IMO, Boris's paradigm is based on the reality of the military occupation of the united States of America that started on April 15, 1861when President Lincoln by the power vested in him (as Commander in Chief) summoned both Houses of Congress to convene on July 4, 1861.
"Martial law and or Martial Rule are branches of the law of war, which is a branch of the law of nations which is Roman based international law; Justinian's code and regulation which has been in effect since April 15, 1861. The U.S. CODE sits under the Lieber Code and not the "We the People" constitution?
Congress sits under the commander-in-Chief as do the STATES, COURTS and all LAW enforcement.
If Lincoln and those who came after him did away with the common law what was put in its place?
But I believe our people's captivity under "military rule" truly began MUCH earlier, in 721 BC when the Assyrian Empire conquered the Northern 10 Tribes of Israel. See the Military Rule page for more information on that history.
So, if military rule is the "reality" of our current situation here in America, then, we need to develop a remedy based on starting from that reality.
Using the UCC is honoring a system used by our captors. If the UCC is used to "surrender" and make "peace" with our captors, then it may in fact be the escape clause that the Creator promised to provide for "His people" in 1 Cor 10:13.
Was not Daniel blessed and protected while serving the King of Babylon?
Isn't the "daughter of Zion" (true church today) told to "Go to Babylon. There you will be rescued."? (Mic 4:10)
Notice that the use of the word "surrender" necessarily implies that "you" must be Owner of something in some respect in order to "surrender" it.
Why else would they even be sending "you" a "bill"?
Boris uses "naked owner" to describe why they are approaching you for the "NAME".
In Trust, and in military seizure, ownership usually has been split into legal and equitable title.
The State seized (by pledge or military conquest) LEGAL title only.
The Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) is evidence of equitable title (indemnification), which title you are holding now when you appear to be alive on the record (via UCC-1 or other county record) and claim that equitable title.
This equitable title is the 'reversionary interest" that re-vests to you upon your "appearance to be alive", and this equitable title is what you indeed "surrender" to State, which then now holds BOTH Legal and Equitable Titles, causing the usufruct to end (page 407, point II "Merger") and extinguishing the associated debt by operation of law - 12 USC 95a(2). Boris's article entitled "Equitable right to setoff" has related material supporting the above.
IMO, this is how I see Boris's "Usufruct Surrender" technology working.
4-7-2015: Boris is said to be reviewing what is wrong with his approach:
"If one's guru was mistaken, and failed to create the immunity he was preaching by ending up in jail, does that NOT cause one pause to consider what false premise is poisoning the well?
What is wrong with what Boris is preaching, that caused people to suffer and have to sacrifice to bail him out? Why continue the wrong, instead of ask the question: what did he do wrong?