Envoy sent as emissary to secure peace

Printable View

04-06-11, 04:19 PM
motla68

1 Attachment(s)

Envoy sent as emissary to secure peace

Let's try to stay focused on the thread topic this time and not dirty it with throwing mud attaching it to any other post I have put on this forum, including referencing the name Coresource material or any derivative thereof. Thank you.

ENVOY SENT AS EMISSARY TO SECURE PEACE

Posted: Friday, March 11, 2011 by Onlashuk in Born Without Money

“I AM Envoy here as an Emissary to secure the peace. You can call me Envoy.” The message that I have to convey is there has been a mistake, where is the proper notice that I may deal with this matter honorable? Since it is true that, “No man can serve two masters,” therefore, it is also true that it would be inappropriate for this Envoy to be involved in matters that do not concern me or my God for the sake of honor and peace. Furthermore, it is my mission to express and convey unto you that there is no claim of ownership concerning this matter, and if there has been any trespass, that forgiveness is asked for as it is also given for any likewise trespass, wherein there may appear to be any kind of fraud or identity theft, so that this matter can be settled by the appropriate parties honorable and without any interference.

EN’VOY, n. [L. via; Eng. way, contracted from viag, vag, or wag.]

1. A person deputed by a prince or government, to negotiate a treaty, or transact other business, with a foreign prince or government. We usually apply the word to a public minister sent on a special occasion, or for one particular purpose; hence an envoy is distinguished from an ambassador or permanent resident at a foreign court, and is of inferior rank. But envoys are ordinary and extraordinary, and the word may sometimes be applied to resident ministers.

EM’ISSARY, n. [L. emissarius, from emitto; e and mitto, to send.]

A person sent on a mission; a missionary employed to preach and propagate the gospel.

2. A person sent on a private message or business; a secret agent, employed to sound or ascertain the opinions of others, and to spread reports or propagate opinions favorable to his employer, or designed to defeat the measures or schemes of his opposers or foes; a spy; but an emissary may differ from a spy. A spy in war is one who enters an enemy’s camp or territories to learn the condition of the enemy; an emissary may be a secret agent employed not only to detect the schemes of an opposing party, but to influence their councils. A spy in war must be concealed, or he suffers death; an emissary may in some cases be known as the agent of an adversary, without incurring similar hazard.

Jer 49:14
I have heard a rumour from the LORD, and an ambassador is sent unto the heathen, saying, Gather ye together, and come against her, and rise up to the battle.

Obadiah 1:1
The vision of Obadiah. Thus saith the Lord GOD concerning Edom; We have heard a rumour from the LORD, and an ambassador is sent among the heathen, Arise ye, and let us rise up against her in battle.

Canon 1557
An Ecclesiastical Deed Poll must always be on robin-egg blue paper in recognition and respect of its status as a Divine Notice with the full authority of One Heaven, in particular the Sacred Rota and twelve Apostolic Prothonotaries as well as Apostolic Prothorabban of the Divine Sanhedrin.

Canon 1563
An Ecclesiastical Deed Poll must always be on robin-egg blue paper and glued strongly to the reverse of a copy of the 1st page of any notice, demand, summons sent by the inferior Roman Person.

Attachment 267

PRIVATE. Not general, as a private act of the legislature; not in office;
as, a private person, as well as an officer, may arrest a felon; individual,
as your private interest; not public, as a private way, a private nuisance.
- 1856 Bouviers Dictionary

I cannot show you what is wrapped in that blue paper because it is private by definition above, but I can tell you about it.

- Robin-egg blue paper, wrapped 4 fold.

- Inside what was wrapped:

1. printout from online showing the certified mail previously delivered by notice of my visit and purpose for me being there.

2. copy of presentment (ticket) that had Some language written upon it that was sent in with the notice by certified mail.
[ stamped deposit for credit - in red ] [ written: This account name and number is property of the United States of America, please deposit to owner care of Treasury of the United States of America. Thank you ]

3. copy of instrument printed out from the DMV that the vehicle was registered with the state.
( nothing i wrote on it)

4. copy of Birth Certificate

- All 4 sheets were stapled together.
04-06-11, 09:39 PM
Michael Joseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by motla68

Let's try to stay focused on the thread topic this time and not dirty it with throwing mud attaching it to any other post I have put on this forum, including referencing the name Coresource material or any derivative thereof. Thank you.

ENVOY SENT AS EMISSARY TO SECURE PEACE

Posted: Friday, March 11, 2011 by Onlashuk in Born Without Money

“I AM Envoy here as an Emissary to secure the peace. You can call me Envoy.” The message that I have to convey is there has been a mistake, where is the proper notice that I may deal with this matter honorable? Since it is true that, “No man can serve two masters,” therefore, it is also true that it would be inappropriate for this Envoy to be involved in matters that do not concern me or my God for the sake of honor and peace. Furthermore, it is my mission to express and convey unto you that there is no claim of ownership concerning this matter, and if there has been any trespass, that forgiveness is asked for as it is also given for any likewise trespass, wherein there may appear to be any kind of fraud or identity theft, so that this matter can be settled by the appropriate parties honorable and without any interference.

EN’VOY, n. [L. via; Eng. way, contracted from viag, vag, or wag.]

1. A person deputed by a prince or government, to negotiate a treaty, or transact other business, with a foreign prince or government. We usually apply the word to a public minister sent on a special occasion, or for one particular purpose; hence an envoy is distinguished from an ambassador or permanent resident at a foreign court, and is of inferior rank. But envoys are ordinary and extraordinary, and the word may sometimes be applied to resident ministers.

EM’ISSARY, n. [L. emissarius, from emitto; e and mitto, to send.]

A person sent on a mission; a missionary employed to preach and propagate the gospel.

2. A person sent on a private message or business; a secret agent, employed to sound or ascertain the opinions of others, and to spread reports or propagate opinions favorable to his employer, or designed to defeat the measures or schemes of his opposers or foes; a spy; but an emissary may differ from a spy. A spy in war is one who enters an enemy’s camp or territories to learn the condition of the enemy; an emissary may be a secret agent employed not only to detect the schemes of an opposing party, but to influence their councils. A spy in war must be concealed, or he suffers death; an emissary may in some cases be known as the agent of an adversary, without incurring similar hazard.

Jer 49:14
I have heard a rumour from the LORD, and an ambassador is sent unto the heathen, saying, Gather ye together, and come against her, and rise up to the battle.

Obadiah 1:1
The vision of Obadiah. Thus saith the Lord GOD concerning Edom; We have heard a rumour from the LORD, and an ambassador is sent among the heathen, Arise ye, and let us rise up against her in battle.

Canon 1557
An Ecclesiastical Deed Poll must always be on robin-egg blue paper in recognition and respect of its status as a Divine Notice with the full authority of One Heaven, in particular the Sacred Rota and twelve Apostolic Prothonotaries as well as Apostolic Prothorabban of the Divine Sanhedrin.

Canon 1563
An Ecclesiastical Deed Poll must always be on robin-egg blue paper and glued strongly to the reverse of a copy of the 1st page of any notice, demand, summons sent by the inferior Roman Person.

Attachment 267

Hey Suitors wake up. Motla68 is showing you EXACTLY what you did with the Libel of Review. Well sort of anyways, with a twist.

Comes now True Name of the NOMEN family speaking for his family and estate, a regenerate man in the faith of Yehoshua H’Mashiach and making a special visitation by absolute ministerial right to the district court, "restricted appearance" .................

