
The MO of Satan is the same, trying to trick you by giving you something that you already have.
So when you sign a deed of trust at the county recorders, you get back a grant deed.
The promissory note goes over to the so called beneficiary, the Bank, who then securities it for you.
The credit application is probably held in some place in their records, which you could treat as a
separate trust or incorporate it into the trust.
It is tied into the strawman to access the trust account.
All they want is your signature to do that.
Nobody has got their credit application back because they have never treated it as a
trust deposit to begin with, but to ask for it back and take it into an ‘In Chambers hearing’
and let equity force them into bringing it back.
This is the first signature, the foundation for the bank account.
The enforcement was in equity, it was in trust.
You went to prison as the trustee in breach of trust.
The perfect title is formed when you merge the two titles, but now you have to get the court to
recognise that fact.
The court is the second witness on the public, and the trick is to get them to testify!
Common law does not exist, not without money.
When the titles are merged, the account is zeroed under accounting and the titles are merged and the
trust is terminated under trusts.
36.50

1.35.30
Jacob Christian, you said you were going to make your law form, and first
you said”I am going to make it the Bible” and then you said “or I will make it
the Declaration of Independence”.
CW Well I think they are one and the same really.
My Declaration of independence comes right off of the Bible.
That’s where I was granted unalienable rights granted to me by God.
From 1776 until the present is the D of I, and from 1776 back that is my Bible.
This country was founded on biblical principles.

...

1.40.20
John, Indiana
What would be the scenario for say getting a car to go places?
CW I think the best scenario is to get the debt established first.
If you have got some debt you can get rid of it through trusts.

It is really making a payment by merging titles under the trust.

If you take that offer for the debt that they are giving you, and on the front side
of that you are going to put a non-negotiable money order and you are
going to make it look like it is a cheque.
You are going to put the date on there, and pay to the order of.
And according to that revised Code Statute 107.020 where the Judge said in
that case number (BK-S-07-16226-LBR) , that bankruptcy case; that the
signatory is really the trustor or the grantor and the payee is really the
beneficiary.

[ 31 Nevada recognizes that parties may secure the performance of an obligation or the
payment of a debt by means of a deed of trust. N.R.S. § 107.020. The maker of the note is the
trustor and the payee is the beneficiary.]

That is what you are really going to be using to prove that your evidence or
record or title to prove who the grantor, the beneficiary and the trustee are.
The Judge actually said in the foot-note, I think it was 31, that under the
revised code 107.020 which must comport to all 50 states’ statutes
somewhere, that: the trustor or grantor was the signer on the note (the
maker of the note), and the payee is the beneficiary.
It sounds like he was coming out of trust law because he was identifying that
that mortgage note, the payee was usually the bank.
And we usually sign the note so we are the grantor of the trust deed.
You just have to set up your evidence to prove that there is a trust.

My thinking is that I can use that to my advantage.

Instead of putting the “Pay to the Order “ line or the payee line as being the
beneficiary, the bank, ...
How many of you have taken a cheque out of your checking account and made
it out to yourself, you endorsed it on the back and you signed it on the
front?
In other words, you were all 3 parties on it.
Then you took it to the bank and cashed it.
Why aren’t we doing that?

When you were signing as all 3 parties on that cheque, you were turning it into
a security instrument.
If I make myself a payee on an offer someone gives me, and sign it on the
signatory line as grantor/trustee and I also turn it over on the back, and I
endorse it the same way they endorse these mortgage notes, now what
happens?

How do they endorse the notes on the back of the mortgage notes?
Some of them will have an endorsement by the bank, where the bank will have
signed it on the back or the allonge somewhere.
It says they endorse it “without recourse’.
The next line is the pay to and they usually leave it blank.
The next they sign it.
The next line they identify who they are signing it for and their office.
They usually sign it by CEO or CFO with their signature and they identify the
lender as say being ABC Lender Company.
And they leave the “pay to” line blank.
That puts it into a bearer instrument form.

In the Bank Officers handbook, under Section 19.02, talking about CD’s.
(Certificates of Deposit) :
Under sub-section D:
... If the certificate is negotiable, the bank agrees to pay the depositor or any
person the depositor shall order or the bearer of the certificate.
So when a CD is negotiated the debt of the bank is to the legal holder (the
bearer) of the CD and not to the original depositor.
So what we are doing by negotiating the backside and endorsing it this way
with the “without recourse” and the “pay to” in blank you are turning it into a
security instrument which is really a certificate and it is in bearer form and
whoever is holding the certificate is who the bank is liable to, not the depositor.
This is going to be making a payment under trusts.

