Birth Certificate - What it is

[xparte]

When a warrant is issued for the accused ? The NAME on that certificate indicates a person only a person arrests a person or paper vs paper. Fighting a warrant for ones arrest is declining any offer to settle a charge that is on paper 72hrs in jail seems to be the only way any man using his true name can properly excuse a person from all charges No one claims it the NAME after 72hrs a Man is resurrected its biblical as hell the book the hook Christ fought tax and trust laws his spirit of fairness with protest to being a DECEDENT was 72hrs rise from the paper birth and death certificates are written on stone visit a grave yard this is what they own?

[walter]

Another point of interest.

The Name on the BC is ...DOE JOHN JR.
But when you order one up it gets sent to ...JOHN DOE
Two different persons. Which one are you?

[Chex]

"Ma'am, you must not understand, I am not MARTIN FISHER and that paper does not have my name on it, I cannot accept it. On and for the record, do you have the right to tell me who I am?"

In any court of law (if there is one) how do you go about telling the judge and you have no jurisdiction over me? Oh you say you do prove it.

[Michael Joseph]

"Ma'am, you must not understand, I am not MARTIN FISHER and that paper does not have my name on it, I cannot accept it. On and for the record, do you have the right to tell me who I am?"

In any court of law (if there is one) how do you go about telling the judge and you have no jurisdiction over me? Oh you say you do prove it.

It seems we keep coming back to this concern. An estate begs an actor in and for it. Look up CHARGE in John Bouvier. Then look up LEGAL. Then observe trustee de son tort - constructive trustee.

If you are not answering in and for that name which you are authorized to answer to, then you are practicing law without license in a private law boundary.

Replace JOHN DOE with the FRIENDLY TRUST COMPANY. If you are trustee then you are authorized to speak for the trust, if not and no trustee has appeared then you had best be a licensed attorney.

[Chex]

I completely agree with you MJ, you had me did up some of my old notes. (no pun intended)

Please understand that EVERY time you get paid with PROMISSORY NOTES, such as FRNs, there IS A new mini TRUST formed at that moment, as you HAVE NOT received a full payment.

Funds are being held or exchanged in an account. “in trust”.

If you got paid with silver or GOLD MONEY, then you would receive payment in FULL, and there would be NO TRUST necessary.

So if you get paid with FRNs, which are not redeemable in anything real, like the reserves the central banks have like gold (money), then you're a GRANTOR/DONOR of that trust, and as such should have authority to instruct the trustee (Fed Reserve or the U.S. corporation A,B,C) to SETTLE any public debts that the JOHN DOE trust has or develops.

That's how A4V works in theory, but that rarely works alone, because some status paperwork and operation understanding are needed first, to rebut their presumption that you are making false claims to “the name” vs. operating properly as agent or executor of that estate officially and with competence.

SOMEONE else gets the REAL GOLD money that you earned by your labor, so they must give you something in return.

Since it is not you, it's the person(s) who gives you paper "money", which is the Federal Reserve and U.S. corporation.

The Fed Reserve and U.S. Corporation who are the TRUSTEES of the trust, of which you're a grantor.

You are also the beneficiary (the one who received benefits) unless you give that position away, as people easily do.

This also made clear by the courts, as they have ruled that FRNs are OBLIGATIONS of United States, which mean there is a trust formed to serve that obligation.

The courts don't spell it out in language average people can comprehend easily, but it means that the U.S. corporation is the TRUSTEE for the trust involving FRNs, and as they won't redeem those in gold money.

You are the grantor with power of appointment, and can order settlement of public charges as your remedy to public debts or “charges”, until such time when they DO redeem FRNs in gold money.

This is also how your birth estate functions; aka ALL CAPS NAME estate.
n. 1) a person to whom title to property or a business interest is transferred for the sole purpose of concealing the true owner and/or the business machinations of the parties. Thus, the straw man has no real interest or participation but is merely a passive stand-in for a real participant who secretly controls activities. Sometimes a straw man is involved when the actual owner is not permitted to act, such as a person with a criminal record holding a liquor license. 2) an argument which is intended to distract the other side from the real issues or waste the opponent's time and effort, sometimes called a "red herring" (for the belief that drawing a fish across a trail will mislead hunting dogs). http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Straw+Man

[Michael Joseph]

SOMEONE else gets the REAL GOLD money that you earned by your labor, so they must give you something in return.