"Gee, Rocky, I believe I was speaking for an estate, would that make me a trustee of a foreign trust to the United States?"

"Uh, that's right Bullwinkle. You were an Envoy negotiating an agreement."

"Gee, Rock, thanks, i never knew."

----------------------------------------------

"Gee, Rock, I wonder what estate I was speaking for?"

"Only you know, Bullwinkle, only you can know."

----------------------------------------------

Motla68 does not have that kind of agreement. He handles his busiiness differently. What you think there is ONLY one path? Ridiculous.

Zec 2:7 Deliver thyself, O Zion, that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon.

----------------------------------------------

I myself do not go for this one-heaven business. That is not to say that I have not learned from other men associated with one-heaven, I have. My deed poll is my Word - Who shall lay any charge upon God's Elect? - and my action.

----------------------------------------------

I have however come to appreciate what private Property - means.
04-06-11, 09:44 PM
motla68

If you are interested in hearing a story of how this was used in a particular situation, got to the following link:

http://onlashuk.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/dealing-with-a-traffic-ticket-peacefully-part-2-of-2/

Enjoy the entertainment.

Notice: This thread is NOT legal advice, if you need such advice seek a competent attorney for consultation if such beast exists.
04-06-11, 10:16 PM
motla68

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Joseph

Hey Suitors wake up. Motla68 is showing you EXACTLY what you did with the Libel of Review. Well sort of anyways, with a twist.

Comes now True Name of the NOMEN family speaking for his family and estate, a regenerate man in the faith of Yehoshua H’Mashiach and making a special visitation by absolute ministerial right to the district court, "restricted appearance" .................

"Gee, Rocky, I believe I was speaking for an estate, would that make me a trustee of a foreign trust to the United States?"

"Uh, that's right Bullwinkle. You were an Envoy negotiating an agreement."

"Gee, Rock, thanks, i never knew."

----------------------------------------------

"Gee, Rock, I wonder what estate I was speaking for?"

"Only you know, Bullwinkle, only you can know."

----------------------------------------------

Motla68 does not have that kind of agreement. He handles his busiiness differently. What you think there is ONLY one path? Ridiculous.

Zec 2:7 Deliver thyself, O Zion, that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon.

----------------------------------------------

I myself do not go for this one-heaven business. That is not to say that I have not learned from other men associated with one-heaven, I have. My deed poll is my Word - Who shall lay any charge upon God's Elect? - and my action.

----------------------------------------------

I have however come to appreciate what private Property - means.

Some things are necessary for effective communication, some things you do the same, other things you do differently. But always there is power in equality:
( Can you point out in this video, what is the same and what is different?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=resUyjKmOj0

There is another scene in this movie where he strikes up a friendship with a french speaking man, somewhere in the middle they find a mutual communication in which they have a meeting of the minds. Ghost Dog: " meet my best friend " :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dj3si4OuIg

There is more then one dimension of thought and communication, as MJ said: " What you think there is ONLY one path? Ridiculous."

On another note: I do not consent to being associated with One-Heavan, what was done was not with their kind of deed-pole. I have shown biblical versus and Canon law to show you there can be some mutual understanding when you are a guest in someone else's house.
My word is my bond, most others scream for some kind of foreign situs in which I have no knowledge of but I find the language so some form of communication can be had here.
04-06-11, 11:27 PM
David Merrill

1 Attachment(s)

Misdirection, Obfuscation!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by motla68

Let's try to stay focused on the thread topic this time and not dirty it with throwing mud attaching it to any other post I have put on this forum, including referencing the name Coresource material or any derivative thereof. Thank you.

ENVOY SENT AS EMISSARY TO SECURE PEACE

Posted: Friday, March 11, 2011 by Onlashuk in Born Without Money

“I AM Envoy here as an Emissary to secure the peace. You can call me Envoy.” The message that I have to convey is there has been a mistake, where is the proper notice that I may deal with this matter honorable? Since it is true that, “No man can serve two masters,” therefore, it is also true that it would be inappropriate for this Envoy to be involved in matters that do not concern me or my God for the sake of honor and peace. Furthermore, it is my mission to express and convey unto you that there is no claim of ownership concerning this matter, and if there has been any trespass, that forgiveness is asked for as it is also given for any likewise trespass, wherein there may appear to be any kind of fraud or identity theft, so that this matter can be settled by the appropriate parties honorable and without any interference.

EN’VOY, n. [L. via; Eng. way, contracted from viag, vag, or wag.]

1. A person deputed by a prince or government, to negotiate a treaty, or transact other business, with a foreign prince or government. We usually apply the word to a public minister sent on a special occasion, or for one particular purpose; hence an envoy is distinguished from an ambassador or permanent resident at a foreign court, and is of inferior rank. But envoys are ordinary and extraordinary, and the word may sometimes be applied to resident ministers.

EM’ISSARY, n. [L. emissarius, from emitto; e and mitto, to send.]

A person sent on a mission; a missionary employed to preach and propagate the gospel.

2. A person sent on a private message or business; a secret agent, employed to sound or ascertain the opinions of others, and to spread reports or propagate opinions favorable to his employer, or designed to defeat the measures or schemes of his opposers or foes; a spy; but an emissary may differ from a spy. A spy in war is one who enters an enemy’s camp or territories to learn the condition of the enemy; an emissary may be a secret agent employed not only to detect the schemes of an opposing party, but to influence their councils. A spy in war must be concealed, or he suffers death; an emissary may in some cases be known as the agent of an adversary, without incurring similar hazard.

Jer 49:14
I have heard a rumour from the LORD, and an ambassador is sent unto the heathen, saying, Gather ye together, and come against her, and rise up to the battle.

Obadiah 1:1
The vision of Obadiah. Thus saith the Lord GOD concerning Edom; We have heard a rumour from the LORD, and an ambassador is sent among the heathen, Arise ye, and let us rise up against her in battle.

Canon 1557
An Ecclesiastical Deed Poll must always be on robin-egg blue paper in recognition and respect of its status as a Divine Notice with the full authority of One Heaven, in particular the Sacred Rota and twelve Apostolic Prothonotaries as well as Apostolic Prothorabban of the Divine Sanhedrin.

Canon 1563
An Ecclesiastical Deed Poll must always be on robin-egg blue paper and glued strongly to the reverse of a copy of the 1st page of any notice, demand, summons sent by the inferior Roman Person.

Attachment 267

PRIVATE. Not general, as a private act of the legislature; not in office;
as, a private person, as well as an officer, may arrest a felon; individual,
as your private interest; not public, as a private way, a private nuisance.
- 1856 Bouviers Dictionary

I cannot show you what is wrapped in that blue paper because it is private by definition above, but I can tell you about it.

- Robin-egg blue paper, wrapped 4 fold.

- Inside what was wrapped:

1. printout from online showing the certified mail previously delivered by notice of my visit and purpose for me being there.

2. copy of presentment (ticket) that had Some language written upon it that was sent in with the notice by certified mail.
[ stamped deposit for credit - in red ] [ written: This account name and number is property of the United States of America, please deposit to owner care of Treasury of the United States of America. Thank you ]

3. copy of instrument printed out from the DMV that the vehicle was registered with the state.
( nothing i wrote on it)

4. copy of Birth Certificate

- All 4 sheets were stapled together.

I am going to be succinct and direct.

Motla68 has written some 200 posts here and they all strongly imply that he has a method of process that will abate or avoid prosecution; even to the point that he claims to have handed the above described process to the ADA and not spoken a word.