Why are we taking some of these offers that people are shoving at us for the
obligation of debt or debtor/creditor, why are we putting on the top of the front
like at a 45 degree angle, like you would have the information on a cheque,
marking it “non-negotiable”, make you the payee, your name on there, you
sign it as grantor, and on the back you sign it as without recourse and pay
to in blank and you sign by trustee and your strawman account plus the
Social Security account number without dashes.
? You mean like a remittance on a statement?
CW Now on the front you do the same thing and where the routing numbers
go, you put: strawman name plus Soc Sec number without the dashes.
So this is going to set up the evidence for the title to the record of who the
grantor, beneficiary and trustee are by the colourable promissory note, their
money order, but really it is all under trusts.
So this turns their offer for debt title into an asset title and by special deposit
under trusts.
And it is also seen as a colourable public security instrument after
endorsement.

So now you make out the Certificate of Deposit and also create the 2 titles of
the records claiming and the 2 titles of the records merging the titles as a
special deposit/trust deposit (which is really going to become your trust receipt,
remember that is a record of payment) and return to the offeror.
Then make copies of what you did, and send copies of these title records
(which are really a deed to what act you did) and send all these to Rios(?),
Treasury on the private side/IRS.

So if I made a payment to BestBuy, say bought a tv and I wrote them a check,

and BestBuy never cashed the check, does that negate the fact that I made the
payment and the thing is paid?
What do I care what BestBuy does with that check. If they don’t negotiate it
that is not my problem.

So in the same respect, if I return that instrument as a special deposit with

this form on the front that looks like a cheque and did the endorsement on the
back as a special deposit, what do I care what they do with it if they never
negotiate it?

But now I send my copies of what I did to the record keeper, the IRS treasury,
on the private side, and if they don’t ledger it properly, I tell the IRS “go see
them as to what they did with the check”.
In the meantime I made the payment under special deposit and merged 2
titles.

So in precis:
The offer they give to me from the offeror is the debt title.
I’m going to turn it into res, so it is just a thing.
So after I put my markings on it, turn it into a special deposit and returned it
back to them, the thing I put on it turned it into an asset title, so that piece of
paper I return to them is both simultaneously the asset title and the debt
title.
I have already merged the titles.
1:40:30
John -
What would be the scenario for getting a car to go places?
CW
I think the best scenario is to get the debt established first in the normal ways. Then if you’ve got
some debt, you can get rid of the debt through trusts. It’s really making a payment through merging
the titles under trusts. If you take that offer for the debt that they are giving you and on the front
side of that you are going to put a non-negotiable money order. You are going to make it look like a
check. You are going to put the date on there and you are going to put Pay to the Order Of: and
according to that [Nevada] Revised Codes Statutes [N.R.S.] 107.020 where the judge said in that
bankruptcy case that the signature [maker of the note] is really the Trustor, or the Grantor, and the
Payee is the Beneficiary. There is a lot that can be gleaned from that case. That is really what you
are going to be using to prove - that is your evidence, or record, or a title, to prove who the Grantor,
the Beneficiary, and the Trustee are.
Chris -
Which case was that again?
CW
That is that [Nevada] bankruptcy case BK-S-07-16226-LBR [for Joshua and Stephanie Mitchell,
dated August 19, 2008]. The judge actually said in the footnote, I think it was footnote 31 [on page
8] where it said in there under Revised Codes Statutes Nevada, annotated, under 107.020, and that
has to be comported in all 50 States somewhere in their Statutes somewhere. The judge said that the
Trustor, or the Grantor, was the signer on the note and the Payee is the Beneficiary. [It can be found
either here http://privateaudio.homestead.com/Joshua_Mitchell_07-16226_Opinion.pdf or here
http://www.nvb.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Riegle/07-16226%20Opinion.pdf] Under Nevada law a
negotiable promissory note 28 is enforceable by: (1) the holder 29 of the note, or (2) a non-holder in
possession of the note who has the rights of a holder. 30
Thus if MERS is not the holder of the note, then to enforce it MERS must be a transferee in
possession who is entitled to the rights of a holder or have authority under state law to act for the
holder. Simply being a beneficiary or having an assignment of a deed of trust is not enough to be
entitled to foreclose on a deed of trust. For there to be a valid assignment for purposes of
foreclosure both the note and the deed of trust must be assigned. A mortgage loan consists of a
promissory note and a security instrument, typically a mortgage or a deed of trust.
31When the note is split from the deed of trust, “the note becomes, as a practical matter,
unsecured.” RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF PROPERTY (MORTGAGES) § 5.4 cmt. a (1997). A
person holding only a note lacks the power to foreclose because it lacks the security, and a person
holding only a deed of trust suffers no default because only the holder of the note is entitled to
payment on it. See RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF PROPERTY (MORTGAGES) § 5.4 cmt. e
(1997). “Where the mortgagee has ‘transferred’ only the mortgage, the transaction is a nullity and
his ‘assignee,’ having received no interest in the underlying debt or obligation, has a worthless
piece of paper.” 4 RICHARD R. POWELL, POWELL ON REAL PROPERTY, § 37.27[2] (2000).
_____________________________________
28The court assumes, without deciding, that the notes in question are negotiable instruments. If they
aren’t, then custom and practice will treat them as if they are. For example, under N.R.S. §
104.9012(tt), Nevada’s Article 9, an “instrument” is defined as a negotiable instrument, “or any
other writing that evidences a right to the payment of a monetary obligation . . . and is of a type that
in ordinary course of business is transferred by delivery with any necessary endorsement or
assignment.” “Instruments” are thus defined somewhat broadly according to ordinary business
practices.
29 A “holder” is the person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to
a bearer or to an identified person who has possession. N.R.S. § 104.1201(u)
30
N.R.S. § 104.3301. A negotiable promissory is also enforceable under N.R.S. § 104.3301(c)
by a nonholder of a note that has been stolen, destroyed, or paid by mistake. There has been
 no allegation in this case making this provision relevant here.
31 Nevada recognizes that parties may secure the performance of an obligation or the
payment of a debt by means of a deed of trust. N.R.S. § 107.020. The maker of the note is
the trustor and the payee is the beneficiary.

