Birth Certificate - What it is

[xparte]

How is it the judge becomes the NAME, then administered this trust account if no standing why is the beneficiary NAMED without standing?

[xparte]

The NAME is them the matter is Me It is extremely rare that one person is completely right and one person is completely wrong. Honestly confront your own faults, even if you think you are only one percent wrong and the other person is ninety-nine percent wrong. You being a hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye,or my eye and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. (Matthew 7:3-5) well is a hypocrite a NAMED PERSON with a BEAM/plank platform IN HIS/HER EYE Administrators see only persons YOU are that speck of a person That a Man must deny In a court what's any Man but a hypocrite

[Chex]

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

[Michael Joseph]

How is it the judge becomes the NAME, then administered this trust account if no standing why is the beneficiary NAMED without standing?

Consider a Mass. Business Trust. Most times it is run completely by the Board of Trustees subject to the power of direction which too may be vested in a Board of Directors or the Board of Trustees itself.

Certificates are issued upon the Beneficiaries evidencing their interest in the Trust Corpus - which includes all promises and obligations to perform, as well as, use rights. In this particular trust, the beneficiary has no standing to Administrate the Trust or to act in and or the Trust. If the Beneficiary does such a thing, then the Beneficiary can be deemed a CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTEE and therefore the tort also brings the liability.

A proper response is I do not seek to trespass upon the office of the trustee in tort. Let the trustee perform his/her office. Otherwise there is another survey formed by CONSTRUCTION and what is running around are [Constructive] Trustees. This can also be termed "taking against the Will".

Those bylaws are liabilities or obligations upon the Trustee [dejure or constructive]. He who acts and does not have the office incurs the liability of his mis-deeds. Therefore the statute is a liability.

[Michael Joseph]

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

Foghorn Legghorn: You gotta keep your eye on the ball, boy. Get it? - EYEBALL. That one got under your glove didn't it boy?

[xparte]

Persons get what they ordered and claimed I surrender BC and DL as a Man on the matter of ownership judge enters a not guilty plee for NAMED she keeps docs as evidence of who,s identity Hers i submit I am confined to what is on paper all warrants are on paper in fairness that plank is in the eye of the beholder COURT is beholding to Court plank for plank eye for eye All honour is a speck and only irritation in the courts eyes.

[Michael Joseph]

Persons get what they ordered and claimed I surrender BC and DL as a Man on the matter of ownership judge enters a not guilty plee for NAMED she keeps docs as evidence of who,s identity Hers i submit I am confined to what is on paper all warrants are on paper in fairness that plank is in the eye of the beholder COURT is beholding to Court plank for plank eye for eye All honor is a speck and only irritation in the courts eyes.

Not to argue but consider the Tower of Babel that has been erected in Trust Estates. Every time one mentions property then one must ascribe that property by survey. So within what survey is the property rights bound? If you stop for a moment and think then your mind has to go quickly to origins. The question remains - who created the founding trust? Who established? Who is the Creator?

How was the Estate formed? The answer is in Claim. Now then all those who argue property rights are subject to the first claim. That claim is subject to Administration thus the one who Claims then upon acceptance from the general public - by common deeds and no opposition - is Grantor who grants out certain use rights as Benefit upon a Grantee [kingdom] whereof said kingdom undertakes in Administration of those use rights subject to the Grantor or the Grantor's office in succession. If the Grant was made in an Office then as long as the office is occupied, then the Dominion continues.

A license is so far down upon the "Tower" as to be almost a servant. A slave is not allowed to marry absent the consent of his/her master. Thus the union must be licensed. In fact all of the slaves deeds must be licensed. Yet at international law lies silent the Right of Self Determination. Knock Knock.

Shalom,
MJ

[allodial]

Sweeping generalizations are at times used to confuse or deceive. I avoid making them. After all, what is your or my circumstance is not necessarily everyone else's. Estates are often formed by declaration or by agreement and may arise directly or indirectly or expressly or implicitly from such declaration or agreement. A claim at the least is a declaration or a notice.