I believe him. Even without MJ believing him, I have already expressed, the exact same remedy - redeeming lawful money is being employed. Look:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...3&d=1300366699

The verbiage that is effective, and written into the law is,

Deposited for Credit on Account or Exchanged for Non-redeemable Australian Bank Notes.

Motla68 has excluded the effective verbiage in his post:

...or Exchanged for Non-redeemable Australian Bank Notes.

As I have explained some time ago, albeit translated into Australian banking, this is making your demand for lawful money according to §16 of the Fed Act and Title 12 U.S.C. §411. It uses verbiage only a banker or his attorney will understand, but the whole concept of returning the coupon for payment at the Treasury is faulty.

http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/7...certnobond.jpg

What Motla68 has done is pretend to finally try his best to appease me by what appears to be transparency and full disclosure but he has excluded the remedy written into the law, even after disclosing it earlier!

Suitors know the dangers of trying mythological remedies in court, while being prosecuted. We have a suitor in federal prison now who still believes in RAP/RuSA.

Quote:

Original call info is: Tonight, Tuesday April 6, 8pm EST - Call number is 424-203-8000 pin code 888462# if you can’t get in dial one of these and follow the instructions 805-360-1075 or 559-546-1400

The leader - James Timothy TURNER has been lying and his lies disabled our fellow suitor from forming a proper defense at trial. If you want to give a listen, get on that call or download it after when they post it.

My point is, as you can see, I will put myself on the line for suitors, and have witnessed them do the same for me. That is a Class 5 felony to sign using the Great Seal of Authority and I did it right in front of the federal Justices of the Tenth Circuit. Additionally nobody, according to the rules is allowed to file an amicus curiae there unless they have leave of the court, and consent of both parties. Yet there you have it - FILED! The only one with authority to file an amicus curiae is the State, Territory or the District of Columbia; a statesman. Instead of being arrested, indicted or ignored, the clerk of court, who knows the rules better than anybody filed it.

People trying to learn on this forum deserve to have the law on their side when they work up the chutzpa to finally face down their conditioning. The misdirection demonstrated by Motla68 is intentional. I do not know the motivation behind it but it was done subtly enough that at first glance, even Michael Joseph missed it. Motla68 is directing that the government agency return the obligation to the US Treasury and has excluded the verbiage that adheres in conformity to the remedy written into the law and accepted by the banking industry that holds up in court.

However, for this process performances that he will not share with us, if they have worked, I believe I have shown ample evidence from Motla68 himself even, as to why - because he included the remedy written into the law. For all this time he has been leading me on knowing this.

He is banished. I am not going to be babysitting the promotion of the Strawman Redemption, Treasury Direct Coupon Remittance or whatever you want to call it. There is likely some substance there but it is unproven at best, and the soluble remedy has been excluded intentionally from Motla68's explanation as I have quoted him accurately. His passive-aggressive narcissism has been a pain that alone, I would have tolerated, but endangering the readers here with intentional misdirection will not be tolerated.

The Admin team will be reviewing this decision as well as describing rules for the future of StSC.

Sincerely,

David Merrill.
04-06-11, 11:42 PM
David Merrill

P.S. In summary there are enough people jailed even specifically for intentionally or even unwittingly trying to apply Treasury Direct solutions, that I am confident in calling it illegal. I will not tolerate subtracting the effective remedy and leaving only the dangerous verbage and am banishing Motla68 for promoting fraudulent solutions/remedy. It is dangerous for StSC to allow that sort of behavior.

We do not need to post, like we see from Motla68, constant THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE waivers of indemnity because the remedy is written into the law. I notice that this direct misdirection in the opening post of the thread here (at least that I have noticed) seems to be the first time Molla68 posted such a disclaimer... Revealing!
04-07-11, 12:39 AM
Michael Joseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Merrill

P.S. In summary there are enough people jailed even specifically for intentionally or even unwittingly trying to apply Treasury Direct solutions, that I am confident in calling it illegal. I will not tolerate subtracting the effective remedy and leaving only the dangerous verbage and am banishing Motla68 for promoting fraudulent solutions/remedy. It is dangerous for StSC to allow that sort of behavior.

We do not need to post, like we see from Motla68, constant THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE waivers of indemnity because the remedy is written into the law. I notice that this direct misdirection in the opening post of the thread here (at least that I have noticed) seems to be the first time Molla68 posted such a disclaimer... Revealing!

Don't trust Michael Joseph or any other man. The reason men are spoiled is because they lean on other men. How utterly STUPID!

The fact that one would say MJ saw it, in effort to build trust is not acceptable to me. However, should I decide to lend my credence to methods, then that is another matter. Will you gang up on me now because I also have similar views?

The operation of trust law is dependent on the operator knowing Trust Law. Man[kind] gets screwed coming and going because in their stupidly they step all over themselves to ACT for the Trustee where they have no standing to do so.

The only way to win, is not to play. Therefore the Ticket being private Property of some trust. All Stop. Because I know some of you cannot keep up.

Trustee - One who acts for a Trust and holds the Legal Title of the Res as his estate. The estate belongs to the Trustee! It is his estate!

Beneficiary - One who benefits from the estate and MAY be with the equitable title, depending on the Trust Agreement

Trust Corpus = Property or Res that make up the estate.

Usufruct - One who has not the legal or equitable interest but get to USE based on a Right

Property = Right of Use

Now the Trustee manages the Right of Use. Keep up. Right of Use = Property!
Beneficiary = cestui que trust - and is with the Right of Use.

Owner = Registered Party on Trust Asset Registry. Typically CESTUI QUE TRUST - and is Probated [Civilly DEAD]

-------------------------------

If you can keep up, tell me is the Property the Car? If you say yes, then just move on....this is not for you. If you say no, then keep reading.

Now lets examine. The Trustee will manage the Property. The beneficiary will Use the Property.

Traffic Stop: Trustees Agent [Trustee] issues forth "Intangible Property" from the Trust upon the CESTUI QUE TRUST. Hello, people the CQT is the OWNER!

Tell me where is the man[kind] in this example? I will wait....

If you say CQT is the man, then stop reading and move on. If you say, hey wait the man is not Trustee or Beneficiary, then keep reading.....

--------------------------------

Some men decide, that the Private Property [intangible in nature] is not theirs. How in the world could on come to that decision? What an utterly ridiculous idea. If you think so, stop reading.

So they return the INTANGIBLE PROPERTY to the Trustee for INTERNAL management. What the Trustee does is not the man's concern. The man has no standing to do anything with another's Private Property. The man is neither Beneficiary or Trustee!

And yet some think this is some how a setoff scheme. This has nothing to do with the man in this example. The man does not have the authority to setoff anything. The man lacks capacity to tell or make the Trustee do ANYTHING!

But some men think differently and so they go to jail due to their own damned stupidity. They TRUST in other men!

Now this thing with Motla68 has me scratching my head because he has used me to build confidence. MJ asked me to be here. We are all man[kind] here and we can make up our own mind.

------------------------------------

There are many different paths and each man shall walk according to his conscious. I can think of times when R4C makes perfect sense. I can also think of times that it makes no sense.

-------------------------------------

To call what Motla68 did some sort of Trespass upon the US Treasury is unfair. I think that one might say a Word of Caution to the reader that they had best make sure they understand trust structure prior to attempting any part of this.