Since it is not you, it's the person(s) who gives you paper "money", which is the Federal Reserve and U.S. corporation.

The Fed Reserve and U.S. Corporation who are the TRUSTEES of the trust, of which you're a grantor.

You are also the beneficiary (the one who received benefits) unless you give that position away, as people easily do.

This also made clear by the courts, as they have ruled that FRNs are OBLIGATIONS of United States, which mean there is a trust formed to serve that obligation.

The courts don't spell it out in language average people can comprehend easily, but it means that the U.S. corporation is the TRUSTEE for the trust involving FRNs, and as they won't redeem those in gold money.

You are the grantor with power of appointment, and can order settlement of public charges as your remedy to public debts or “charges”, until such time when they DO redeem FRNs in gold money.

The CQT is interesting because you have to look at all the parties of the trust.

Settlor - Not me - Some Lawyer working for principal - State or Kingdom
Trustor/Creator = State or Kingdom which established the Use in some cases the Cestui Que Use
Grantor = State/Kingdom and man or woman

One will ask how does the State/Kingdom grant and what exactly is granted? Rights, Titles, Interests where are established by Contract which preceded the formation of the CQT.

The man/woman or corporation of men and women may grant equity held in trust in the name of the CQT.

Trustee = State and man/woman actually co-trustees
Beneficiary = State and man/woman actually co-beneficiaries

==========================================

The State itself can be placed into Trust to protect the interest of the Settlors and Beneficiaries. The Trustees of that trust act in Corporate status establishing the POLICIES or bylaws acting as a Board of Trustees and its many members. A Board of Directors might be established and the minutes of these two boards are recorded in some Registry.

The Corporate Trust may not be subject to the Contract which preceded its formation and establishment and said trust may effect its own internal policies to govern its own private affairs. Many do not understand this law boundary and as such commit adultery as they try to mix different venues in their ignorance.

A choice simply has to be made concerning the business affairs of an individual. Noone forces me to use a SSN. I can if I desire if I desire the benefits that come within that trust structure but if I receive those benefits I may be with some obligations - so with everything a choice exists. I find that most just want all the benefit and no obligation. Who wants an obligation anyway?

Gold is for international contracts without the private trust boundary which is run by corporate policies [statutes and codes]. Have you ever noticed that the many parts that make up a truck are most likely copy protected thru patent? What then is purchased when I buy a truck? Do I now have full ownership and dominion to do with all of those parts as I please? Can I go now and create a factory and mass produce any of those parts just because I purchased the truck? OR, did I only purchase a LICENSE to USE that truck? In fact it is a conditional license.

I know I am just winning friends here but that is the cold hard fact. I can make a conditional use of that truck. Therefore who will govern the conditions and ensure no trespass occurs upon intellectual copy protected patented parts? Is that not fair? Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot. You create a great widget that gets put in millions of homes. Some clown claiming he paid off his house now owns that widget and begins to mass produce it as your competitor. That is plain and simply theft. That clown did not put in the hours of hard work to develop the widget, he just stole a grand idea and started making that which was patented.

Now the question is begged how does the enforcement arm get the ability to enforce the patent laws? I mean just because I walk into Walmart does not make me subject to its policies. I become subject to those policies when I enjoin myself in trust or employment. And I might do such a thing if it is to my benefit or to the benefit of others, in charitable giving.

Presuming I have enjoined myself to the Corporate Trust, by way of making a Use of the means and methods [statutes and codes], then I have implied trust and perhaps express trust in signature. This means I have placed my TRUST IN the Corporate Scheme. If I have lodged my trust in you and I begin to benefit from your stewardship of my estate, then I am subject to the bylaws and policies of our agreement. I cannot pick and choose that which I do not wish to obey.

Should I choose to revoke that trust I am able to do so and this is made plain upon a candid world by and thru the RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATION. The Corporate Trust may do what it needs to do according to the Law of Necessity in order to protect a higher mandate of Order. Who can't see this happening all around us?