1:42:40
Chris
What set of laws is that, trusts or is it equity?
CW I think he was coming out of trust law because he was identifying that that note, that
mortgage note, the Payee was usually the bank, that we made out. We usually signed the
note so we are the Grantor/Trustee because that is what it said for that bankruptcy case.
This is going to set up your evidence to prove that it is a trust. My thinking is I can use that to my
advantage. Instead of putting the Pay to the Order Of: line, or the Payee line, as being the
Beneficiary, being the bank… How many of you have taken a check on your checking account and
made it out to yourself, you endorsed it on the back and you signed it on the front? In other words,
you were all 3 parties on it. Then you took it to the bank and cashed it. Why aren’t we doing that?
Chris -
Christian, I’ve got a cross-reference for all 50 States for that particular code. I’m going to put this
on the Skype window for everybody. This is a cross-reference into the Statute for each of the States.
CW
That’s great because that’s really your proof in your local state where to go pull this out. I think if
you looked under the annotated version you would probably find a whole lot more information in
explanation. [see http://www.lawcheck.net/Library1/_books/realestate/qanda/mortdeed.htm. The
following are examples from there.]
ARIZONA
In Arizona, a mortgage or deed of trust creates a lien and not a transfer of real estate. Arizona Code
33-701.
CALIFORNIA
In California, a mortgage and deed of trust are both used. California CC 2911, 2920 through 2955.5.
LOUISIANA
In Louisiana, a mortgage or deed of trust creates a lien and is not a transfer of title. Louisiana CC
3278.
PRIOR LOUISIANA CIVIL CODE ARTICLES ON MORTGAGE
NOTE. These articles were repealed during the revision of the law of mortgages. 1991 La. Act No.
652 repealed articles 3278-3298, article 3411, and articles 3299-3310. 1992 La. Act No. 1132
repealed articles 3311-3370 and articles 3397-3411. Articles 3371 through 3385.1 and 3386 through
3396 were re-designated as part of the Civil Code ancillaries in La. Rev. Stat. Title 9. For detail, see
the Acts themselves.
BOOK III, OF THE DIFFERENT MODES OF ACQUIRING THE OWNERSHIP OF
THINGS.
TITLE XXII. OF MORTGAGES.
CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
Art. 3278.
Mortgage is a right granted to the creditor over the property of the debtor for the security of his
debt, and gives him the power of having the property seized and sold in default of payment.
FLORIDA
In Florida, a mortgage or deed of trust creates a lien on the real estate. Florida Code 697.01 onward.
TEXAS
In Texas, a mortgage or deed of trust creates a lien and does not transfer title. Texas Prop. Code
12.009, 13.001.
1:44:05
Now we’re back to the check issue. When you sign it as all 3 parties on that what you didn’t realize
is that you turned that into a security instrument. If I make myself Payee on an offer somebody
gives me, sign it on the signatory line as Grantor and Trustee, and I also turn it over on the back
and endorse it the same way that they endorse these mortgage notes, now what happens? Let’s go
over how they endorse the back on these notes. Anybody familiar with how they do that? If you
look at your mortgage note some of them will have an endorsement already there by the banks,
where the bank has signed it and endorsed it on the back or on the allonge somewhere, on the
bottom. It says they endorse it with Without Recourse . Then the next line is the Pay To:, and they
leave it blank. The next line is they sign it and the next line they identify who they are signing it for
and their office. They usually sign it By CFO or CEO, their signature, and they identify the
Lendersay being, ABC Lender Company. They leave the Pay To line blank so that puts it into a
bearer instrument form.
Now we talked about before on the definition to the Bank Officer’s Handbook of Commercial
Banking Law, under §19.02, and again let me turn to that. We are talking about CDs, Certificates of
Deposit under subsection “d” [page 19-12].