-------------------------------------

Motla68 warning that the post is not Legal Advise is ABSOLUTELY appropriate Why? BECAUSE HE IS NOT THE TRUSTEE! And he lacks a license to practice PRIVATE law of the PRIVATE United States.

And unless you desire to court the PRIVATE United States, as Trustee speaking for your estate - as Suitor, then shut up and go home! What you think you filed that LoR in personal capacity. If you do, then that is about to tell me you have zero clue what you actually did and you are relying on another man.

If someone wants to usurp the Trustee, then they had best just go run and hide. Else learn how the trust works and work with it - you, Reader are foreign to it from the beginning.

It is just an Interface.

--------------------------------------

To the one who would say, but you filed a Libel of Review too. I can assure you Reader, I spent many, many hours making it my own. And I can assure you that the Judgment issued forth was also very much my issue. It took me three weeks to write it.

But I do not lean on it. I have come to see it is just another wrench in the tool bag. I like to call it Linear Algebra. It helps me to comprehend. Other times I pull out Differential Equations, so that I can look thru the proper lens.

If you do not comprehend, well too bad. It was not for you anyways.

Shalom,
mj

P.S. I apologize if this was perceived as a Rant.

P.S.S. Pop Quiz: What makes up a Trust Estate? Answer: Property. What is Property? Answer: RIGHTS of use.

Is Property the actual Matter or Expression? If you say yes, then this DEFINITELY is NOT for you.
04-07-11, 12:53 AM
David Merrill

Quote:

The misdirection demonstrated by Motla68 is intentional. I do not know the motivation behind it but it was done subtly enough that at first glance, even Michael Joseph missed it.

Quote:

The fact that one would say MJ saw it, in effort to build trust is not acceptable to me. However, should I decide to lend my credence to methods, then that is another matter. Will you gang up on me now because I also have similar views?

It sounds as though you missed it - Motla68 excluded the remedy verbiage in his explanation. He intentionally misled the readers here, excluding the remedy found in the law. Now he is banished specifically because he did that.

Quote:

To call what Motla68 did some sort of Trespass upon the US Treasury is unfair. I think that one might say a Word of Caution to the reader that they had best make sure they understand trust structure prior to attempting any part of this.

Maybe, maybe not. I first read about it from a man just out of prison for it though.

What Motla68 did was to keep that particular verbiage when he excluded the verbiage that agrees with remedy written into the Fed Act and US Code.

Quote:

P.S. I apologize if this was perceived as a Rant.

At first I thought so. But then I read it and it seems more a passionate yet tangential post. I thought you were addressing Motla's banishment but most of your post is about trust. No apology necessary.

To answer your question more concisely, I will not 'gang up' on you because you might feel there is merit to Treasury Direct obligation theory. Motla, after my meticulous pursuit of his verbiage intentionally excluded the remedy written into the law. That is a harmful teaching.
04-07-11, 12:55 AM
Michael Joseph

It has just come to me why maybe some of you are having difficulty with Motla68. You want him to show you USC that "allows" him to do this. Guess what there is none. That to me is really funny. The United States is a Trust. Therefore it is subject to Trust Law. And trust law is international law......and so if you want someone to "show you" perhaps you should start reading up on trust structure and trust operation.

If you want a legal opinion, then a resulting trust shall form and I will be first trustee and I will be with unlimited, durable and perpetual power of attorney in and for you. Do you now want that benefit dear reader? I wrote the foregoing in jest. But I think it conveys the point appropriately.
04-07-11, 01:06 AM
Michael Joseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Merrill

It sounds as though you missed it - Motla68 excluded the remedy verbiage in his explanation. He intentionally misled the readers here, excluding the remedy found in the law. Now he is banished specifically because he did that.

Please do not see the foregoing post against you, David, or for Motla68. There are many things he does that I just cannot support. It is not my way. Yet, I seek to comprehend the Trust and to gain the knowledge of its mystery as it has eluded man[kind] for a long time and is now coming to light.

I mean no disrespect to either one of you men. You are both my friends. I will say that Motla68 is not a good teacher. He reminds me of my Statics professor. He would be working on a problem to find a "Resultant" over a force distribution described by many different functions. His knowledge of calculus was superior to mine and he would invariably skip many steps that would leave me, the student, wondering "Huh".

When he was questioned he would say, haven't you taken 1st, 2nd, 3rd Calculus? Well of course I had to admit, yes. He would scratch his head and say, "well then what's the problem"?

I can remember asking him a question after one class. His response - maybe Engineering is not for you. I made an "A" and proceeded to set the curve. But not because professor was a good teacher, he was not. It was because I put in the long hours of WORK in myself.

As have both of you. And I.

So be it.

shalom,
mj
04-07-11, 01:18 AM
David Merrill

1 Attachment(s)

Shalom to you too MJ;

A couple days ago I kept demanding he describe the contents of the magic envelope wrapper:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...4&d=1301926039

He kept directing me to that same post that said there was some verbiage stamped on the Presentment. So I wanted more detail and today I discovered he excluded the verbiage that holds the remedy in his explanation. - Leaving only the Treasury Direct Redemption verbiage, that is dangerous and unproven.

Had he included the full verbiage in the opening post of this thread, things would have gone much, much differently for him here today. As obnoxious as I have found him, I would have dealt with the Treasury Direct theory like I did when he showed me the verbiage the first time; with debate and discussion.
04-07-11, 01:31 AM
Michael Joseph

well now i see your point. I do not care for writing anything on their presentment. That presentment is Private Property. And here is the thing, to Use it [the presentment] results in a trust forming.

For instance have you ever noticed the back of a SSN card? Have you ever noticed the back of a "VIC", "Food Lion" or any "Grocery Card". They all say the same thing.

This card belongs to.....if you find it and it is not yours, then send to: Address. Why do people keep and Use the Card. Thus the resulting Trust. But if one has filled out the App, there is a LEGAL NAME and a DL required, thus it becomes LEGAL within the United States.

How hard is it to see the same trust law working with a Ticket?

In regard to Coupons - there is a Stop Gap - the Corporation. But the US has proprietory interest in the Corp, does it not. This one is a bit tricky and i have not figured it out; yet! But Yehovah willing I will.

Thank you for pointing that out to me.

Shalom,
mj

Now, one might say, but, but I have used r4c according to the LoR for some time now and it works great. Take notice of this FACT. Comes now True Name.......speaking for his ESTATE.......

The rest is an Agreement. Said Agreement being struck in the Silence of the Trustee [other Trustee]. Therefore the R4C method is acceptable by "a priori" agreement.
04-07-11, 11:05 AM
David Merrill

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Joseph

well now i see your point. I do not care for writing anything on their presentment. That presentment is Private Property. And here is the thing, to Use it [the presentment] results in a trust forming.

For instance have you ever noticed the back of a SSN card? Have you ever noticed the back of a "VIC", "Food Lion" or any "Grocery Card". They all say the same thing.

This card belongs to.....if you find it and it is not yours, then send to: Address. Why do people keep and Use the Card. Thus the resulting Trust. But if one has filled out the App, there is a LEGAL NAME and a DL required, thus it becomes LEGAL within the United States.

How hard is it to see the same trust law working with a Ticket?

In regard to Coupons - there is a Stop Gap - the Corporation. But the US has proprietory interest in the Corp, does it not. This one is a bit tricky and i have not figured it out; yet! But Yehovah willing I will.

Thank you for pointing that out to me.