At Least Two Types of States
There are at least two types of "state" as relates to The United States of America.

1. the type of state which formed the United States of America (something tells me that there are not fifty of these--the United States did not form these and thusly does not have the authority a creator has over its creations--its the other way around here)
2. the type of state which was formed by the United States (the Federal Government) for administrative purposes.

Re: type #1
Type #1 is without the United States, is foreign to the United States. These are 'several' rather than wholly united into a Union. AFAIK, never did George Washington as President or as Commander In Chief of the United States have authority here.

Re: type #2
Type #2 aka a "Federal State" is within the United States and might be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (NDAA, Patriot Act, Federal Reserve system, Social Security Administration, U.S. military bases, persons born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, plenary power, IRS, the 50 States of the Union, etc.). U.S. Congress and the President of the United States might be construed to be like unto King and Parliament here--and this area is very much limited.

Ignorance or lack of knowledge about the foregoing distinctions has been greatly exploited--not to mention ignored as if not worth learning. The United States itself is a Federal (Territorial) State--it is very much limited in size and scope. The singularity known as the United States is a creature of other states. Some suggest it to have been the creature of the People of the original Thirteen Colonies--but they weren't "People of the United States" and were instead People of Maryland, Virginia, etc. respectively. For example, U.S. State of California is not the same as the de jure California republic (lower case). The 's' at the end just wants to be plural but is more often than not these days a singularity.

Thus the importance of being able to recognize administrative law when you see it. Whenever U.S. Congress passes a "law" (regulations might be called laws at times) that is in any way contrary to "the Constitution", they are acting in an administrative capacity with respect to the the Territory of the United States (type #2)--they lack power to do so otherwise. SCOTUS might know but they aren't going to batanatly say so but such can be readily determined by the language, context and syntax of the "law". America is not the United States. America is not the United States of America.

Related: Matroska doll.

[Michael Joseph]

Sweeping generalizations are at times used to confuse or deceive. I avoid making them. After all, what is your or my circumstance is not necessarily everyone else's. Estates are often formed by declaration or by agreement.

At Least Two Types of States
There are at least two types of "state" as relates to the United States:

1. the type of state which formed the United States of America
2. the type of state which was formed by the United States (the Federal Government) for administrative purposes.

Re: type #1
Type #1 is without the United States, is foreign to the United States.

Re: type #2
Type #2 aka a "Federal State" is within the United States and might be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (NDAA, Patriot Act, Federal Reserve system, Social Security Administration, U.S. military bases, persons born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, plenary power, IRS, the 50 States, etc.). U.S. Congress and the President of the United States might be construed to be like unto King and Parliament here--and this area is very much limited.

Ignorance or lack of knowledge about the foregoing distinctions has been greatly exploited--not to mention ignored. The United States itself is a Federal (Territorial) State--it is very much limited in size and scope. The singularity known as the United States is a creature of other states. Some suggest it to have been the creature of the People of the original Thirteen Colonies--but they weren't "People of the United States" and were instead People of Maryland, Virginia, etc. respectively. For example, U.S. State of California is not the same as the de jure California republic (lower case). The 's' at the end just wants to be plural but is more often than not these days a singularity.

Thus the importance of being able to recognize administrative law when you see it.

a trust is a trust. Call it whatever name you choose - like begets like. A butterfly may have white wings and another black - but the kind remains unchanged. The corporation is a subset within a larger set. The Tower is erected upon the principle of Legal.

My scope is larger than something called United States or United States of America - those are mere leaves on the tree. And what of the roots.

de-jure or de-facto : frame the argument. Perhaps one finds he/she argues concerning a limb of a tree but this one has no understanding of the roots upon which the tree relies.

Seek ye the realization of the presence of I AM; Fear not for I AM with the... and then one will walk in the Grace of I AM and not under his/her own labor. For God Is. And there is no want of supply with God.