After years of studying codes, statutes, laws, ancient laws and international law, I have come down to a simple premise - it is honorable to keep my word. If I contract, I bind myself freely to that contract. In the end I hope that war does not come to my land. Because I lack an army to defend against the interests of the mass. Therefore the public ruler of the mass defines the policy of the mass and that is the way the world works. At least for my entire life.

It seems to me that everything works by contract. There are of course levels as states or kingdoms contract with each other. But don't be fooled - no Ruler ever ruled absent the power of the Church! The two swords are really in the hands of the Church but the temporal sword is placed in the hand by GRANT of the Church to a King [as Beneficiary] who then undertakes upon the grant as GRANTEE/TRUSTEE. Polices are made to govern the grant and all of its many uses. Each use is subdivided and polices are then developed to govern its subdivisions according to agencies and departments. And all of the foregoing is supposedly set up by the Shepherd of this World [look hard to see if you can spot them] in Corporation Sole acting in benevolence to keep the Peace and Order.

Unfortunately the Shepherds are mostly fundamentalist religionists who maintain they are on a mission from God. And it is okay to kill all of those heathen who don't agree. All of this is interconnected. Don't think you can separate from this worldwide network of Finance, Politics, Education and Religion absent any persecution. For even family, friends, neighbors, assocations, affiliations, bystanders will hate you for taking a stand against the common will of the ignorant mass. ESPECIALLY if you challenge their meager view of Salvation.

Whist the mass has their hands out - like lame beggars at the gate - they lack any "vow" there is no "pledge" and therefore "no honor". Society is a fickle bird. There are no easy answers. For even if you obey the codes and statutes to a tee - the Law of Necessity may still overrule.

Like I said, it is simple in reality keep my word in contract. Contracts exist which govern the CQT which we are not even aware of and yet they nevertheless exist. So then a global ignorance exists of the Law. And yet the masters of war will say "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Seeing that I can never have enough insurance and I do not have enough time to know the Law - I like to keep it simple - "I have no trust in you" - and I am trying damn hard not to trespass upon you and yours.

Back to Jurisdiction: Say that deed you did for another, did you receive any money for that? Bingo - Jurisdiction solved.

Regarding a strawman it is a DUMMY and what do you think that makes the one acting in and for it? I think Blacks 5th or 6th has the meaning of DUMMY.



Shalom,
Michael Joseph

P.S. What is very interesting is that we see Canon Law governing the worlds estates and the so called Shepherd supposedly overseeing the worlds estates in benevolence and yet Jesus Christ said the Kingdom of God which the fundamentalists will agree with one voice is in our midst - is it now? - Jesus said the Kingdom is found WITHIN us individually - personally. Yet again to reiterate the fundamentalists rule with their iron rod with their perception of being on a mission from God.

Hag 1:8 Go up to the mountain, and bring wood, and build the house; and I will take pleasure in it, and I will be glorified, saith the LORD.

Hag 1:9 Ye looked for much, and, lo, it came to little; and when ye brought it home, I did blow upon it. Why? saith the LORD of hosts. Because of mine house that is waste, and ye run every man unto his own house.

Everyman indeed runs into his own house - of State of Religion of Education etc. And look around you what do you see? Looks like a drought to me! And this war is an internal war within each man - but that which is internal plays out in society and it is the rulers of the mass which manipulate the Beast - which is to say the carnal minds of the human species - these perpetuate Hell on Earth and in Earth.

Jonah Ch 1 Commentary.pdf

Commentary Jonah Chapter 2.pdf

[xparte]

a warrant being administrated bye A peace officer or sheriffs deputy is one with discretion as the True Name is upper lower case and family NAME is always upper its a offer to come to court as the NAMED very polite and civilized. with a warrant from a clerk 72 hrs is the time your holders have to identify you Police bring you in front of clerk within 24hrs to answer for the NAME if you refuse that NAME sent back until no claim for that NAME has been established in assuming the true name one cant be identified as a person or has identified himself as a Man with courts seizing persons and property Identity is a Man,s trust and cant be breeched remaining silent or silenced is exactly what happens in a court that cant see or hear a Man. any and all witlessness need to identify a Man not a name

[Chex]

The CQT is interesting because you have to look at all the parties of the trust.

