March 2, 2014 – Protect/Assert your Interest

Hi Lovers and friends…………,

Securities Act:

“Minister” means the Minister of Finance or such other member of the Executive Council to whom the administration of this Act may be assigned; (“ministre”)

“security” includes,

(b) any document constituting evidence of title to or interest in the capital, assets, property, profits, earnings or royalties of any person or company…..(for purposes of this discussion a SoB is evidence of title and a BC evidence of a interest)

Title:

7. Law

a. The coincidence of all the elements that constitute the fullest legal right to control and dispose of property or a claim.

b. The aggregate evidence that gives rise to a legal right of possession or control.

c. The instrument, such as a deed, that constitutes this evidence.

Legal owner:

Entity that has an enforceable claim or title to an asset or property, and is recognized as such by law. For example, a lender is the legal owner of a property (mortgaged as a collateral for payment of a loan) by a borrower who is its legal possessor and retains only the right of redemption in it.

Interest (Blacks Law 4th Ed):

Absolute or conditional. That is an absolute interest in property which is so completely vested in the individual that he can by no contingency be deprived of it WITHOUT HIS OWN CONSENT.

Alrighty then, we are going to see here if we can clear things up some. I had inkling that perhaps we are the legal owner, not the equitable owner.

We will begin with the term “Legal owner” as above. We see it is the lender in whom legal title is vest. We know the holder of equitable title has the right to call for the legal title but only after he has paid his obligation to the lender. The term legal owner does not mean the holder of that title has liability as owner. It is not the bank paying the taxes and jumping through the hoops etc.

I then thought we need to know how to identify self in respect of claims. I read that term for legal owner on the net and thought, we are the legal owner because we are the ones paying for the goods and services, property; but, we do not hold the evidence of title to the registered legal name or property, assets etc, in that name. I see then we are as a lender.

Individuals are as banks in that, we do the work, earn or are given money, purchase property with it but do not own the property.

Banks lend money to accommodate another for the purchase of property but banks do not own the property. When a bank lends money it has an interest and as such, an enforceable claim.

I see we are really no different than a bank in that, we provide the funds obtained by gift or fruits of labour that property may be purchased in a name we do not hold the evidence of title to = a form of lending. Notes issued by a borrower to a bank are generally paid off via fruits of labour of the borrower. Money or credit then is dependant upon human labour. Labour is the foundation of capital and ought be given the highest consideration (Abe Lincoln).

I then wondered what legal owner really means and it comes down to; INTEREST. Lenders are not owners of property; they have an INTEREST in property.

I uncovered that the term “legal owner” and “interest” are synonymous. The term “title” and “interest” are not synonymous. See Blacks Law 4th Ed page 950

When the borrower pays off the debt the bank no longer has an interest and must hand over legal title to the former borrower. If the borrower defaults the legal title vest in the lender gives the lender the right to call for the property. Seize and sell it. That is the power of having a interest in property.

There can be two or more parties with an interest in the same thing. I call these competing interests. Each party with an interest can assert his claim of interest and upon proof of interest has standing. If a bank was to lend 50% of the purchase price and the borrower put up the other 50%, then each party has a 50% interest.

In our case, since the government holds the evidence of title to the property, assets, etc in the name we do the work in, we, have an interest and I am suggesting here that is what the BC is evidence of, proof of interest.

Say you have a new car you purchased outright. You have “absolute interest” because there is no competing interest. If funds were borrowed to fund the purchase then you have a “conditional interest” because the lender also has an interest in the same property.

There can be an absolute owner, absolute interest, or conditional interest. We cannot be absolute owner of anything in the legal name but do have an absolute interest. The holder of the interest controls the owner.

Bottom line is this. By fact government holds the evidence of title to the property in the registered legal name and we people are the reason property is in those name, we have an interest. The government has not put up anything whatsoever in exchange for title to that property. So it is like the government is 100% financed by us; we are the bank.

But, things are playing out in the reverse. We are viewed as the owner, holding evidence of title, and the government as holder of the interest. That is why they can take property, coupled with, and this is big, we do not assert or claim an interest.GOVERNMENT HAS NOT GIVEN ANYTHING TO BE OWNER OF ANYTHING IN THE NAMES IT HOLDS LEGAL TITLE TO. WE ARE THE ONES DOING THE WORK.

If you look on the permit to the car it has a place for signature of owner. Even though we do not hold the actual title documents to the name or property, we are not the owner, in this example of a car; when we sign as owner we look like an owner. Same with declaring this is all my income.

Every thing we sign with mere signature allows for the presumption we are owners. When I signed “FOR BVR back in 2006 neither the conviction was registered nor an attempt made to collect. By signing for I took away the possibility for presumption “I” accept liability.

There are only two interests here for us to be concerned with; ownership of or interest in property.

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.

As holder of the SoB, evidence of title to the property, assets etc in the registered legal name, it looks like the government has the apparent right of ownership and possession, same as a debtor homeowner, but, we have an interest same as a lnder/bank. It is that interest, just like banks have and for the same reasons that we can prevent anyone from taking property from us or recover the property. In other words, until the government, borrower, pays us for property it on the face is owner of, our interest supersedes its apparent right of ownership and possession. Same when lenders are involved such as a bank. The guy living in a home has the apparent right of ownership and possession but the home is still subject to the interest vest in the lender to the extent of the amount owning.

Karl Lentz mentioned about a man and woman having their children returned that were taken by government. That can work because the children are a product of the work of mom and dad, intercourse, no third parties, and so there are no competing interests.

Things change a bit thought with respect to the legal name game because the government does in fact hold the evidence of title to property, assets, fruits of your labour, in that name on it. But, because the property etc in that name got there as a result of our works, we have an interest and it is that interest, just like lenders, that give us priority claim to any and all property in the registered legal name.

In these cases I would not say the thing, car, home etc, is my property, but that I have an interest in the thing and I will retain or recover possession of that thing as a security, collateral, unless the government pays for it. Same as banks right? If the borrower/owner defaults the banks take possession. In our case we already have possession. Well the government has never paid one penny to me to be absolute owner of property in the name BVR which is why we have possession.

There would be no property or assets etc in these registered legal names if not for us providing the funding resulting from labour or gift to acquire property in those registered legal names we are not the owner of, the government is. It holds the evidence of legal title thus is the owner with an apparent right of ownership or possession but it is conditional because we has a provable interest claim.

Banks do not lend their money, they funds loans based on the future performance, labour of the borrower. The borrower is funding the loan and we are essentially funding government for the same reasons. Banks never go to court as owner but assert their interest. We lent him money so he could be the owner of a home and he defaulted.

So for the same reasons numerous people have homes they may not otherwise have, had a lender not extended credit, government would not haveapparent right of ownership and possession if not for us.

Banks have a lot of power and this power is based on having an interest, not ownership.

As I have shared the last few months, we own nothing because we do not hold the evidence of title to the name we do the work in and that property is accounted or registered or recorded under. BUT WE CERTAINLY HAVE AN INTEREST.

The beauty of this is we already have all the paperwork we need. We just need to know our rights, what they are, why we have them, and assert them.

I will go more into this on Angel’s Talkshoe this coming Thursday.

With Love

“I AM” the Resurrection and the Life……………….

1