Mortgage Companies Scamming Home BUyers as their Promissory Notes are worth the value of their loan on dual ledger system

The Dual Realms of Public Debt and Private Credit: Understanding the Unseen Financial Divide

In the realm of financial obligations, there is a fundamental principle that separates the tangible from the intangible, the government-created from the individually created. This principle states that public debt, which is reflected in government-issued bonds, cannot be intermingled with private credit instruments. Essentially, what is owed publicly cannot be directly offset by private credit.

When an individual, acting as a private creditor, issues a bond, it signifies a public debt. This bond can be used to settle other public debts, but it must remain on the public side of the accounting ledger. Private instruments, such as personal promissory notes, should not use public identifiers like federal reserve routing numbers; instead, they should utilize private routing numbers associated with an individual’s Employer Identification Number (EIN) along with a closed account number.

This closed account number, once accepted and listed on a UCC-1 filing, transitions to the private side, earmarked for personal adjustment and setoff. This act of acceptance signifies that the individual has informed relevant authorities, like the Treasury, that the account is being used as collateral, thus establishing secured party rights.

See Related: “Understanding UCC Filings: The Impact on Business Assets and Credit

The filing of a UCC-1 is not to claim these rights, which are inherently private, but rather to notify the public side of one’s secured position. This allows the individual to use their account for the adjustment and setoff of public debts. Interestingly, while actual currency does not exist on the private ledger, on the public side, debt is utilized as a currency substitute to discharge other public debts.

A poignant case in point is a letter acquired from a confidential source where an individual demands from their lender a cash receipt for a promissory note or a discharge of the outstanding balance. This right to claim stems from the factual assertion that the note itself holds value which has been monetized and should be accounted for, providing the individual with a right to reclaim it or its equivalent value, and proceeds from it.

a Promissory Note is actually a assets with cash value given cash is just actually DEBT. THER IS NO MONEY

a Promissory Note is actually a asset to the borrower with cash value given cash is just actually DEBT. THER IS NO MONEY.

 

In essence, the law maintains a clear separation between the roles of public entities and private individuals, especially in financial dealings. This separation ensures that the state, which operates in the public sphere, cannot lay direct claims against an individual, but may instead approach the ‘straw man’—a term used to describe the entity created by public registration, such as licenses or business registrations. The state’s interest lies not in the tangible assets registered to the ‘straw man’ but rather in the individual’s credit.

When the state faces a shortage, metaphorically needing ‘paperclips’ for its operations, it seeks out resources. Taxation, licenses, and fees are traditional means, but not always sufficient. Therefore, the state often turns to the individual’s credit, and if not willingly provided, may leverage the individual’s failure to comply—or ‘dishonor’—as a means to access it. This scenario underlines the importance of understanding the interplay between personal liability and public claims, emphasizing the need for individuals to recognize and assert their rights within this complex system.

Leave your vote

More

Don’t Stop Here

More To Explore

20410479 329d 40a2 8d4d 492022986bb5

Void Means Void: When Judges Act Without Jurisdiction, Their Orders Are Legal Nullities

When a court acts without lawful jurisdiction—whether through improper removal, lack of subject matter or personal authority, or constitutional violations—its orders are void ab initio and carry no legal force. This article explains how judges who continue to issue rulings after losing jurisdiction are not merely mistaken—they are acting under color of law and are subject to direct civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Backed by black-letter case law and statutory authority, this piece dismantles the myth of absolute judicial immunity and affirms a fundamental truth in law: jurisdiction is everything. When it’s gone, so is the court’s power to act.

Riverside County Commissioner Tamara Wagner Sued Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Railroading Plaintiffs Under Color of Law Without Jurisdiction

Riverside County Commissioner Tamara Wagner Sued Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Railroading Plaintiffs Under Color of Law Without Jurisdiction

In a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiffs Kevin: Realworldfare and Corey: Walker expose Riverside Court Commissioner Tamara L. Wagner’s unlawful railroading under color of law and total absence of jurisdiction. Despite a pending Quiet Title Action and perfected federal removal, Wagner issued void orders to dispossess the Walker Estate—yet the Estate remains lawfully and firmly in possession. Now under Article III jurisdiction, Judge Kenly Kiya Kato presides over the live case, which alleges constitutional violations, commercial fraud, and abuse of process. This is a high-stakes confrontation between equity and overreach—where immunity fails and facts prevail.

Judges Can Be Sued: Public Servants, Oaths, and Liability Under the Clearfield Doctrine AND 42 U.S.C. 1983

Judges Can Be Sued: Public Servants, Oaths, and Liability Under the Clearfield Doctrine AND 42 U.S.C. 1983

Judges are not immune when they operate outside lawful jurisdiction, conspire under color of law, or engage in commercial enforcement without consent. Under the Clearfield Doctrine, they become corporate actors subject to liability like any private party. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 enables civil rights lawsuits against them individually, while 18 U.S.C. §§ 241–242 provides for criminal penalties for conspiracy and deprivation of rights. Through tort law, UCC, and case law like Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844 (9th Cir. 1980), and Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984), judges can face personal and injunctive accountability.

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.

error: Content is protected !!