Forms follow function


Posted on November 11, 2014 by

Once we have established our claim in the estate and assigned that claim to an account of the United States, we have a resulting private trust which we need to register and provide notice of to the public. One challenge that arises is how can the foreign Grantor sign Form SS-5 and give it to SSA when he is “out of state” and thus can’t “appear in person” at the local SS office to give them the form. The SS-5 instruction has this to say:

In most cases, you can take or mail this signed application with your documents to any Social Security office. Any documents you mail to us will be returned to you…

In other words, it can be submitted by mail and no clerk need watch you sign the application. Or, as Christian Walters might say, that instruction is the Mack Truck opening for the Grantor to mail in the signed application. This makes sense as the Grantor’s “out of state” existence necessitates mailing the application security. That only leaves the question of whether the CP 575 is adequate documentation to establish the Grantor’s (actually, the beneficial owner’s) need for a card. I expect it’s exactly the documentation necessary. Once the card is issued the card holder will thereafter animate the Authorized Representative for the Grantor.

The really important consideration has to do with the naming of the various entities. If the Grantor is “John Henry,” then the Grantor trust (“trusting oneself”) would “inherit” the same name. Bill gave only a couple of hints regarding entity names. One was when he said that since the public couldn’t claim our securities it left the claim available to any finder. That seems to leave the name of the claimant wide open; with only certain practical limitations. The other hint was a code reference that he said showed that the COLB is evidence of the strawman’s perfected lien on the Birth Trust; which he said the Treasury process makes “digestible by the public.”

So to begin, the Grantor name has to be signed off by the trustee of the Birth Trust in the Security Agreement. Second, it has to be authenticated by a notary. The first instance simply means that we control who may sign the SA as Grantor and gain possession of the BC. The second means that we must be prepared to provide the notary with acceptable proof of the Grantor’s identity. In the absence of acceptable ID, or the willingness of the notary herself to vouch for the Grantor, we’ll need two witnesses to the signing who will sign affidavits in the presence of the notary attesting to our identity as the Grantor name. Those affidavits will likely satisfy any notary as it gives them the CYA (in their notary register) they need because it meets their rules for establishing identity. That unrebutted testimony of two witnesses establishes that identity as the truth in commerce. And who could rebut those affidavits by proving a negative? I think that the notarization may actually “legalize” that private identity for recognition in the public. You have to love their rules and methods.

The bottom line seems to be that your Grantor can be “John Henry” or “William Robert” or even “cantinista” for that matter, so long as two persons testify that’s who you are. They are far more likely to testify to “John Henry” being the signer than “cantinista.” Moving forward from the Security Agreement to the Treasury process and, finally, to the credentialing process presents opportunities with respect to naming our proxies. However, I think the correct names are derived in the following manner.

Proxy #1 will “inherit” the Grantor name, but it may also list a dba on line 2 of Form SS4. Line 2 is simply notice to IRS of the Grantor’s right to use the birth name as its unincorporated trademark acquired by the Security Agreement. To wit:

“Filing of this Security Agreement by the Parties constitutes open, lawful, public notice that:

… 3. DEBTOR is the transmitting utility, and unincorporated, proprietary trademark of the Secured Party…”

The key word in that phrase is “unincorporated.” In this case the unincorporated (in the Grantor) nature of the name means that it is incorporated into, or owned by another entity (i.e., the U.S.) That means that the Grantor holds the right to use the name. The name isn’t “of” the Grantor, but it is used “by” the Grantor as the Authorized Representative “for” the Grantor in the jurisdiction of its incorporation (i.e., the U.S. which is the only jurisdiction in which the U.S. has the authority to grant its use)  This is reflected by the status of non citizen (per the foreign Grantor) national (of the U.S., to which it owes only allegiance).  “Allegiance” meaning that it may be used by the Grantor for any peaceful, non-treasonous purpose the Grantor wishes (i.e., commerce) It is a U.S. person/vessel commissioned exclusively to represent the Grantor in U.S. commerce.

Such an arrangement is well-illustrated by current commercial examples. Doritos® is a trademark of FritoLay Corp., but it is being used “by” Taco Bell “for” their Doritos Locos Tacos, and more recently, by PepsiCo “for” a  Doritos®-flavored Mountain Dew® (DEWitos?) beverage. In other words, Frito-Lay has granted Taco Bell and PepsiCo limited rights to their Doritos® trademark “for” certain of their products. I suppose it’s only a matter of time until we see the ultimate brand name Monster Mash-up of a Potato Buds®-flavored energy drink. But then, I digress 🙂

So the use of the birth name to represent the Grantor is authorized by the Security Agreement (SOI) and is noticed to IRS on line 2 of Form SS4, and then to SSA on line 1 of Form SS-5 (both are NsOI). Form SSA-3000 (SS card), subsequently issued by SSA, certifies that name as the Authorized Representative for the Grantor in the public. The non citizen national status shown on the card differentiates this new person from the strawman citizen/taxpayer shown on previous cards. The use of the same name and number by two different persons is resolved by the termination of the taxpayer status and the certification of the Authorized Representative status as the “sole fiduciary for setoff and administration” in the Individual Master File. That’s slicker than the new Smucker’s® grape-flavored KY® jelly!

