How you can walk away from your Banks unpaid loans

How you can walk away from your unpaid loans promissory notes VOID .If they mark it properly as a consumer purchase then your signature is all that is needed to consider it paid. your signature has value to it, for you represent energy and hard work. you give the government through you working the ability to build and create itself. that is why they consider you or your legal person an asset.Canadian bank notes are what people think that MONEY is ...Canadian bank notes are mediums of exchange that are excepted as A FORM of money. But money in Canada is any negotiable instrument found in the financial administration act .“money” includes negotiable instruments; “negotiable instrument” « effet de commerce » “negotiable instrument” includes any cheque, draft, traveller’s cheque, bill of exchange, postal note, money order, postal remittance and any other similar instrument;

Banks Money and you

Banks Money and you , bank loans promissory notes and consumers , this is so great for reference , Money Is Created by Banks, As self governing individuals we can create our own currency of exchange ;-)  If you have a contract i.e. credit card that you created in the Public as the NAME then if you do not change your relationship with it and you try to A4V it you are in dishonor , the thing is that the law applies to the NAME. In my thought process if you want to be part of there bubble under their jurisdiction then you proclaim yourself as the NAME. Bankers can do what they want in law because it's their currency I know what you are saying and I totally disagree with what is happening but trust me we cant use the system against the system.

Freeman gets pulled and does not consent

Freeman gets pulled and does not consent BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY 1 : DRIVER. One EMPLOYED in conducting a coach,carriage,wagon,or other vehicle NO CONSENT NO CONTRACT NO RULE Peace

No you cannot exempt yourself from common law. The written law statutory functions differently assuming the 'NAME' which is a presumption, they are fooled into thinking that names and words are the problem, but actually jurisdiction is the problem, but it doesn't help that nowadays most police do not even know the law. Even when practiced correctly you'd still have to deal with ignorant police which is a pain. So it is better to deal with their crap and later on work with paper exchanging letters when done properly you can rebut all their presumptions. When people are charged the presumption is used and they assume you are the trustee even in arrest situations. We are not really or we are not supposed to be under statutory jurisdiction, but most are registered with the STATE and have birth certificates on top of their This information is intentionally kept in the dark and there is too much disinfo out there because if we all really figured it out govt would lose a lot of their excess tyrannical power. That's why they always try to tell us we're powerless when in fact without us they are nothing they need us, but if we all figured this out we'd no longer be of much use as slaves. This works on paper and usually not in this situation because most police are actually ignorant of the law these days, but my opinion 9 out of 10 judges knows about this kind of thing and are just being told to keep their mouths shut. Also live birth records and birth certificates are not the same most have both we only really need the live birth record. Any govt agency etc will tell you birth certificates are NOT valid identification. They are not live birth records which they would have us believe these two are one and the same.They talk about "statute" as if it is not a law, playing word-games and semantics games. A "statute" is a law made by a legislative body, in the simplest terms. Wikipedia can be their friend here. Wiki-search for "statute." Additionally, the idea that you (or "your name") is made into some commercial entity (corporation) by birth certificates or whatnot is absurd. It's more semantics games. We can play verbal gymnastics all day. Then begins the laughable business of "Affidavits of Truth" or writing their name in red, or hyphenating names or de-capitalizing names. It's all absolute absurdity. We are *NOT* a democracy; we elect representatives who represent us and make laws on our behalf. Thus, these laws made by our representatives on our behalf carry with them the full authority of the people. While we may feel a disconnect between us the people and our elected officials, they are indeed lawfully elected representatives who have full constitutional authority (and jurisdiction) to legislate laws into effect that bind everyone in the jurisdiction, whether it be federal, state, county, or city. There is absolutely NO opting-out; no process exempts us from the law.

English Freeman standing in court

English freeman standing in court Roger Hayes demands Common Law Jurisdiction When Liz Watson's solicitors costs, escalate from £5000 to almost £90,000, Roger Hayes gets involved and challenges the court's authority. He attends the court as a Common Law Advocate, however the Judge doesn't like this and asks him to leave, at which point Roger calls the Police. Listen to Roger and Liz's account of what went on...

Dean Clifford - Your Role in Courts & Law

Recorded in Winnipeg, Canada between June and August 2011.Keep up the good work of informing the rest of the unconscious humans. The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States...The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. -John Barron v The Mayor and City of Baltimore 32 U.S. 243 (1833) ....paperwork, democratism, communism, common law, country, countries, affidavits, uniform commercial code, oaths, jurisdiction, constitution, bill of rights, blacks law dict, legality, inalienable/unalienable, freeman, human, civil, criminal, sovereign, acts, statutes, national, international treaties, legislation, etc, are they not all hearsay, fictitious & ambiguous?, isn't it just a meeting of the minds?.