Usufruct Surrender Remedy

[David Merrill]

Okay let me flip the argument - a child born to a man and woman thru the office of a midwife absent a BC - is that child a citizen of the State? Flip it over, a child born in a hospital thru the use of a nurse/doctor is that child a citizen of a State?

When and where did the child or man make a pledge to the State constitution? So this certificate does have value as it is an access easement as it were into the State. I have heard that one can even travel abroad using a BC and DL in the stead of a passport.

I did not say the BC had monetary value - but I said it was valuable in terms of benefit in State. I have traveled all over the world and I can tell you there are places I have been that when I got back home I went into my prayer closet and THANKED GOD I live where I do.

I don't buy assignment of a BC. One lady I know listened to some guru who talked her into "closing the account". She received a letter stating it is a felony for her to use the SSN assigned to that Name. Another young man that I know did this as well before he was 18 and he received the same letter.

While I do agree an Interest IN an estate is assignable I wonder why? I suppose that under common law the father would have the right to pledge his child. We see this in Samuel, yes? He was pledged to God's service. Did anyone ask Samuel? No.

What INFANT are you talking of - the heir or the child that received the BC? Of course you realize this is all being done under PERSOPHONE - Queen of the dead! Her arms pointing east to Rome. For she stands upon the Image.

Birth Cert.pdf

So let me see if I have this right. The government sells bonds to foreignors - that would be me and you - and then they tell us that the bond represents a claim upon the Treasury. Now then IF I am subject to that government then if I buy a bond does not that make me a Lender? And what does the Scripture say? Does it not say the borrower is slave to the lender?

I find peace in simplicity.

Now then I have a friend who listened to a "guru" who told him to ASSIGN all of his interests in the SSN account to the SSA. So my dear friend wrote the SSA as he was "under the influence" if you get what I mean and he tried to assign his interest. Well years went by and recently he called me and showed me what he had done. Laughing I asked him if he thought he could assign something that did not belong to him. Puzzled I asked him if he made a copy of both sides of the SSN card - the guru told him to do so which was good. Turning it over I read the card was PROPERTY - but dear Reader - Property is NOT Estate and it is NOT interest in Estate.

So we just called up the SSA and because he had worked 40 Quarters, we asked for a written agreement, we made the demand for lawful money and BAM the check was in the mail.

Doug you have studied the Bible. Do the sons of Cain strike you as ones who might share the wealth? Slavery is their way of doing business. Let me rephrase. Only a few can truly buy and sell - BECAUSE they have the Mark.

Please would someone tell me what is the goal?

You keep mentioning the INFANT - this must be the heir. So I think it is pretty safe to say that it is assumed that everything I do for gain is to enrich my estate for the benefit of MYSELF and MY HEIRS. So in that framing [in regard to the Estate in Name] - I would be Trustee as I undertake in the Public and Grantor in regard to the Cestui Que Trust. As my heir has an interest. Beneficiaries are my heirs and/or assigns.

I am reminded at once of the Prodigal Son who told his dad - I wish you were dead! Give me my inheritance now - I don't want to wait. Perhaps that son is disinherited by his dad. Under Roman Civil Law I might assign my estate to a stranger without my posterity.

Where did I gain access to Property? I lack a claim. Do you suppose I pledge the entire Estate to the Treasury? For what cause? And what assurances do you have for me such that I might perform the office of husband and father to my wife and family?

Wherein is the Agreement? Where are the terms made known? All I see for the past eight years is men grasping at straws. In the hope of a utopian society. I wonder who might be compelled to farm [grow food] in this society? I am reminded instantly of Rome.

The guru's that say a Trust ALWAYS splits titles are not correct. I can think of many Trust Agreements that do not split titles. In fact in many cases the Trustee holds BOTH the Legal and Equitable Titles and the Beneficiary is left with Personalty by Contract/Covenant. The trustee will issue a Certificate to the Beneficiary to indicate interest in the Trust but it is up to the discretion of the Trustee to make any disbursements if any.