[d] Certificates of Deposit. Certificates of deposit (CDs) are instruments issued by the bank
specifying that a certain sum of money has been deposited. These certificates may be either
negotiable or nonnegotiable. When nonnegotiable, the bank simply contracts to return the amount to
the depositor plus any contracted-for interest. If the certificate is negotiable, the bank agrees to pay
the depositor or any person whom the depositor shall order, or the bearer of the certificate. When
the CD is a negotiable CD, the debt of the bank is to the legal holder [the bearer] of the certificate
and not to the original depositor.
What we are doing by negotiating the back side, endorsing it this way Without Recourse and the
Pay To, leaving it blank, you are turning it into a security instrument, which is really a certificate
and it is in bearer form. Whoever is the holder of the certificate is who the bank is liable to, not the
depositor. So this is going to be making a payment under trusts. Why aren’t we taking some of these
offers that people are shoving at us for the obligation of debt for debtor-creditor … why aren’t we
putting on the top of the front like at a 45 deg. angle, just like you would have the information on a
check, marking it nonnegotiable, make you the Payee, putting your name on there, you sign it as
Grantor and then on the back of it you sign it Without Recourse and the Pay To leave blank, and
you sign it By Trustee and your signature, and For Strawman Account plus your Social Security
Number without the dashes?
Shane -
You mean like a remittance on a statement?
CW
Yeah.
Now on the front you do the same thing. Where the routing numbers go you put your Strawman
name plus the Social Security number without the dashes. This is going to set up the evidence of the
title of the record to prove who the Grantor, the Beneficiary, and the Trustee are by a colorable
promissory note or money order, but really it is all under trusts, so this turns their offer, the debt
title, into an asset title and by special deposit under trusts. It’s also seen as a colorable public
security instrument after endorsement. Now you make out the Certificate of Deposit and also create
the two titles of the records claiming and the two titles of the records merging the titles as a special
deposit/trust deposit, which really is going to become your trust receipt - remember that is a record
of a payment, and return to the offeror. Then make copies of what you did and send these copies,
these title records, which are really a deed to what act you did, to Rios at Treasury, on the private
side of the Treasury/IRS.
1:49:30
If I made a payment to Best Buy, because I walked in there and bought a television set for $3000
and I wrote them a check and Best Buy never cashed the check, does that negate the fact that I made
the payment and the thing is paid? No! What do I care what Best Buy does with that check, or if
they do nothing with it? If they don’t negotiate it that’s not my problem. In the same respect, if I
send it to the person who sent me the offer for this bill, this debt, turn that instrument back in -
return it to them as a special deposit with this form on the front that looks like a check and do the
endorsement on the back as a special deposit, what do I care what they do with it if they never
negotiate it? But now I send my copies of what I did to the record keeper, the IRS/Treasury, on the
private side, and if they [the offeror] don’t ledger it properly I tell the IRS to go see them and ask
what they did with the check. In the meantime what do I care, it’s paid? I made the payment under
special deposit. I merged two titles.
Chris
Could you elaborate just a little more on one particular aspect of converting the debt instrument into
an asset to do this process? Could you go over that one more time?
CW
The offer that they give to me from the offeror is the debt title. I am going to turn it into res [trust
property], so it is just a thing. After I put my markings on it and turn it into a special deposit and
returned it back to them the thing that I put on there turned it into an asset title. So, it represents,
that piece of paper that I returned to them, is both simultaneously the asset title and also the debt
title. I’ve already merged the titles. Now I create the two records [UCC-1 and a Notice in the
county] claiming that as trust res assets. I create again two more records on a UCC-3 and in the
county, proving that I transferred, or merged, the titles. I made a special deposit and then I either
made a payment or, if that was treating it as the trust, I would have terminated that trust.
Shane
That sounds great because it does closely the mirroring of that Accepted For Value process, but it’s