Shalom,
mj

Now, one might say, but, but I have used r4c according to the LoR for some time now and it works great. Take notice of this FACT. Comes now True Name.......speaking for his ESTATE.......

The rest is an Agreement. Said Agreement being struck in the Silence of the Trustee [other Trustee]. Therefore the R4C method is acceptable by "a priori" agreement.

Quote:

I do not care for writing anything on their presentment. That presentment is Private Property.

Except of course - Refusal for Cause. That is avoidance by right of refusal.

Quote:

And here is the thing, to Use it [the presentment] results in a trust forming.

Accepting for value should only be to initiate a billing cycle (if you are not paid, form a lien as trustee of the resulting trust).
04-07-11, 01:50 PM
Mark Christopher

Quote:

Michael Joseph;1691]Don't trust Michael Joseph or any other man. The reason men are spoiled is because they lean on other men. How utterly STUPID!

I don't know why but this phrase caught my attention. MJ you speak of Trusts so often and eloquently that I was surprised to see you write that. Am I my brother's keeper? I would imagine you were referring to individuals who would expect you to do something for them (kinda like a mooch, goes to far, takes advantage) I let people lean on me and also help them to stand tall once again if I can. If they lean too hard well they are going to fall over. But stupid? I hope not otherwise why be here or anywhere for that matter. Your letting of knowledge is then for no purpose. Does your writings not influence people. I know it has me and I thank you for it!

I believe the issue of Motla68 being banned is a problem. A slippery slope. I completely understand what David has said and appreciate that he is here keeping individuals in line with the suitors mentality and not confusing this site with commercial processes. With all the gurus and craziness out there it is nice to have a Shepard. That does not make me a sheep. I am here to work hard and learn from individuals such as yourself who have something to contribute. It takes more than a few days to get unconditioned and understand the basis of trusts, please be patient some of us make mistakes. I do think Motla68 meant well but he did seem to push the coresource stuff pretty hard. I will have to trust that there is fair debate before someone is banned though. If not a vote should occur. I would vote for a second chance with a stern warning of conduct. I definitely will be reading the rules again though.
Regards
Mark Christopher.
04-07-11, 02:37 PM
David Merrill

1 Attachment(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Christopher

I don't know why but this phrase caught my attention. MJ you speak of Trusts so often and eloquently that I was surprised to see you write that. Am I my brother's keeper? I would imagine you were referring to individuals who would expect you to do something for them (kinda like a mooch, goes to far, takes advantage) I let people lean on me and also help them to stand tall once again if I can. If they lean too hard well they are going to fall over. But stupid? I hope not otherwise why be here or anywhere for that matter. Your letting of knowledge is then for no purpose. Does your writings not influence people. I know it has me and I thank you for it!

I believe the issue of Motla68 being banned is a problem. A slippery slope. I completely understand what David has said and appreciate that he is here keeping individuals in line with the suitors mentality and not confusing this site with commercial processes. With all the gurus and craziness out there it is nice to have a Shepard. That does not make me a sheep. I am here to work hard and learn from individuals such as yourself who have something to contribute. It takes more than a few days to get unconditioned and understand the basis of trusts, please be patient some of us make mistakes. I do think Motla68 meant well but he did seem to push the coresource stuff pretty hard. I will have to trust that there is fair debate before someone is banned though. If not a vote should occur. I would vote for a second chance with a stern warning of conduct. I definitely will be reading the rules again though.
Regards
Mark Christopher.

Your vote is noted Mark Christopher;

Certainly so. There was something that came across in the email broadcasts yesterday:

Quote:

GO HERE: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uniform/ucc.html#a9

SEARCH UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, ARTICLE 9; YOU HAVE THE CHOICE OF THE UCC, WHICH ALL MUST COMPLY WITH, OR BY STATE CC.

WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR IS: UCC ARTICLE 9-YOU CAN CLICK ON THAT LINK-OR SEARCH BY STATE IN THE BOX BY THAT LINK.

IF THE STATE DOES NOT HAVE ITS OWN CC VERSION IT HAS TO FOLLOW THE UCC VERSION...WHERE I AM: CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL CODE

Which section of the Uniform Codes refers directly to UCC-9:

Quote:

§ 9-101. SHORT TITLE.

This article may be cited as Uniform Commercial Code-Secured Transactions.

My initial response, in accord with my experience through the brain trust was:

Quote:

SEARCH UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, ARTICLE 9; YOU HAVE THE CHOICE OF THE UCC, WHICH ALL MUST COMPLY WITH, OR BY STATE CC.

There is something wrong about that statement. How can we have a choice like we are not part of the ALL WHO MUST COMPLY?

The most direct experience I have with the UCC is through several suitors who noticed a UCC Guru teaching on Wednesdays over lunch at a local church. He had a lien going and I only attended one or two lessons. But that lien was challenged outright and when it came time to defend it in court, a couple suitors were there too. I hear when it came time for the judge to rule he said, I don't see any law there. He summarily directed UCC Guru to pay court costs and the full bill from the "victim" of his bogus lien.

My point there, in response to your vote and post, is that the UCC is only applicable in certain banking parameters. For example, My lien process started with me sending an In Lieu of UCC plain English proposal/presentment.

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/8576/20mlien11.jpg

The Secretary of State's office wrote back rejecting my lien for publication because the UCC is the only appropriate way to publish a lien through their office. Therefore I secured the method to be the appropriate binding method for a UCC-1 Finance Statement to be used and that process of binding is still part of the published lien.

The Quatlosers certainly are nervous (presuming they are not a bunch of infantile jerks) and that is another aspect of Motla68's banishment that I wish to bring forth here. I link readers here to Quatloos regularly so that you all may understand how I use that attorney mentality, that protectionism of debt-based and elastic currency to grow and learn myself.

The post you wrote here demonstrates that I should have graphically walked the reader more carefully through my explanation why I banished Motla68. I was there. -While the Readers were not.

Some time back, Motla68 offered that this verbiage was why his process, in the robin egg-blue envelope functions well. Quoting the basics from a couple examples that Motla68 initially provided I paraphrase:

Quote:

Deposited for Credit on Account or Exchanged for Non-Negotiable Notes.

This obligation belongs to the Treasury. If you want to collect on it, forward this coupon to the Treasury.

I pointed out that the key functional verbiage in those phrases is "Exchanged for Non-Negotiable Notes." We had a productive debate, even with Motla removing his examples (I managed to save the Australian one first) and going on an infantile deletion spree where I accomodated his request to remove permanently, several threads he started. They were an eyesore as the only posts were responses to deleted posts.

I assure you that as annoying as I found Motla, he would still be here if I found his presence here useful to the Readers.

After prodding in many posts and many days of demanding Motla explain what exactly in the Envelope was so effective that the DA would delete the case, without so much as one word from Motla, he finally relented, deferring back to his original examples of the verbiage on the Presentment but excluded the verbiage that can be found in the law (Fed Act §16 and 12 U.S.C. §411).

Quote:

Deposited for Credit...

This obligation belongs to the Treasury. If you want to collect on it, forward this coupon to the Treasury.

Motla68 deliberately excluded remedy from his explanation about remedy! That is why he is banished. Not for promoting commercial processes that I strongly feel are faulty.

Regards,

David Merrill.
04-07-11, 03:12 PM
David Merrill

P.S. Trying to defraud us (by his omission) under a banner of peace, declaring himself envoy (and therefore me the potential enemy) was just plain impolite, in my opinion.