I can see that you comprehend law boundaries and the People of "name" [a corporation] are not the People of "another name" another corporation.

Shall we walk on and find Providence upon our lives in Grace?

See how some commit adultery? Thinking that they supply out of their OWN strength - they never find the I AM within. I AM the Way. I live by and thru Christ within. Be still and hear FEAR NOT - I AM with you. Take your monopoly game and go play with yourself. I have no trust in man who has breath in his nostrils.

Isa_2:22 Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of?

Will you consent to any of those trusts and become subject to their Administration? Knowledge of how to spot a trust and its formation is quite valuable.

When you recognize The Word became Flesh and dwelt with man - then you will see that Immanuel - God with me and you and everyone.

Will you follow the "I" within or some other man made "golden calf"?

Here where I AM - God Is. And to the son that returns a "new robe" was placed upon him [new understandings] and Father said "all that I have is thine". There is no lack of supply with God. There is only lack of faith with man. As man is led like sheep into the carnal and enticed to stay without the Garden of Eden - Within.

Therefore, man learns to lean on Egypt [a shaky reed]. EVERYTHING concerns Trust. But in realization that I the temple of God - sanctify the Gold. I am never apart from God - we are one.

I pray wisdom, I pray courage, I pray understanding, I pray God Is. I need not for God Is. Amen. If you comprehend, then you will see that what I have propounded herein has in no way strayed from the subject. For the created are the liability of the Creator.

Who shall benefit God? Answer that one and you will see. And who shall define or confine God? For God Is. However, in my carnal mind, the self may choose to undertake in my own labor [my own liability] in tort against God. For God Is. So it is my carnal mind that is the Satan. Many would like to personalize Satan - as religion has blinded the eye. Oh they have their literal stories - but clearly the Temple of God is consciousness of man - and therefore what entity might stand in consciousness?

Do you claim all that there is in God? Claim your use rights upon the Earth. Go forth and undertake as a steward but are you forcing me to consent to your dominion? In my experience this is never the case. I AM just as much as the I AM in you. For my part - I hope never to trespass upon God, thus the fictional world of the dead requires that Alice become small.

Girl from the North Country


Leah is very attractive indeed and alluring us to come away from that which we once had. And Rachel sits alone weeping by the well. Understanding that which is within reveals that which is without.

Trust I. Need not I an access easement into Hades. For I in the Living.

Shalom,
MJ

[allodial]

A trust is a type of agreement rather than a "legal entity". It is an agreement whereby one agrees to be bound to hold something for the benefit of another. Trusts are not generally regarded to be an entity in and of themselves. AFAIK, this thread is about Birth Certificates.

Although chemistry and printing presses might be on topic to a discussion about Monopoly game rules, there is a limit. When the diversion obstructs or makes difficult the discussion or discovery of truth then what good is it? Saying "there is no spoon" or "there is no contract" hardly helps people who are bound to a type of voluntary servitude as far as they are concerned. Saying Man to be God doesn't dismiss the significance even the OT places on valid contractual obligations. Encouraging people to err with gross generalizations hardly seems mature or wise.

There are lots of people who play Monopoly and know a lot about chemistry, metallurgy, papermaking, etc. and who know that there is more to life than Monopoly but nonetheless they are playing Monopoly and know it. In a discussion about Monopoly, I could conceivably go on and on about Chemistry and Metallurgy and claim to be on topic because the pieces are made of metal or the inks in making up colors on the board have to do with chemistry but...how far would that go before someone called a mod on me? Of course, I wouldn't do such a thing --because it would tend to hinder getting at the truth. Even though I might not be bound to Monopoly rules in actuality, I would refrain from being condescending to the plight of others who might be--or who might believe themselves to be.

The thread is "Birth Certificate - What it is". No doubt when discussing law or even board games some of philosophy of law might arise and be discussed and even further the discussion of roots of such philosophy whether in the OT or the NT or otherwise might be discussed. But there is a limit. How does the thread relate to Leah?

Related:
Contracts and Covenants by Richard Anthony