One day I went to the Driver's License (DMV) satellite office and asked the controller what I would need to secure in effort to obtain a State issued ID. The answer was quite simple in its construction as follows two forms are all that was required:
1. A piece of mail coming to some address
2. A utility bill in the name I was requesting ID coming to same address in 1
3. A SSN
4. A witness of my involvement in a local high school [public school]
and there were other choices but I truncate them for brevity sake. So upon hearing my choices I made the statement: "so essentially what you are saying is that I must prove that I have placed my trust in the State in order for the State to issue forth an ID for my use of its commercial platform".
Short response: "You got it".
Do you see folks: If you want to make a USE of the State you must have within your possession evidence of an access easement. A Thing is not a Use. Ownership of a Thing is NOT the same as dominion over the Use. The Land is a Thing - Residential and Commercial are Uses. Therefore if we start from IN THE BEGINNING God created all things. Then we see that we can NEVER own those Things but we can claim Uses upon those things and go forth and take dominion. Why can we TAKE dominion - because finding that their is noone occupying upon those uses we can find that all claims have been abandoned and in fact TAKE is structured on that premise - that which has been abandoned.
Now then if I benefit from the Use under which someone or some people [corporation] are undertaking, then I have received the benefit subject to certain privileges and obligations. And of course the Trustee has certain duties - legally speaking. And so then what are those duties?
That is a VERY IMPORTANT question. Let me put it like this.
A long, long, long time ago I was at a real estate closing and I being careful told the closing attorney that I intended to read every word on every page as I thought that to be prudent. He agreed with a frown on his face. I asked him should I take the papers and return or should I sit in his conference space and read. He allowed that I might use his conference room. But before I began reading I asked him a few questions because I recognized the nature of the Trust that I was going to have to construct in order for this transaction to occur. Therefore I wanted to understand the terms of this deal.
1st Question - Do you have any legal duty to me?
Answer: No. My legal duty is to the bank which has hired me.
At this point he was very upset - with arms crossed and legs visibly crossed [glass table] plus his fists were clinched. Body language is more telling that oral speech.
2nd Question - Do you have any ethical duty to me?
Answer: Yes and no - my primary ethical duty is to the bank. But I have a moral obligation to do what is right.
At this point I realized that this guy works for the bank - he has none of my concern and he wants me to build my own prison - sign here and here and here.
===
So I told him I was going to set aside the deed and the promissory note and that "we" would get to that later after I read the other papers. This made him nervous as a president whose teleprompter has broken. He got up and called the bank. To his surprise there was nothing he could do but wait.
So upon reading all of those riders I promptly placed a large "NO - absent liability assumed and without recourse" upon all documents I did not accept. When he saw these he had steam coming out of his ears. Yelling "you can't do that". And I responded "I just did". Calmly of course.
But the real fun began when I novated the Deed of Trust. Back to the phone he went. I could go on with this story, but the point was in the end the only thing that mattered was the money. Signing the promissory note - the Deed of Trust was a self inflicted prison. I did not care for some of the bars. So I removed them.
===
If you want to make a USE of something that is under the dominion, mangement and control of another, then at a minimum an unsecured position manifests but most likely a trust is constructed. And the MAKER of the trust he who which requested the benefit - cannot later shirk the obligation by refusal for cause.
There was one in this forum who upon response from an Administrator wrote "Refused for Cause" - he simply does not understand. He by signing up to the Forum is the Maker of a trust and therefore upon a good faith notice he dishonors HIMSELF by not abiding by the Notice.
Perhaps now you get a better glimpse on "naked indorsement" and the Federal Reserve System. The Administration [IRS] issues a good faith notice upon the one who sought the benefit of the system - for a return [accounting] - there is only to rebut the presumption of Intercourse with the FRS. A Grantee/Beneficiary becomes a Tenant occupying upon the Use. That makes said Grantee a Trustee to undertake upon the Uses Granted.
Geez I have been at this too long what seems easy I know confuses some. Let me say it like this:
If you have been Granted the Uses of Land then you get the beneficial use of the land in Residential Uses but you are also a Trustee stewarding the Land according to those uses granted. Now consider an Undertaking such as signing up for a webservice. You sign up subject to the Administration - but the signor - freely subjected him/her self to the Administration by his/her own free will and deed in order to obtain the benefit. If one then does not abide by a good faith notice issued by the Administration then that one is in breach of trust and a Constructive Trust forms whereupon the liability falls upon the head of the Maker. In my example, the Maker is the one who signed up on the Registry - excuse me - I mean membership roll.
I hope you can easily see this applies wholesale across the board to any organization be it as small as two people or as large as 300 million. It is all the same principle.
When you consider a pension plan did you ever consider to ask the Trustee what his/her obligations are to you and can those obligations be compromised by 3rd party Administration? A corporation can only exist within the Scope of the State - it is a statutory entity subject to the oversight of the State Administration. As such, one would do himself a huge service to read the Terms and Conditions of the CONTRACT before one MARRIES.
Yes indeed folks - a trust is a Marriage. Was the marriage born in lust - for money - or in truth mutual benefit? Sign here and here and here....Do you understand - Yep, says the fool - everything looks about right.
Every now and again the Administration in its mercy makes allowances in HOPE that the membership / subjects / citizens will come to realize that we can serve each other if we just keep our word. If one does not like to occupy in the house of another man - one can leave as long as leaving does not cause him to break his word. For a promise given must be kept. A promise is an equity and the giver has a legal duty to keep it - even to his hurt.
I hope this helps those who are trying to understand the nature of the perception of hidden contracts. It is truly simple - IF WE CAN'T KEEP OUR PROMISES THEN DON'T MAKE THEM. Which is understood by : UNDERSTAND OUR AGREEMENTS.
Once Trust is established by a Maker - the Maker cannot shirk his/her obligations. Two notices is good faith by the Cestui Que Use upon the Cestuie Que Trustent.
Shalom,
Michael Joseph
Reply With Quote