I will read that post. If it is a long one give me some time to comment - this is a busy week.

Shalom,
Michael Joseph

Being that §501(c)(3) is not the ecclesia, I have been prompted just today to form the church - the true church at that. Furthermore I have been attending Bible Study, unwittingly preparing myself for just that.

Sunday night in the Bible Study, the leader/pastor and a couple others were preaching to me about the Christian doctrine of sacrifice, futurism and several other folly arguments. Understand that this is in the same breath as the Prodigal Son parable. - Emphasis on the unconditional and consistent love of the Father being representing of God's love.

Now what that does is gets me thinking, If I were in a position to preach the correct rendition of God's Word, and be ministering to the Christians about their folly what exactly would I say to be convincing? Well, I should start when I asked the Holy Spirit for guidance during my lecture; excuse me, the sermon.

I like this method - my Bible fell open to Acts, Chapter 22. Somehow it seems to me that I have never had a Red Ink rendition with Jesus speaking in red font for this particular chapter before. Paul is recounting his early journey to Rome and says that while in a trance Jesus spoke to him and warned him, Get out of Jerusalem. Well, if Paul was obedient to Jesus then he would not have been convicted of treason and had to run to Felix to hide from the Sanhedrin in jail, eventually ending up in Rome under that same protective custody, living on the Roman taxpayer dole...

But that is how it happened folks! Paul wrote the epistles forming the Christian religious formula simply because he disobeyed Jesus!

The reason I requested guidance in the first place is that through gossip behind my back (mostly from Christianity Explored - a program at that church) these guys knew I am not a fan of sacrifice, and born-in-sin guilt trips. So they were battering me with Paul's teachings about being cleansed in Jesus' shed blood; which to me is just a continuation of the sacrificial laws but with the Substitution of Jesus as the Perfect Sacrificial Lamb. So imagine my (NOT) surprise when the Holy Spirit opens my Bible to see that - Paul created Christianity as it is through disobedience to Jesus!!

There is another author who wrote though - most Bible historians proclaim that The Book of Hebrews was written by another author, more like two authors, neither one was Paul. Here we learn a ministry of Remembrance. - Not sacrifice, but remembrance.

We get distinct reference to Melchizedek, rather than the function of the Priests from Levi - appointed for the blood sacrifice. If I was to start a cult tomorrow, I think that might be where I would start.

The other item I found offensive about the Original Sin doctrine was the idea that God is angered - much less wrathful. What this does is project lower dimensional attributes like fear and anger on to a supernatural super-being - God. This is contrary to God being unending perpetual Love. The Father in the Prodigal Son parable was never angry. Even to the son who remained at home and "faithful" - the Father went out to find him, missing the party for the prodigal son, to see what was wrong. The Father did not send a servant to go summon the other son and he met the angered resentful son with the same unconditional love that he had for the returning prodigal son! There was never a lapse in the Father's Love.

I am not saying that God is pleased by sin, or even complacent. What I am saying is the suffering we feel due to our sins is a consequence of law - not because the Creator of the Universe feels anger. We project that "anger" upon God as we feel fear ourselves, as an ego-driven emotion.

Then moving on, the Christians were affirming to one another that God does not need us for ANYTHING!

I beg to differ. God needs us to have any meaning. Think this through though please. To have meaning one must be attributing the existence of that - meaning - into the conscious cognizance of another. So without us, for God to have any meaning He would have to create another cognizant being beside you and me. So without the Created, the Creator has no meaning by definition of meaning.

Perhaps I am over thinking things but I figure that is why I have a brain.



P.S. Paul's excuse for staying in Jerusalem and facing trial by the Sanhedrin was a guilt trip he had for his involvement stoning Stephen. You have therefore a major religion promoting blood sacrifice, even a surrogate human blood sacrifice caused by disobedience to Jesus because of a self-imposed guilt trip!