not. Here is the part … it reminds me of something Winston said a long time ago, using the Bill of
Exchange - he was operating on Accepted For Value back then, too. On a practical level, and I
didn’t get the whole thing of what you were saying, but the general idea … is there maybe
someplace where we can just bypass the vendor and send them a notification and send this directly
to - because this is private, it is trust, the government or whoever is the Trustee is going to be
making that payment and ledgering that account? It’s useless to send this stuff to the vendor.
CW
Yes, but I still have to send it to the vendor [the original - just like a check] and a copy to the record
keeper, who is going to be the IRS. The same as the check I wrote to Best Buy, it makes no
difference what Best Buy did with my check. It makes no difference what my return back of my
special deposit to this offeror - I don’t care what they do with it. Shane - Does it make more sense to
just send them a notification of that? CW No, I have to send them the original instrument.
Chris
You are looking for them to execute it in lieu of the government doing it for them.
CW
Yes.
Shane
Wouldn’t it be more practical because we’ve been through all of this stuff with Accepted For Value
and it makes more sense to say you are going to do it on their behalf and say that you are going to
forward it?
CW
I am doing it on their behalf. I’m sending notification to the record keeper. He is going to do the
adjustment.
He is going to go back to them probably and get the check, the special deposit. They are going to
knock on their door and say, “What did you do with that special deposit? We want it.”
1:54:49
Jeff
I am thinking that when we do this procedure we are putting out say $100 in funds to settle the debt
and after we do it 10 times we are broke.
CW
Yeah, you could look at it that way.
Jeff
That is the same thing that we did with Accepted For Value is that we never really got anything out
of it because we were putting out money, what we call money, to settle the debt, but we don’t get
anything out of it.
CW
If we are creating more debt how could debt settle a debt?
Jeff
Exactly. Even doing it this way I think that we should just go ahead and concentrate on
terminating those trusts.
CW
Yeah, because the negative liability side, or the liability or debt title, it’s corresponding value what
ever it is, which is just a res, is going to be the title to the asset.
Jeff
You don’t discuss very much about how the bank deals with Mrs. Rios. Couldn’t we just do special
deposits, especially what Miriam was talking about with her liens, into our private bank?
CW
Here we are trying to take a public debt instrument, a negotiable instrument, and trying to
cross it over into the private.
Jeff
I’m converting it into an asset.
CW
Yeah, I don’t think it is going to work that way. I think you have to treat it as a title and
merge the two titles and then it goes to zero.
Shane
Who in the end is making the payment?
CW
The merger of the title was the payment. Taking the offer they gave me and returning it as a
special deposit merged the titles. That was the payment.
Shane
Is there some agency that is going to be … when they get a copy of the statement and the
remittance with the account information?
CW
That is what I would send to Rios on the private side of the Treasury and Treasury is
synonymous with the IRS. She is going to send it on to the proper department, which is
probably going to get to the real private side of the IRS.
Shane
Eventually it comes back and they ledger that account and zero it out, right?
CW
Yes.
Chris
Do you believe Christian that they are more willing to do it under this trust res in combining
this more so than the Acceptance For Value? Do you think this is going to be more
successful for us?
CW
Yes, because number one, did you negotiate this at all? [That would make it illegal.] No. If you did,
who are the three parties on the instrument? I am all three parties. I am signer as Grantor, I am
Payee as Beneficiary, and I’m the one who endorsed it. It’s the bearer form, it’s the certificate of the
deposit that is according to the public side seeable as a security instrument in bearer form that looks
colorable enough to them that they know what to do with it on their end. But, it is synonymously
also a special trust deposit, which is a trust receipt, and that is a record of a payment. It’s a record of
the payment.
Send your record on to the ledgerers, the accountants, so they can correct the books. That is the IRS.
It is already paid. You just need the ledgering.
Shane
That is so close to what Winston was trying to do. That is like going full circle. He is getting