Maybe that just goes to show you; you should stick to the remedy written into the law and make sure the religious stuff is only accepted scientifically. - That you must describe the factors and parameters accurately. If you try two things at once (shotgunning) accept that only one might be effective in law.
04-07-11, 03:36 PM
Mark Christopher

Yes I see that now. Good point. One of the reasons I love this place is that thru careful record forming and production of examples we can see much clearer the follies of our ways. Scientific method works well here and I see the consistent reproducibility of the methods. I guess one side of me is sad to see him go because I followed commercial methods too and always felt something was wrong. The comments he posted and the pointed responses to them allowed me to see how to deconstruct those thoughts and move forward to greener pastures. (great learning material/exercises in proper working of remedy)
Thanks again David, your wisdom is much appreciated.
Mark Christopher.
04-08-11, 12:28 AM
Michael Joseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Christopher

I don't know why but this phrase caught my attention. MJ you speak of Trusts so often and eloquently that I was surprised to see you write that. Am I my brother's keeper? I would imagine you were referring to individuals who would expect you to do something for them (kinda like a mooch, goes to far, takes advantage) I let people lean on me and also help them to stand tall once again if I can. If they lean too hard well they are going to fall over. But stupid? I hope not otherwise why be here or anywhere for that matter. Your letting of knowledge is then for no purpose. Does your writings not influence people. I know it has me and I thank you for it!

I believe the issue of Motla68 being banned is a problem. A slippery slope. I completely understand what David has said and appreciate that he is here keeping individuals in line with the suitors mentality and not confusing this site with commercial processes. With all the gurus and craziness out there it is nice to have a Shepard. That does not make me a sheep. I am here to work hard and learn from individuals such as yourself who have something to contribute. It takes more than a few days to get unconditioned and understand the basis of trusts, please be patient some of us make mistakes. I do think Motla68 meant well but he did seem to push the coresource stuff pretty hard. I will have to trust that there is fair debate before someone is banned though. If not a vote should occur. I would vote for a second chance with a stern warning of conduct. I definitely will be reading the rules again though.
Regards
Mark Christopher.

I would not intentionally lead any man astray. My point is that men need to stop leaning on other men. If someone tells you a thing, then you can conditionally accept it or reject it. But to wholesale accept a teaching is downright stupid. Remember those ones in the Book of Acts that were thought righteous because not only did they hear the word, they then went to the the word to see if what they heard was Truth.

One man says, but I tried this man's process and another man says, I tried that man's process..........these are fools.

Make things your own. As such, a wise teacher has no problem with that advisement. Do not trust my words, if you do, and I turn out to be the fool, then who is the bigger fool, you or I?

So a wise teacher is going to tell you; check behind me. And then a good teacher is going to follow up with: and here is how. Now if you decide to blindly trust said teacher, then well, there you go. Many do just that and go to their ruin.

shalom,
mj

P.S. Thank you for your report. It is good to be appreciated.
04-11-11, 03:22 AM
Michael Joseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Joseph

And here is the thing, to Use it [the presentment] results in a trust forming.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Except of course - Refusal for Cause. That is avoidance by right of refusal.

Sometimes yes and sometimes no. I find those presentments are made upon CESTUI QUE VIE TRUST; and that is not me. So why would i keep it and argue against it. Why would I presume that i have standing, as trustee, to sit at the table and argue? So instead I confidentially return the presentment as Envoy for Registered Owner to the Trustee or Trustees Agent.

The Registered Owner is CESTUI QUE VIE TRUST and that is not me. What the Trustee does with the Charge is up to the Trustee. But I am wise enough to know that the Charge must be discharged upon the Owner's estate. And that is not my estate, that estate belongs to the Trustee, held in Trust.

We are talking about Intangible Property. So i shall not trespass that office.

CHARGE, contracts. An obligation entered into by the owner of an estate which makes the estate responsible for its performance. Vide 2 Ball & Beatty, 223; 8 Com. Dig. 306, Appendix, h. t. Any obligation binding upon him who enters into it, which may be removed or taken away by a discharge. T. de la Ley, h. t.

Who is the Owner of an Estate? - The Trustee holds the estate in Trust. Answer: Trustee.

Who issued the Charges? Was it you? Are the charges upon you? Answer: No and No.

Do you know what an implied and constructive trust are?

So sometimes r4c works and other times I find it easier, much easier, to just let the Trustee take care of the presentment INTERNALLY.
04-11-11, 10:21 AM
David Merrill

4 Attachment(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Joseph

Sometimes yes and sometimes no. I find those presentments are made upon CESTUI QUE VIE TRUST; and that is not me. So why would i keep it and argue against it. Why would I presume that i have standing, as trustee, to sit at the table and argue? So instead I confidentially return the presentment as Envoy for Registered Owner to the Trustee or Trustees Agent.

The Registered Owner is CESTUI QUE VIE TRUST and that is not me. What the Trustee does with the Charge is up to the Trustee. But I am wise enough to know that the Charge must be discharged upon the Owner's estate. And that is not my estate, that estate belongs to the Trustee, held in Trust.

We are talking about Intangible Property. So i shall not trespass that office.

CHARGE, contracts. An obligation entered into by the owner of an estate which makes the estate responsible for its performance. Vide 2 Ball & Beatty, 223; 8 Com. Dig. 306, Appendix, h. t. Any obligation binding upon him who enters into it, which may be removed or taken away by a discharge. T. de la Ley, h. t.

Who is the Owner of an Estate? - The Trustee holds the estate in Trust. Answer: Trustee.

Who issued the Charges? Was it you? Are the charges upon you? Answer: No and No.

Do you know what an implied and constructive trust are?

So sometimes r4c works and other times I find it easier, much easier, to just let the Trustee take care of the presentment INTERNALLY.

This comment causes me to review the Opening Post by Motla68:

Quote:

Originally Posted by motla68

Let's try to stay focused on the thread topic this time and not dirty it with throwing mud attaching it to any other post I have put on this forum, including referencing the name Coresource material or any derivative thereof. Thank you.

ENVOY SENT AS EMISSARY TO SECURE PEACE

Posted: Friday, March 11, 2011 by Onlashuk in Born Without Money

“I AM Envoy here as an Emissary to secure the peace. You can call me Envoy.” The message that I have to convey is there has been a mistake, where is the proper notice that I may deal with this matter honorable? Since it is true that, “No man can serve two masters,” therefore, it is also true that it would be inappropriate for this Envoy to be involved in matters that do not concern me or my God for the sake of honor and peace. Furthermore, it is my mission to express and convey unto you that there is no claim of ownership concerning this matter, and if there has been any trespass, that forgiveness is asked for as it is also given for any likewise trespass, wherein there may appear to be any kind of fraud or identity theft, so that this matter can be settled by the appropriate parties honorable and without any interference.

EN’VOY, n. [L. via; Eng. way, contracted from viag, vag, or wag.]

1. A person deputed by a prince or government, to negotiate a treaty, or transact other business, with a foreign prince or government. We usually apply the word to a public minister sent on a special occasion, or for one particular purpose; hence an envoy is distinguished from an ambassador or permanent resident at a foreign court, and is of inferior rank. But envoys are ordinary and extraordinary, and the word may sometimes be applied to resident ministers.

EM’ISSARY, n. [L. emissarius, from emitto; e and mitto, to send.]

A person sent on a mission; a missionary employed to preach and propagate the gospel.

