This document was written up by one of the original Coresource Solution member when we started in Jan 2009.
See attachment
Printable View
This document was written up by one of the original Coresource Solution member when we started in Jan 2009.
See attachment
Great topic!
I picked this up somewhere.
http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/8...risdiction.jpg
motla68 this is an excellent post and I encourage all who see this reply to re-read the foregoing post. Thank you.
I was reading a WARRANTY DEED TO TRUSTEE just this morning and look what I found:Quote:
The public debt in question is NOT about “money owed” but of a debt obligation in exchange for the spoliation of the owner of private property taken for use by the United States as per the Lieber Code part 38 (usufruct clause) which states “Private property, unless forfeited by crimes or by offenses of the owner, can be seized only by way of military necessity, for the support or other benefit of the Army or of the United States. If the owner has not fled, the commanding officer will cause receipts to be given, which may serve the spoliated owner to obtain indemnity.” [The act of making someone "whole" (give equal to what they have lost) or protected from (insured against) any losses which have occurred or will occur.] [he who receives the benefit should also bear the disadvantage – maxim of law]
Quoting Deed:
"TOGETHER with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining, to have and to hold in fee simple forever."
Notice that: fee simple is allodial title; allodial to the estate - as in Real Estate - and it is to be held within the estate "FOREVER". And the Register has logged the Event. Fee Simple is not in Real Property - as the Grantor/Grantee relationship is not of the Parent Trust.
Quoting Deed:
"The Grantor hereby covenants with said Grantee that the Grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; has good, right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land, hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever, and that said land is free of all encumbrances...."
Hello everybody! Great forum!Does anyone know more good forums or other resources on this topic?
My father acquired REAL ESTATE within CALIFORNIA(paid in full with non redeemed FRN's) with a "fee simple" title. I have not reviewed it however i believe he is still subjugated to taxes on said property. That to me me would signify the fee simple title is not unencumbered. I am not for sure on this. I can ask him when he returns if i may aquire a copy of the "Fee Simple" title for review if anyone is interested.
Excellent Post Motla68. I will refer back to this a few times.
David, i'll be printing your attachment as well to refer back to. Thanks for the post
I was about to say that Motla68 and I had definitely shared forums in the past. I still have not put it together entirely though - except that where there is truth, there is certainly going to be more than one truth-seeker dabbling in it. I am trying to digest "deconstruct" as "dissect" though. Maybe he means to dissolve these words and works of legal "art", to destroy the constructive trusts built around them?
I am enjoying too, the speed at which StSC has grown so fast that I already cannot keep up with all the reading, and I do not want to blurt off-topic or simply annoying facts. I do however have a lot of factual material, accurate history to add, supposing it is interesting enough that readers and members might be able to look into it for verification.
Fourtheenth Amendment a Sham.
I am starting to appreciate how much time it takes to learn things. Especially now that I am having the tables turned by some of the members here.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S.
If appropriate, can you tell me the author's name and the name of the Group?
Jesus, being a Jew was speaking of the Laws of Moses. The next passage is just as interesting.
Quote:
Mat 5:33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
Mat 5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
Mat 5:35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
Mat 5:36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
Mat 5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
Here we find that something has changed. With the advent of the Messiah, there shall be no more swearing. I have attached an anonymously written treatise that has always caught my attention.
For clarity only; I assume you use the modern era term "jew" loosely as being defined as "judean" in describing Jesus' character, and not as the real and modern era "jew" which is distinct from and mostly unrelated to judeans, hebrews, isrealites or semites of any kind.
That distinction is obviously a lesson in and of itself.
It seems I recall seeing this image presented by someone in Canada as proof of a "treasury direct account" of some kind of which can be tapped into for funds. As I remember, the presenter offered ZERO proof and evidence of this assertion. This was related to Robert Arthur MENARD's version of "security of the person" and other of his flawed and failed teachings.
That is a deserving Topic for its own Thread; but I am saying so only because I refuse to let the 14th Amendment get buried along with:
What I mean by that is that Jesus' ethnicity as a Babylonian Jew is a hot button and will carry this thread off its Topic without a doubt, so I have to describe the Law as Jesus would know it pragmatically. As any Jew of his time. That would be to say that the US citizen, is bound by a natural re-statement of the Ten Commands called the Seven Noachide Laws. Paul ran to Felix, the Roman marshal for his life - protective custody - a benefit of the same Roman Welfare State that Paul created in that action. Paul was not in trouble for teaching Grace to the pagans in Asia Minor; Paul admitted to the Sanhedrin trying him that he was teaching the Seven Noachide Laws there:
Neusner 1; Neusner 2.Quote:
Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood...
Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
For now I want to leave it there because the real hot button is What Would Jesus Not Have Done. The truth being that because Jesus was a law-abiding Jew, he would not have entered your home, even to save your servant's life. If for some reason he physically touched a gentile, he was bound to perform a ritual bath (mikva) before he could go attend synagogue. He was such an elitist that he even considered a northern Jew a dog unfit to lick up crumbs from the King's table.
What we should stick to in my opinion is this fealty system created by Paul and expressed in Romans 13. - For the sake of keeping on Arik Alan's point about the 14th Amendment.
Regards,
David Merrill.