into trusts now, big time.
CW
Everybody is getting into trusts because of me.
Chris
In regards to the International Law on Trusts that I just dug up and gave everybody
[http://www.hklii.org/hk/legis/en/ord/76.txt], that is your enforcement power that supersedes the
United States on enforcement, right?
CW
What is the enforcement power?
Chris
The trust law that I sent out to everybody on the International Hague Convention. Isn’t that
going to be the enforcement power that from outside the United States system that they have
to behave because they are following a One World Order type of government laws?
CW
I think it is more on the lines of equity, where equity is. The power of the trust is in equity.
Shane
Is there any issue with being the Trustee and the Beneficiary when you do that to a
remittance?
CW
I don’t believe so, because how many of us have taken a check and made it out to ourselves and
endorsed it on the back and we sign the front? We went to the bank and we cashed it. If we would
have taken that check we could have given it to somebody else and that was really payment because
whatever it was made out for was what it was worth. It’s already endorsed and all they have to do is
apply it.
Shane
Can you say that is a form of the merging aspect there, too?
CW
Yes, if it was put on an offer and title. Put your asset title on it. Now you’ve got the debt
title and the asset title on the same instrument and create the record that you merged it.
Shane
Is this a self-contained process or does it still involve doing any of the UCC-1 and 3 stuff?
CW
Yes, you also have to create those two records of the claiming of what you did. You put the
UCC-1 and in the county and then create the two records necessary to prove that you
merged it, which is the UCC-3 and the county again.
You have to sign it Without Recourse and you have to put Pay To and leave it blank
because it’s got to be in bearer form. Then you have to sign By Trustee and your signature.
Then below that you have to put For and then the Strawman name in caps plus the Social
Security number without the dashes. So that is for the trust.
You are signing as Trustee for the trust. On the front you have to have the corresponding
account numbers, which is the Strawman in all caps and the Social Security number without
the dashes again. That is signifying the account of the trust again.
Shane
You think there is any requirement to say Exempt From Levy?
CW
No. Levy is on debtor-creditor side.
Shane
Have you got an example of that check you’re suggesting?
CW
Yes, I do. Are you on Skype? I’ll send it to somebody and they can pass it on.
Chris, are you going to be on later tonight?
Chris
Yes. CW I’m not on Skype right now, but if I do I may crash what I’ve got going on right
now. Give my your Skype number.
2:06:25
CW
I just have across the top it’s a Nonnegotiable Money Order number 001 . I put the Date off to the
left and under that is the Pay To the Order Of: and then where the Payee is, that is the
Beneficiary, and that is where I put, as an example, Your Name in. On this one I didn’t put a
Dollar line on there, but I can put that in there later. Below that on the left is the Strawman
account , your all caps name, plus the SS# without the dashes. On the right is the signature line
and that is where I would sign and that is the Grantor/Trustee , because the Grantor is acting as
Trustee there.
Chris
You don’t want me to put that on the newsletter do you?
CW
No, if somebody gets a hold of this they will be all….
Chris
Yeah, I won’t put that in there then. I’ll just pass it among the members.
CW
It’s for everybody’s review, let’s put it that way.
Then on the back side it’s signed Without Recourse. Next line is Pay To and leave that
blank. The next line is By Trustee and the signature line where you sign. Below that is For
Strawman and the SS#, again without the dashes.
Chris
Can you put that on a purchase contract?
CW
Yeah, but you would have to know more about trusts before I would try this and say go out
there and buy something with it. In the blocks I have here in the Description I have in the
Nevada Revised Statute 107.020 and I gave the case number [BK-S-07-16226- LBR] said
that the signature is the Trustor/Grantor and the Payee is the Beneficiary. That is evidence
and the evidence is really the title/records to prove who the Grantor/Beneficiary/Trustee are
by the colorable promissory note or money order, but really it is all a trust. So, this turns
their offer, the debt title, into an asset title, a special deposit under trust, also seen as a
colorable public security instrument after endorsement. You make out a certificate of