2. A person sent on a private message or business; a secret agent, employed to sound or ascertain the opinions of others, and to spread reports or propagate opinions favorable to his employer, or designed to defeat the measures or schemes of his opposers or foes; a spy; but an emissary may differ from a spy. A spy in war is one who enters an enemy’s camp or territories to learn the condition of the enemy; an emissary may be a secret agent employed not only to detect the schemes of an opposing party, but to influence their councils. A spy in war must be concealed, or he suffers death; an emissary may in some cases be known as the agent of an adversary, without incurring similar hazard.

Jer 49:14
I have heard a rumour from the LORD, and an ambassador is sent unto the heathen, saying, Gather ye together, and come against her, and rise up to the battle.

Obadiah 1:1
The vision of Obadiah. Thus saith the Lord GOD concerning Edom; We have heard a rumour from the LORD, and an ambassador is sent among the heathen, Arise ye, and let us rise up against her in battle.

Canon 1557
An Ecclesiastical Deed Poll must always be on robin-egg blue paper in recognition and respect of its status as a Divine Notice with the full authority of One Heaven, in particular the Sacred Rota and twelve Apostolic Prothonotaries as well as Apostolic Prothorabban of the Divine Sanhedrin.

Canon 1563
An Ecclesiastical Deed Poll must always be on robin-egg blue paper and glued strongly to the reverse of a copy of the 1st page of any notice, demand, summons sent by the inferior Roman Person.

Attachment 267

PRIVATE. Not general, as a private act of the legislature; not in office;
as, a private person, as well as an officer, may arrest a felon; individual,
as your private interest; not public, as a private way, a private nuisance.
- 1856 Bouviers Dictionary

I cannot show you what is wrapped in that blue paper because it is private by definition above, but I can tell you about it.

- Robin-egg blue paper, wrapped 4 fold.

- Inside what was wrapped:

1. printout from online showing the certified mail previously delivered by notice of my visit and purpose for me being there.

2. copy of presentment (ticket) that had Some language written upon it that was sent in with the notice by certified mail.
[ stamped deposit for credit - in red ] [ written: This account name and number is property of the United States of America, please deposit to owner care of Treasury of the United States of America. Thank you ]

3. copy of instrument printed out from the DMV that the vehicle was registered with the state.
( nothing i wrote on it)

4. copy of Birth Certificate

- All 4 sheets were stapled together.

The emphasis in red excludes the prescribed remedy - Title 12 U.S.C. §411 from §16 of the Fed Act. What it leaves though, is your point.

Your point, as I understand it is that the US Government has taken position as trustee for the Cestui Que Vie trust, and is therefore the Owner. So we should understand the CQV trust a little better - that its origins are always that somebody died or is missing at sea, in the admiralty for more than seven years. So somebody becomes the same as on the headstone DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT. - Or at least that somebody becomes completely responsive to that CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST by appearance.

Which brings us to possibilities of Setoff by operation of law, within the scope of public official accounting. Something that Motla68 brought up, (this is not hearsay, I am simply relying on your memory if you were here reading) was that somebody might place their home on the registry of the US government and then buy a new roof for it, as the government's responsibility. [Of course that is where he and I departed in philosophy as there is no funding in the account to pay a roofer. Not so much, in my opinion, that setoff is impossible; but that when I confronted Motla68 with a stern debate, he denied that is what he implied to begin with - making the debate infuriating instead of gratifying and edifying.]

Here are some examples how it is accomplished with government offices and eleemysonary corporations.

http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/9008/pomc.jpg
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/3...rofcredit1.jpg
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/448...rofcredit2.jpg

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...5&d=1302516948

This of course comes with the caveat that this same author behind these instruments issued similar lien-type papers that have prompted legislation that has landed at least one man in federal prison.

In summary, my point - that I made several times with Motla68 is that we paid to get out of the Great Depression and we paid to save the Fed by becoming Fed banks ourselves in capacity to endorse fractional lending and the byproduct of elastic currency. We paid for the privilege to create money out of thin air and we paid for the ability to create that bond off our signatures as civilly dead entities after probate.

We paid.

There are no funds there. You cannot pay off a roofer by sending him to the Treasury and the only reason you get a Setoff (even a ten-day setoff) is that the attorneys do not have the constitution to just lay it out for you - We Paid and got what we paid for. There are no funds setting in an account.

Regards,

David Merrill.
04-11-11, 02:03 PM
Michael Joseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Merrill

This comment causes me to review the Opening Post by Motla68:

The emphasis in red excludes the prescribed remedy - Title 12 U.S.C. §411 from §16 of the Fed Act. What it leaves though, is your point.

Your point, as I understand it is that the US Government has taken position as trustee for the Cestui Que Vie trust, and is therefore the Owner. So we should understand the CQV trust a little better - that its origins are always that somebody died or is missing at sea, in the admiralty for more than seven years. So somebody becomes the same as on the headstone DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT. - Or at least that somebody becomes completely responsive to that CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST by appearance.

Which brings us to possibilities of Setoff by operation of law, within the scope of public official accounting. Something that Motla68 brought up, (this is not hearsay, I am simply relying on your memory if you were here reading) was that somebody might place their home on the registry of the US government and then buy a new roof for it, as the government's responsibility. [Of course that is where he and I departed in philosophy as there is no funding in the account to pay a roofer. Not so much, in my opinion, that setoff is impossible; but that when I confronted Motla68 with a stern debate, he denied that is what he implied to begin with - making the debate infuriating instead of gratifying and edifying.]

Here are some examples how it is accomplished with government offices and eleemysonary corporations.

http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/9008/pomc.jpg
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/3...rofcredit1.jpg
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/448...rofcredit2.jpg

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...5&d=1302516948

This of course comes with the caveat that this same author behind these instruments issued similar lien-type papers that have prompted legislation that has landed at least one man in federal prison.

In summary, my point - that I made several times with Motla68 is that we paid to get out of the Great Depression and we paid to save the Fed by becoming Fed banks ourselves in capacity to endorse fractional lending and the byproduct of elastic currency. We paid for the privilege to create money out of thin air and we paid for the ability to create that bond off our signatures as civilly dead entities after probate.

We paid.

There are no funds there. You cannot pay off a roofer by sending him to the Treasury and the only reason you get a Setoff (even a ten-day setoff) is that the attorneys do not have the constitution to just lay it out for you - We Paid and got what we paid for. There are no funds setting in an account.

Regards,

David Merrill.

Is not money Intangible Property? Property is Right of Use. What then of Money? Reminds me of the back of a SSN card.

This card belongs to the SSA. If found return to Address. See the resulting trust when one keeps it, one lends value to it and the trust results from using another's Property.

Can you now see the operation of law in regard to returning a ticket? The Ticket is Intangible Property. The Charge issued forth by Trustee dejure officer, must be discharged upon the Estate in CESTUI QUE VIE TRUST, or by third party VOLUNTEER.

VOLUNTEER comes in by Reactionary Fiduciary. See implied Trust. But it is much simplier. The Charge is issued upon the Estate and must be discharged from the Estate. Money? What's that? It is Intangible.

------------------------

I once knew a trustee for a banking account. When the banking institution realized they had entered into an agreement that put them on shaky foundation, they decided to close the acct. The Trustee demanded lawful money but instead the banker issued forth a Cashier's Check. This is not certified funds. Upon receiving [problem] the cashier's check, the trustee proceeded to cash the check at the same institution that just issued forth the Check. The banker stared at the Trustee and said "That check is worthless, we will not cash it."

