Dishonor Disqualifies the “UST’s” Claims of Authority and Jurisdiction

[Frederick Burrell]

Speaking only for myself. I am saying that I trust the oath of office. I am saying I can trust that if the oath of office is properly formed, subscribed and published - I can trust that the official will abide by the bills of rights enumerated in the constitutions and will accept his oath for value. If he breaks his oath, I will hopefully have already noticed him of the price on menu:

Well David that looks better 2 out of three I could read. The last one still showed up as a frog in an ice cube.

You have a lot more trust then I do David, at least in this system of things. I'm still waiting for the AG to live up to his oath and return what was taken. Not holding my breath. He is the highest law enforcement officer in the state and has not lived up to his oath of office, what can I expect from the rest. He now has the default judgement, knows what the law is and is still refusing to be in honor. Time for the next step. I suppose. fB

[Anthony Joseph]

My question, I believe is still relevant even though we see breaches of oaths.

Who is SUPPOSED to be the governing force/authority when an unlawful seizure on land will take place, or has taken place, by a party who does not utilize the proper venue for such action?

Whether or not that office is being honored and fulfilled is another matter; the question remains, who is it that SHOULD do it according to the law regarding such matters?

There has to be a protective force in place to perform else why even have a law stating that the USDC "...shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land..."

Who or what has been designated as the protecting and governing force to avert the fraudulent and improper process of an acting party who fails to use the proper venue or follow the law it is subject to?

[Frederick Burrell]

My question, I believe is still relevant even though we see breaches of oaths.

Who is SUPPOSED to be the governing force/authority when an unlawful seizure on land will take place, or has taken place, by a party who does not utilize the proper venue for such action?

Whether or not that office is being honored and fulfilled is another matter; the question remains, who is it that SHOULD do it according to the law regarding such matters?

There has to be a protective force in place to perform else why even have a law stating that the USDC "...shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land..."

Who or what has been designated as the protecting and governing force to avert the fraudulent and improper process of an acting party who fails to use the proper venue or follow the law it is subject to?

Great question. In my case the AG of the state of Hawaii was the offender. So I would imagine I would need to take it to a federal level. Who on a federal level, I'm not quite sure yet. I hope someone has the answer. fB

[Frederick Burrell]

My question, I believe is still relevant even though we see breaches of oaths.

Who is SUPPOSED to be the governing force/authority when an unlawful seizure on land will take place, or has taken place, by a party who does not utilize the proper venue for such action?

Whether or not that office is being honored and fulfilled is another matter; the question remains, who is it that SHOULD do it according to the law regarding such matters?

There has to be a protective force in place to perform else why even have a law stating that the USDC "...shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land..."

Who or what has been designated as the protecting and governing force to avert the fraudulent and improper process of an acting party who fails to use the proper venue or follow the law it is subject to?

I'm writing a letter at present that I'm going to send off to a number of federal agencies that are sworn to uphold the constitution. I plan on sending them registered mail. i will let you know what kind of responses I get back. Its a little slow going for me as I'm having to try and find references to laws that are applicable. So it might be a while. I'm slow but I get there. fB

[Axe]

In other words, there exists NO responsible, honorable and willing guardian or governing force who will perform the understood and expected duty-bound obligation of preventing an unlawful seizure on land against a peaceful inhabitant who has declared and demonstrated competence and the absence of being in contract with the Federal Reserve.

It seems to me the answer to your stated question is "the people".

When you put it like that, you have 2 choices:

You live with the injustice, or you bring justice.

Problem is, sheep do not fight. The UST has insured it's perpetuation by making Unics of most.

I'm not crying "revolution", just saying that if your question requires a theoretical answer, there
seems to me to be only two. The two mentioned above.

All the legal wrangling is "hope" that UST will still conform to law. I don't believe they will.
I think if enough sheep stop being Unics, even UST's own rules will be thrown out in order
to maintain power and control.

My basis; the War of 1812.

But in 1812 there were far more "men" around than sheep, so we prevailed. I don't think
now we would have the same outcome.

[Don Hamis]

Many USTs were removed without replacement during the 10-year program and many thousands of old underground tanks were replaced with newer tanks made of corrosion resistant materials (such as fiberglass) and constructed as double walled tanks to catch leaks from the inner tanks and to give an interstitial space to accommodate leak detection sensors. Piping was replaced during the same period with much of the new piping being double wall construction and made of fiberglass or plastic materials. Tank monitoring systems capable of detecting leaks as small as 0.1 gallons-per-hour were installed and other methods were adopted to alert the tank operator of leaks and potential leaks.

[David Merrill]

Many USTs were removed without replacement during the 10-year program and many thousands of old underground tanks were replaced with newer tanks made of corrosion resistant materials (such as fiberglass) and constructed as double walled tanks to catch leaks from the inner tanks and to give an interstitial space to accommodate leak detection sensors. Piping was replaced during the same period with much of the new piping being double wall construction and made of fiberglass or plastic materials. Tank monitoring systems capable of detecting leaks as small as 0.1 gallons-per-hour were installed and other methods were adopted to alert the tank operator of leaks and potential leaks.

This is an interesting bot. Underground Storage Tanks are imposed upon United States Trust - UST.

[Treefarmer]

Many USTs were removed without replacement during the 10-year program and many thousands of old underground tanks were replaced with newer tanks made of corrosion resistant materials (such as fiberglass) and constructed as double walled tanks to catch leaks from the inner tanks and to give an interstitial space to accommodate leak detection sensors. Piping was replaced during the same period with much of the new piping being double wall construction and made of fiberglass or plastic materials. Tank monitoring systems capable of detecting leaks as small as 0.1 gallons-per-hour were installed and other methods were adopted to alert the tank operator of leaks and potential leaks.

The bot's purpose seems to be the promotion of the link in the signature line which links to a website called shadeschandelier dot com.
Don Hamis is doing the same thing over here and here and here and a bunch of other forums.
Looks like he only posts once into each forum though.

[fishnet]

In what forum do we reclaim the Cestui Qui Vie Trust and establish the record? How do we address the True Name in reference to the Cestui Qui Vie Trust? Are we agent/operator, Authorized Agent, trustee? Will we be trespassing on the UST when we reclaim the Cestui Qui Vie Trust?

[Frederick Burrell]

You are the grantor/beneficiary and can appoint yourself as administrator. Which in turn can appoint public servants as trustees as they are sworn under Oath to uphold the laws of the Trust, ie the constitution. As the administrator the trustee must follow your orders and policies. fB