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

[David Merrill]

That is basically it Frederick Burrell;


When an officer is setting properly with an oath - then there is authority. When he is not, there is a vacant office and de facto authority from acquiescence and voluntary submission.

Some associate the model with government being a corporation but that has its limitations in my opinion.

Look through this Exhibit.

There is a combination of factors that qualify an office. The oath must follow form - meaning if the official swears, he or she must swear by an authority - namely in Colorado - the ever-living God. If the official affirms instead, then they must follow that form - which is not to swear. One or the other.

If the official is a county judge, then the oath must be subscribed and published at the county clerk and recorder. If the official is a district judge - then the oath must be subscribed and published at the secretary of state. If this is not correctly filed then the office is vacant.

When there is a defect in the oath - the intention is clearly that the de facto office is only valid if the official hurries to correct the problem. Read People v. Scott. However chief justice Mary J. MULLARKEY had to justify current AG John William SUTHERS for running his DA position (Fourth Judicial District - Colorado) for eight years so she clipped only this sentence to deny certiorari:

If one receives a majority of the legal votes cast, is declared by the proper canvassing board to be duly elected,is inducted into the office, and proceeds with the performance of the duties connected therewith until the disability is adjudged by a proper tribunal, he is a de facto officer, whose acts performed in the discharge of his official duties are valid and binding.

Wouldn't you guess - this certiorari has been scrubbed.

I have always upheld that this one sentence, selected because it has nothing about repairing the defect quickly as possible, would only hold true if the electorate is aware the official's oath is faulty and decides as a body politic that it is fine. - Which of course, the People would never do if they knew that the official was intentionally running a vacant office.

Click here. SUTHERS cleared out his office the next morning.

[Anthony Joseph]

That is basically it Frederick Burrell;


When an officer is setting properly with an oath - then there is authority. When he is not, there is a vacant office and de facto authority from acquiescence and voluntary submission.

Some associate the model with government being a corporation but that has its limitations in my opinion.

Look through this Exhibit.

There is a combination of factors that qualify an office. The oath must follow form - meaning if the official swears, he or she must swear by an authority - namely in Colorado - the ever-living God. If the official affirms instead, then they must follow that form - which is not to swear. One or the other.

If the official is a county judge, then the oath must be subscribed and published at the county clerk and recorder. If the official is a district judge - then the oath must be subscribed and published at the secretary of state. If this is not correctly filed then the office is vacant.

When there is a defect in the oath - the intention is clearly that the de facto office is only valid if the official hurries to correct the problem. Read People v. Scott. However chief justice Mary J. MULLARKEY had to justify current AG John William SUTHERS for running his DA position (Fourth Judicial District - Colorado) for eight years so she clipped only this sentence to deny certiorari:





Wouldn't you guess - this certiorari has been scrubbed.

I have always upheld that this one sentence, selected because it has nothing about repairing the defect quickly as possible, would only hold true if the electorate is aware the official's oath is faulty and decides as a body politic that it is fine. - Which of course, the People would never do if they knew that the official was intentionally running a vacant office.

Click here. SUTHERS cleared out his office the next morning.

So, in essence, what is being offered here is that the "culpability dodge" of the supposed oath-sworn officers, who are the entrusted governing force, is what renders said officers impotent and derilict of the obligations and duties they would otherwise be bound by law and oath to perform.

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.

What is a man to do then?

[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.

[Frederick Burrell]

Yes, what is a man to do, since even the act of attempting to maintain ones rights is now being considered a potential sign of an enemy combatant, at terrorist. How long before the false facade, and pretense of abiding by the constitution is no longer desirable or maintained. It would appear that day is not far off. fB

[David Merrill]

So, in essence, what is being offered here is that the "culpability dodge" of the supposed oath-sworn officers, who are the entrusted governing force, is what renders said officers impotent and derilict of the obligations and duties they would otherwise be bound by law and oath to perform.

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.

What is a man to do then?

The concepts of Qui Tam and Resulting Trust(ee) become viable. Timothy F. GEITHNER began gambling May 16th on Americans losing their homes in foreclosures. This opens up Waiver of Tort - true judgment based in the facts.

The SoS was threatening me with Class 5 Felony charges for using the Great Seal on a Finance Statement until I pointed out the SoS was in breach of trust with Donald DREW - on the Colorado Republic. Page 1, Page 2.

I simply pointed out that now I am trustee, I am affiliated with the bastard state they disowned:

Yes, what is a man to do, since even the act of attempting to maintain ones rights is now being considered a potential sign of an enemy combatant, at terrorist. How long before the false facade, and pretense of abiding by the constitution is no longer desirable or maintained. It would appear that day is not far off. fB

It would appear we await a truly Final Judgment. Judgment came upon the original Qui Tam action exactly 30 days later; on September 11th, 2001. Remember how the Stock Market was shut down for three days?

[Frederick Burrell]

David a question for you. I can not see any of the your gif files. I get a message that the domain is not registered. to register go to the imageshack site to register. But I am not the admin. of this domain. suggestions please.fB

[Frederick Burrell]

The concepts of Qui Tam and Resulting Trust(ee) become viable. Timothy F. GEITHNER began gambling May 16th on Americans losing their homes in foreclosures. This opens up Waiver of Tort - true judgment based in the facts.

The SoS was threatening me with Class 5 Felony charges for using the Great Seal on a Finance Statement until I pointed out the SoS was in breach of trust with Donald DREW - on the Colorado Republic. Page 1, Page 2.

I simply pointed out that now I am trustee, I am affiliated with the bastard state they disowned:

It would appear we await a truly Final Judgment. Judgment came upon the original Qui Tam action exactly 30 days later; on September 11th, 2001. Remember how the Stock Market was shut down for three days?

David In the above post there is supposed to be two inserted images. They appear to me as a frog in an ice cube. These also appear in some of the heading for different forums thread on the main page instead of the intended graphics.

[Frederick Burrell]

Simply put there is no Trust.

But then you have others that would imply that there is a hidden hand at work, that keeps a watchful eye on the so called trustees. Perhaps if you are willing to give up everything to the State, they will embrace you as a peaceful inhabitant. We have certainly been programmed to this end by our religious systems, and it appears that some find remedy is this. hmmmmm


fB

[Trust Guy]

Simply put there is no Trust.
fB

I would beg to differ , although the Trust has long been breached and properties converted to another use .

"It is only by considering the granted powers, in their true character of trust or delegated powers, that all the various parts of our complicated system of government can be harmonized and explained".

- John C. Calhoun, ( 7th Vice President of the United States ) A Discourse on the Constitution and Government of the United States - (1851 posthumous)

[Michael Joseph]

I would beg to differ , although the Trust has long been breached and properties converted to another use .

"It is only by considering the granted powers, in their true character of trust or delegated powers, that all the various parts of our complicated system of government can be harmonized and explained".

- John C. Calhoun, ( 7th Vice President of the United States ) A Discourse on the Constitution and Government of the United States - (1851 posthumous)

Thank you for this post. Because this is at the heart of trust. The word "our" begs a society as Trust does. Trust begs a Trustee and a Beneficiary - a particular society with a political goal - a "moral person".

Simply put, I therefore must consent and that action of consent in the Public is a benefit gained upon the Dead Hand "office of beneficiary" - or perhaps trustee if you consider "TENANT".

Therefore "I have no trust in you" is a handy phrase.