The banker was playing the same game that the Trustee was playing. There is no Value in that check it is just a piece of paper with symbols written upon it. And the banker knows it! So the banker said to the Trustee, but if you would like to deposit that check into a new account we would be glad to do that for you. Now, do you see it? If the Trustee opened up a new account, that would be recognition of value in the paper. Else, why do it.

Plus stop to think about it. There was already an existing account, why the need for a new account? I know, but I cannot share reason in this setting.

-------------------------------------------------

Now, in regard to the Traffic Ticket. How will you pay was the question? And the response is why would you pay? It is not your estate. The Trustee [Officer] issued forth a presentment upon the CESTUI QUE VIE TRUST. Tell me again why I should pay? I am neither and the fact that I would argue with the Trustee or Administrator shows my lack of knowledge concerning the trust operation and may in fact be Trustee de son Tort. And that sin folks usually does not go unpunished.

Therefore, as Envoy for Registered Owner, the Intangible Property is returned to the Trustee - Clerk of Court, or Agent for Trustee. So that the books can be INTERNALLY balanced.
04-12-11, 03:10 PM
Rock Anthony

With regards to the verbiage: "Deposit for Credit on Account or For Non-Negotiable Federal Reserve Notes of Face Value."

I do not want to touch credit! My comprehension is that the Federal Reserve issues credit, and Congress has imposed excises against the use and transfer of that credit.

The demand for lawful money redeems Fed credit into lawful money. As far as I'm concerned, do not deposit credit into any account that I'm authorized to use.

But that's just me.:o
04-12-11, 04:06 PM
David Merrill

That is an eloquent explanation MJ! And it interleaves well with RA's comment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rock Anthony

With regards to the verbiage: "Deposit for Credit on Account or For Non-Negotiable Federal Reserve Notes of Face Value."

I do not want to touch credit! My comprehension is that the Federal Reserve issues credit, and Congress has imposed excises against the use and transfer of that credit.

The demand for lawful money redeems Fed credit into lawful money. As far as I'm concerned, do not deposit credit into any account that I'm authorized to use.

But that's just me.:o

The symbols on the cashier's check symbolize credit - good faith and credit.

I am with you Rock; I have not touched credit since the sheriff converted my $26 cash into a check in booking, maybe twelve years ago. I took it to the bank and they refused to cash it back if I was unwilling to sign the back. I returned the check to the sheriff's office requesting they cash it for me but they treated me like MJ's bankers did his friend. I never heard back.
05-14-11, 03:07 PM
David Merrill

Envoy sent as Emissary to secure Peace.

I like that. As my mental models evolve it becomes so simple - A false balance is an abomination to the LORD, but a just wieght is His delight!

The commercial forum becomes war-like since 1861. However we might be like Bean on SJC, who could not buy a Taco Bell burrito without being taken to the cleaner as he had certain ideals about metals and pre-1861 peacetime specie.

What we have today though is access to inelastic fiat - US Notes in the form of Federal Reserve notes - if we demand lawful money. We are handling FIAT any way around it - if you want to buy and sell, you have to strike your hand in agreement with the 'extraordinary occasion' of 1861.

That leaves the state as trustee giving you full use; so long as you are willing to forego the privileges of being a Fed bank.

That leaves the state the fiduciary responsible for settling the charges - when you declare yourself peaceful inhabitant. What is the state going to do? - Make you pay? The emergency is long ended so there is no excuse for not going back to Bean's ideal peacetime specie.

Regards,

David Merrill.
05-14-11, 05:17 PM
Anthony Joseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Envoy sent as Emissary to secure Peace.

I like that. As my mental models evolve it becomes so simple - A false balance is an abomination to the LORD, but a just wieght is His delight!

The commercial forum becomes war-like since 1861. However we might be like Bean on SJC, who could not buy a Taco Bell burrito without being taken to the cleaner as he had certain ideals about metals and pre-1861 peacetime specie.

What we have today though is access to inelastic fiat - US Notes in the form of Federal Reserve notes - if we demand lawful money. We are handling FIAT any way around it - if you want to buy and sell, you have to strike your hand in agreement with the 'extraordinary occasion' of 1861.

That leaves the state as trustee giving you full use; so long as you are willing to forego the privileges of being a Fed bank.

That leaves the state the fiduciary responsible for settling the charges - when you declare yourself peaceful inhabitant. What is the state going to do? - Make you pay? The emergency is long ended so there is no excuse for not going back to Bean's ideal peacetime specie.

Regards,

David Merrill.

I like it as well. The simplicity of making one's demand for lawful money and declaring one's self as a peaceful inhabitant continues to solve most, if not all, of the difficulties of the world which we formally found inhibiting and enslaving.

Each time the simplicity of remedy is repeated and explained in a new way, the more powerful and clear that truth becomes.
05-14-11, 05:38 PM
Michael Joseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Envoy sent as Emissary to secure Peace.

That leaves the state as trustee giving you full use; so long as you are willing to forego the privileges of being a Fed bank.

That leaves the state the fiduciary responsible for settling the charges - when you declare yourself peaceful inhabitant. What is the state going to do? - Make you pay? The emergency is long ended so there is no excuse for not going back to Bean's ideal peacetime specie.

Regards,

David Merrill.

you said it. recognize who is trustee and let the trustee perform. now the challenge is finding your own operations agreement with the "gatekeeper" to the estate.
05-14-11, 11:07 PM
David Merrill

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Joseph

you said it. recognize who is trustee and let the trustee perform. now the challenge is finding your own operations agreement with the "gatekeeper" to the estate.

The Redeemer!!

I think this might be the Greatest Pun!

Yehoshuah [Jesus]
H'Natzrith [Of Nazareth]
V'Molech [King]
H'Hadiim [Of the Jews]

Speaking for myself though - I believe that one has an opportunity to evolve past the Blood Sacrifices. It may not be necessary though - I know a lot of people who look to the Blood of the Redeemer as the Ultimate Sacrificial Lamb. It has been years since I have been in communion.
05-15-11, 12:56 AM
Michael Joseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Merrill

The Redeemer!!

I think this might be the Greatest Pun!

Yehoshuah [Jesus]
H'Natzrith [Of Nazareth]
V'Molech [King]
H'Hadiim [Of the Jews]

Speaking for myself though - I believe that one has an opportunity to evolve past the Blood Sacrifices. It may not be necessary though - I know a lot of people who look to the Blood of the Redeemer as the Ultimate Sacrificial Lamb. It has been years since I have been in communion.

Act 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the authority, character and name of YeHoVaH shall be protected, healed, preserved, made whole.

Act 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Trust Law 101 - an implied Trust by actions.
12-01-11, 03:59 PM
motla68

hey all, check out these pages in this book. Just 3 pages is all I ask, it has to
do with everything we been studying lately. Pages 67 to 69

ambassador <--> envoy
12-02-11, 01:35 AM
David Merrill

Quote:

Originally Posted by motla68

hey all, check out these pages in this book. Just 3 pages is all I ask, it has to
do with everything we been studying lately. Pages 67 to 69

ambassador <--> envoy

Thank you Motla68;

That was inspiring! Please quote me.

Quote:

Peace is valuable.
12-02-11, 03:03 AM
motla68

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Thank you Motla68;

That was inspiring! Please quote me.

Welcome.

The next few pages after that are entertaining as well, it goes on to tie in the divine law and ecclesiastical courts and the other principal of man's moral conscience.