Settlor - Not me - Some Lawyer working for principal - State or Kingdom
Trustor/Creator = State or Kingdom which established the Use in some cases the Cestui Que Use
Grantor = State/Kingdom and man or woman

Legal Word of the Day
Criminal Intent: The intent to commit a crime: malice, as evidenced by a criminal act; an intent to deprive or defraud the true owner of his property. People v. Moore. 3 N. Y. Cr. R. 458. (source: Black's Law Dictionary).

Here's a few to get the ball rolling, feel free to expand on these and add your own!

Society

1. A society is a number of persons united together by mutual consent.
2. Societies are either incorporated and known to the law, or un-incorporated, of which the law does not generally take notice.
3. By civil society is usually understood a state, a nation or a body political.
4. In civil law, by society is meant a partnership.

Statute

1. Legislative act: an act passed by a legislative body.
2. A formal written enactment of a legislative authority that governs a county, state, city or county
3. Legislated rule of society which has the force of Law

Person

1. A corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages unless there is a statute authorizing the award of punitive damages.

Here's what wiki says.

"Statutory law or statute law is written law (as opposed to oral or customary law) set down by a legislature or other governing authority such as the executive branch of government in response to a perceived need to clarify the functioning of government, improve civil order, to codify existing law, or for an individual or company to obtain special treatment. Examples of statutory law comprehend traditional civil law and modern civil code systems in contrast to common law. In addition to the statutes passed by the national or state legislature, lower authorities or municipalities may also promulgate administrative regulations or municipal ordinances that have the force of law — the process of creating these administrative decrees are generally classified as rulemaking. While these enactments are subordinate to the law of the whole state or nation, they are nonetheless a part of the body of a jurisdiction's statutory law."

(Common law) "Legislated rule of society which has the force of law "

A strawman is defined by Black’s Law dictionary 8th Edition as STRAWMAN?

A strawman is defined by Black’s Law dictionary 8th Edition as
1. A fictitious person, esp. one that is weak or flawed.
2. A tenuous and exaggerated counterargument that an advocate puts forward for the sole purpose of disproving it. – Also termed straw-man argument.
3. A third party used in some transactions as a temporary transferee to allow the principal parties to accomplish something that is otherwise impermissible. Cf.

DUMMY. 4. A person hired to post a worthless bail bond for the release of an accused. – Also termed stramineous homo.

See MEN OF STRAW.

The Social Security “strawman” is a grantor trust. Whenever you make application on a government form you are tendering an offer to contract.

The government just accepts your offer to contract or to enter an agreement.

The differences between the two can be found in the first article of the UCC – agreement vs. contract.

You will find that the difference between the two is the entry and acceptance methods.

However, the end result is the same.

In the Social Security trust you are the grantor since you (or your parents, it matters not) “made application” on Form SS-5 and then you assented when you filed your first Form 1040 with the IRS.

The First Annual Report on Social Security dated 1936 states on page 20, “Title VIII of the Social Security Act imposes an income tax upon the employees covered by the old-age benefits sections”.

Covered by?

Coverage.
Coverage denotes an assurance plan. Assurance denotes a limited liability plan. Admiralty / Maritime law only has four areas of concern; maritime wages, bottomry, salvage and limited liability.

Benedict on Admiralty covers workman’s compensation principles quite well and it states that you cannot enter into an admiralty/maritime agreement on land for covered employment without first going through equity.

A cursory study of equity law will illustrate we are discussing trust law.

In the Social Security relation you are the grantor, the co-fiduciary (with the USAG as Trustee in his capacity as Alien Property Custodian, 50 USC Appx 12) for tax form filing purposes, and a co-beneficiary.

Any time the same party is grantor and beneficiary you have a grantor trust.

This is also why “willful failure to file” is a felony because it is fiduciary misconduct as a fiduciary book keeper for a trust that you do not own.

Blackstone’s Commentaries volume 1, chapter 18 discusses trusts and corporations to be one in the same.

The United States Supreme Court still uses Blackstone’s Commentaries as an authoritative reference for determinations in law as our legal system is based upon the British (“Brit” is covenant in Hebrew and “ish” is Hebrew for man) legal system.

Therefore, the “strawman” in a Social Security relation is a grantor trust.

Therefore, the grantor trust is a corporation for the purposes of taxation.

Will you find that the trust is domiciled in the U.S. Virgin Islands?

Herefore, the grantor trust is foreign to the several states doing business as a foreign entity to the several states.

After all, a trustee holds legal title.

The legal title holder in any trust holds decision authority over the property in question – i.e. everything the “strawman” touches.

The beneficiary holds equitable title.

The equitable title holder gets to use the property held in trust as determined by the terms and conditions of the trust agreement.

Have the terms and conditions of the trust agreement ever been disclosed to you?

The reason anyone creates a trust (of any kind) is to promote domestic tranquility in his relations, whatever they may be.

In a grantor trust if the trustee breaches the principles of domestic tranquility the grantor may revoke legal title from the trustee and revest it in the grantor.

Well, if the grantor already holds equitable title (co-beneficiary or not) the trust collapses because now the trust assets are held by the same party, hence there is no one left to trust.

[Michael Joseph]

Legal Word of the Day

After all, a trustee holds legal title.

The legal title holder in any trust holds decision authority over the property in question – i.e. everything the “strawman” touches.

The beneficiary holds equitable title.

The form of the trust you describe is a SIMPLE TRUST by name and is revocable and therefore is part of the Grantor's Estate unless specifically expressed to be in charity to another corporation of men and women [heirs] or a singular man or woman.

There are many, many other trust formations whereof the Trustee holds BOTH the legal and the equitable titles in allodium fee simple - and the beneficial interest holders have only interest in the promises made in the contract. The ownership, management and dominion of the property and therefore estate is in the Board of Trustees. That is an irrevocable trust.

Now pray tell look around treating of government which do you suppose exists?

In the latter formation the beneficiary has claim in breach of trust or a tort in defamation which is to say libel or slander. But the beneficiary has no say in how the estates are managed and for the beneficiary to claim against that Will is "trustee de son tort" - and a Constructive Trustee is created. Meaning - "if he wants the liability, then give it to him."

In the latter formation, a beneficiary does not even have the ability to require the Board of Trustee to give account of the Trust Affairs UNLESS that requirement is written into the bylaws or trust minutes. In regard to government trust minutes are kept carefully in what is called the Congressional Record.

I can think of hundreds of examples whereof an irrevocable trust such as the foregoing is very advantageous. We are only limited by our own thinking. An interest in estate or an estate in property or a right in property or dominion over property are all legal formations and are subject to trust.

The entire universe runs on trust law.

[doug555]

Legal Word of the Day
Criminal Intent: The intent to commit a crime: malice, as evidenced by a criminal act; an intent to deprive or defraud the true owner of his property. People v. Moore. 3 N. Y. Cr. R. 458. (source: Black's Law Dictionary).

Here's a few to get the ball rolling, feel free to expand on these and add your own!

...

Blackstone’s Commentaries volume 1, chapter 18 discusses trusts and corporations to be one in the same.

The United States Supreme Court still uses Blackstone’s Commentaries as an authoritative reference for determinations in law as our legal system is based upon the British (“Brit” is covenant in Hebrew and “ish” is Hebrew for man) legal system.

Therefore, the “strawman” in a Social Security relation is a grantor trust.

Therefore, the grantor trust is a corporation for the purposes of taxation.

Will you find that the trust is domiciled in the U.S. Virgin Islands?

Herefore, the grantor trust is foreign to the several states doing business as a foreign entity to the several states.

After all, a trustee holds legal title.

The legal title holder in any trust holds decision authority over the property in question – i.e. everything the “strawman” touches.

The beneficiary holds equitable title.

The equitable title holder gets to use the property held in trust as determined by the terms and conditions of the trust agreement.

Have the terms and conditions of the trust agreement ever been disclosed to you?

The reason anyone creates a trust (of any kind) is to promote domestic tranquility in his relations, whatever they may be.

In a grantor trust if the trustee breaches the principles of domestic tranquility the grantor may revoke legal title from the trustee and revest it in the grantor.

Well, if the grantor already holds equitable title (co-beneficiary or not) the trust collapses because now the trust assets are held by the same party, hence there is no one left to trust.

Thanks for your post, Chex.

It matches what I have at http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/p...ct-merger.html about "merger".

See "Divestiture Facts" section excerpt, page 407, item III, about when a usufruct ends, and revests to naked owner.

[QUOTE]"... III. And by not using it in a proper way and time"[/QUOTE]