deposit, also create the two title/records claiming and the two titles/records merging the
titles as a special deposit/trust deposit as payment. In other words, it’s merged titles, and
return to the offeror. Then send copies of what your titles/records, the deed, to what your
act, to Rios at the private side of the Treasury/IRS.
Shane
So that is almost a self-actualizing set of documents?
CW
Yeah. It comes in the creation of the records, the two records proving everything that you did, two
records to prove that I claimed it to be mine and two records to prove that I merged it.
Chris
The two titles would be UCC-1 and the two merging would be the UCC-3, is that correct?
CW
Yes, the merging is on a 3 and the claiming is on a 1 and each one has a county correspondence
Notice with it. Don’t confuse that UCC-1 being like what that other party was talking about last
week, that they were having problems recording the UCCs in the county. We don’t record UCCs in
the county. That is why they were having problems, they don’t get recorded in the county. You
make up a separate Notice that goes into the county.
Chris
Where does the first notice go?
CW
The notice is nothing more than a record.
Chris
 No, where does the UCC-1 go?
CW
I’m just keeping it in case I need it to prove that it is mine.
Chris
So it’s not going to the Secretary of State?
CW
The copies would be. The copies would go to the …
Chris
Keeping the originals would be the rule of forms and a copy would go to the Secretary of
State, the UCC-1 and then just a Notice of that UCC-1 is recorded in the county?
CW
I am going to do a UCC-1 claiming this is mine, a filing. I’m thinking I can do it online.
You are thinking you are going to send the UCC-1 to the State, yes. That is one notice. Pull it out
- a certified copy.
Chris
How do you pull that out.
CW
Request a certified copy, say you pay the $10 to get a certified copy.
Chris
Now you make a Notice to the county with a certified copy attached?
CW
No, no, no! Do not record anything from the UCC into the county. They won’t let you.
Chris
No, a separate notice?
CW
Yes, do a separate Notice.
Put on the top Notice and then “This is constructive actual notice that …” the document like
I read last night or the night before.
Chris
Yes, RA blah blah blah…
CW
Yeah, claiming and if any further information is needed contact me at the below address.
Record that into the county and pull that back out certified. Keep that. Now you have two
records. You have a UCC-1 certified copy and you have a county recording certified. There
are your two records you claimed it was yours. Do the same thing for the UCC-3 and do it
in the county. You keep the originals there. Never give the originals away.
Chris
Are the originals for in-chambers?
CW
Yes. Now you can make copies of all of that stuff and send that to Rios.
Chris
Do I have to?
CW
Yes, they are your accountants. You have to complete the process.
2:13:40
Jeff
I found out today from the Federal District Court in Seattle, but my local one is in Tacoma,
that I can open up a Miscellaneous file there for $39 and I can put in as many papers as I
want and I can pull out a certified copy for $9.
CW
That is good. It is saving you some money then. As long as you are creating a public record.
Chris
What state is that in?
CW
Washington.
Floyd
In California this morning I did the same thing. I had a notary put in a proof of filing
attached to each document. First was the birth certificate expression and the second was a
transfer when I became of age. I put them in as two separate documents, each one with an
attached notary proof of filing. I had the same experience in California - $39.
Chris
What is the web address for that? How do you find that party.
Jason
Just find your local Federal Court.
CW
It would be the same in all states.
Jason
There is one in every state.
Daniel
By the way, it did not require a cover letter, but what I put in there is Notice of Trust as the
first document on the heading and then I listed it. If you had anyplace to post it to I could
send it to you to use as a template.
Chris
If you send it to lawlearners.net or on Skype to handysummers. I’ll make sure everybody
gets a copy of it.
2:16:35
Terry
Can you tell me if anyone has attempted this and/or succeeded?
CW
No, nobody has tried it yet. It’s fresh off the press.
Terry
That’s what I thought. Thank you, I appreciate you explaining it.
Chris
In other words, you are going to be the guinea pig.
Terry
I’m going to start working on it tomorrow.
Chris
Christian, can you send me that check. Everyone is asking on the Skype window.
CW
I’ll have it after the close of this show. I have a recording going right now and if I bring up
Skype it could crash the recording.