Sorry, no link…


Response to Forms follow function

  1. Tom

    Hi Cantinista,

    I’m a member of reclaim your securities. I’ve gone through all the posts and study this material all day. Are you sure you need the security agreement authenticated by a notary? I think we just need to have the debtor authenticate the security agreement and then when we file the UCC-1. The name you place in the secured party field automatically gets converted to a trust. So, if your name is JOHN HENRY DOE you could put JOHN HENRY DOE, AR. Then JOHN HENRY DOE, AR becomes grantor and can assign his interest, using a UCC-3, over to a trust with any name he chooses. He needs to request an EIN for the trust with a SS-4 or by phone but once his trust is created and witnessed by a notary and the security interest assigned over to the trust then you should be good to go.

    Tell me what you think.


    • cantinista Post author


      I’m not certain if an earlier reply through gmail got through to you so I’m sending it again through the comments section at

      I would refer you to post #2202, the next to last message that Bill made on the forum. I’ve appended it below. Pay particular attention to the third paragraph as I’m sure he was referring to just such situations as the authentication of the security agreement. We need the authentication because we’ll need to file it with the public to register our status.

      I would also refer you to post #1578 which isn’t from Bill, but it may very well show something that was sent TO Bill by a mentor of his. I’ve found that post to be something of a road map of the process in that it only provides an outline of what we have to do rather than how to do it.That’s also what Bill seems to have tried to do – tell us what we have to accomplish and leave it to us to do the research into how and why.

      See if you don’t agree after considering those posts.

      – cantinista


        Expand Messages

        Dec 25, 2012
        I can see there’s a bit of confusion about notaries public, authentication and BC. Contrary to what’s been written in some of the posts, the name tells you the capacity of the office. When a notary uses the prescribed authentication or jurat language, it does “bring the signer into the public” in a matter of speaking, by overseeing his confession as the “person” listed in that language. The term person is defined in the IRC, Sec. 7701 as a corp, partnership, indiv, estate or trust in which a US person has authority to make ALL substantial decisions.

        This is only a problem if your goal is to try to bull your way through society and its armies of trained protectors as a self-confessed private. WE DON’T NEED TO DO THAT to reclaim our securities, establish and live through trusts, establish the controlling estate, or similar undertakings where we use fictions to control fictions. They use fictions posing as “individuals” to control us. So we create individuals in the nature o trusts to control them. Who better to learn from than the masters of misnomer? Patriots have been so trained to fight and argue, many can’t even conceive of using the system to their own advantage.

        However, if we need to go private at any time, the problem is that the sheeple have been trained to not file docs without a notary’s signature, and the sig is needed to authenticate. So we alter the language accordingly to remove terms like “person,” and add disclaimers indicating that use of the notary does not stipulate to an election to submit to the jurisdiction. Then it is what we say it is.

        As with many patriot concepts, we seem to act as if there’s some secret formula or code to be discovered to understand the issue, when its usually right in front of our face if you trust your own knowledge, or if you research it on the internet usually requiring less time than it takes to complain how it wasn’t researched, deciphered, explained, and spoon-fed to you as one of the recent posts complained.

        As to authentication, I was referring to the clerks who issue the document. I am not concerned that a clerk won’t file it because usually its served privately, and if we choose to file it, it’s the ONLY proof that is recognized as proved for admission into a case under Fed Rule of Civ Proc 44 and 28 USC 1739 (the US judicial code). In fact, AUTHENTICATION IS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE IT IS A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCUMENT, HENCE IT CREATES THE court of record VENUE. The clerks’ limited knowledge may be “Oh that’s only good outside the United States,” to which I answer, “Show it to the judge and tell him we’ve invoking superior jurisdiction.”

        An authenticated BC and the associated CUSIP can be sand in the gears. Those who chooe to REALLY decipher 1739 and 44 can probably parlay that into any remedy they want with a little bit of imagination.

        I STRONGLY SUGGEST PEOPLE USE THE POWER OF INTERNET SEARCH TO RESEARCH ISSUES LIKE THIS INSTEAD OF SPECULATING. Even Wikipedia articles can be useful in setting you on the right path. Bill

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *