Envoy sent as emissary to secure peace

[David Merrill]

Sometimes yes and sometimes no. I find those presentments are made upon CESTUI QUE VIE TRUST; and that is not me. So why would i keep it and argue against it. Why would I presume that i have standing, as trustee, to sit at the table and argue? So instead I confidentially return the presentment as Envoy for Registered Owner to the Trustee or Trustees Agent.

The Registered Owner is CESTUI QUE VIE TRUST and that is not me. What the Trustee does with the Charge is up to the Trustee. But I am wise enough to know that the Charge must be discharged upon the Owner's estate. And that is not my estate, that estate belongs to the Trustee, held in Trust.

We are talking about Intangible Property. So i shall not trespass that office.


CHARGE, contracts. An obligation entered into by the owner of an estate which makes the estate responsible for its performance. Vide 2 Ball & Beatty, 223; 8 Com. Dig. 306, Appendix, h. t. Any obligation binding upon him who enters into it, which may be removed or taken away by a discharge. T. de la Ley, h. t.

Who is the Owner of an Estate? - The Trustee holds the estate in Trust. Answer: Trustee.

Who issued the Charges? Was it you? Are the charges upon you? Answer: No and No.

Do you know what an implied and constructive trust are?

So sometimes r4c works and other times I find it easier, much easier, to just let the Trustee take care of the presentment INTERNALLY.

This comment causes me to review the Opening Post by Motla68:

Let's try to stay focused on the thread topic this time and not dirty it with throwing mud attaching it to any other post I have put on this forum, including referencing the name Coresource material or any derivative thereof. Thank you.

ENVOY SENT AS EMISSARY TO SECURE PEACE

Posted: Friday, March 11, 2011 by Onlashuk in Born Without Money


“I AM Envoy here as an Emissary to secure the peace. You can call me Envoy.” The message that I have to convey is there has been a mistake, where is the proper notice that I may deal with this matter honorable? Since it is true that, “No man can serve two masters,” therefore, it is also true that it would be inappropriate for this Envoy to be involved in matters that do not concern me or my God for the sake of honor and peace. Furthermore, it is my mission to express and convey unto you that there is no claim of ownership concerning this matter, and if there has been any trespass, that forgiveness is asked for as it is also given for any likewise trespass, wherein there may appear to be any kind of fraud or identity theft, so that this matter can be settled by the appropriate parties honorable and without any interference.


EN’VOY, n. [L. via; Eng. way, contracted from viag, vag, or wag.]

1. A person deputed by a prince or government, to negotiate a treaty, or transact other business, with a foreign prince or government. We usually apply the word to a public minister sent on a special occasion, or for one particular purpose; hence an envoy is distinguished from an ambassador or permanent resident at a foreign court, and is of inferior rank. But envoys are ordinary and extraordinary, and the word may sometimes be applied to resident ministers.

EM’ISSARY, n. [L. emissarius, from emitto; e and mitto, to send.]

A person sent on a mission; a missionary employed to preach and propagate the gospel.

2. A person sent on a private message or business; a secret agent, employed to sound or ascertain the opinions of others, and to spread reports or propagate opinions favorable to his employer, or designed to defeat the measures or schemes of his opposers or foes; a spy; but an emissary may differ from a spy. A spy in war is one who enters an enemy’s camp or territories to learn the condition of the enemy; an emissary may be a secret agent employed not only to detect the schemes of an opposing party, but to influence their councils. A spy in war must be concealed, or he suffers death; an emissary may in some cases be known as the agent of an adversary, without incurring similar hazard.

Jer 49:14
I have heard a rumour from the LORD, and an ambassador is sent unto the heathen, saying, Gather ye together, and come against her, and rise up to the battle.

Obadiah 1:1
The vision of Obadiah. Thus saith the Lord GOD concerning Edom; We have heard a rumour from the LORD, and an ambassador is sent among the heathen, Arise ye, and let us rise up against her in battle.

Canon 1557
An Ecclesiastical Deed Poll must always be on robin-egg blue paper in recognition and respect of its status as a Divine Notice with the full authority of One Heaven, in particular the Sacred Rota and twelve Apostolic Prothonotaries as well as Apostolic Prothorabban of the Divine Sanhedrin.

Canon 1563
An Ecclesiastical Deed Poll must always be on robin-egg blue paper and glued strongly to the reverse of a copy of the 1st page of any notice, demand, summons sent by the inferior Roman Person.



PRIVATE. Not general, as a private act of the legislature; not in office;
as, a private person, as well as an officer, may arrest a felon; individual,
as your private interest; not public, as a private way, a private nuisance.
- 1856 Bouviers Dictionary

I cannot show you what is wrapped in that blue paper because it is private by definition above, but I can tell you about it.

- Robin-egg blue paper, wrapped 4 fold.

- Inside what was wrapped:

1. printout from online showing the certified mail previously delivered by notice of my visit and purpose for me being there.

2. copy of presentment (ticket) that had Some language written upon it that was sent in with the notice by certified mail.
[ stamped deposit for credit - in red ] [ written: This account name and number is property of the United States of America, please deposit to owner care of Treasury of the United States of America. Thank you ]

3. copy of instrument printed out from the DMV that the vehicle was registered with the state.
( nothing i wrote on it)

4. copy of Birth Certificate

- All 4 sheets were stapled together.

The emphasis in red excludes the prescribed remedy - Title 12 U.S.C. §411 from §16 of the Fed Act. What it leaves though, is your point.

Your point, as I understand it is that the US Government has taken position as trustee for the Cestui Que Vie trust, and is therefore the Owner. So we should understand the CQV trust a little better - that its origins are always that somebody died or is missing at sea, in the admiralty for more than seven years. So somebody becomes the same as on the headstone DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT. - Or at least that somebody becomes completely responsive to that CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST by appearance.

Which brings us to possibilities of Setoff by operation of law, within the scope of public official accounting. Something that Motla68 brought up, (this is not hearsay, I am simply relying on your memory if you were here reading) was that somebody might place their home on the registry of the US government and then buy a new roof for it, as the government's responsibility. [Of course that is where he and I departed in philosophy as there is no funding in the account to pay a roofer. Not so much, in my opinion, that setoff is impossible; but that when I confronted Motla68 with a stern debate, he denied that is what he implied to begin with - making the debate infuriating instead of gratifying and edifying.]

Here are some examples how it is accomplished with government offices and eleemysonary corporations.

http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/9008/pomc.jpg
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/3...rofcredit1.jpg
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/448...rofcredit2.jpg

This of course comes with the caveat that this same author behind these instruments issued similar lien-type papers that have prompted legislation that has landed at least one man in federal prison.

In summary, my point - that I made several times with Motla68 is that we paid to get out of the Great Depression and we paid to save the Fed by becoming Fed banks ourselves in capacity to endorse fractional lending and the byproduct of elastic currency. We paid for the privilege to create money out of thin air and we paid for the ability to create that bond off our signatures as civilly dead entities after probate.

We paid.

There are no funds there. You cannot pay off a roofer by sending him to the Treasury and the only reason you get a Setoff (even a ten-day setoff) is that the attorneys do not have the constitution to just lay it out for you - We Paid and got what we paid for. There are no funds setting in an account.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Michael Joseph]

This comment causes me to review the Opening Post by Motla68:



The emphasis in red excludes the prescribed remedy - Title 12 U.S.C. §411 from §16 of the Fed Act. What it leaves though, is your point.

Your point, as I understand it is that the US Government has taken position as trustee for the Cestui Que Vie trust, and is therefore the Owner. So we should understand the CQV trust a little better - that its origins are always that somebody died or is missing at sea, in the admiralty for more than seven years. So somebody becomes the same as on the headstone DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT. - Or at least that somebody becomes completely responsive to that CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST by appearance.

Which brings us to possibilities of Setoff by operation of law, within the scope of public official accounting. Something that Motla68 brought up, (this is not hearsay, I am simply relying on your memory if you were here reading) was that somebody might place their home on the registry of the US government and then buy a new roof for it, as the government's responsibility. [Of course that is where he and I departed in philosophy as there is no funding in the account to pay a roofer. Not so much, in my opinion, that setoff is impossible; but that when I confronted Motla68 with a stern debate, he denied that is what he implied to begin with - making the debate infuriating instead of gratifying and edifying.]

Here are some examples how it is accomplished with government offices and eleemysonary corporations.

http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/9008/pomc.jpg
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/3...rofcredit1.jpg
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/448...rofcredit2.jpg

This of course comes with the caveat that this same author behind these instruments issued similar lien-type papers that have prompted legislation that has landed at least one man in federal prison.

In summary, my point - that I made several times with Motla68 is that we paid to get out of the Great Depression and we paid to save the Fed by becoming Fed banks ourselves in capacity to endorse fractional lending and the byproduct of elastic currency. We paid for the privilege to create money out of thin air and we paid for the ability to create that bond off our signatures as civilly dead entities after probate.

We paid.

There are no funds there. You cannot pay off a roofer by sending him to the Treasury and the only reason you get a Setoff (even a ten-day setoff) is that the attorneys do not have the constitution to just lay it out for you - We Paid and got what we paid for. There are no funds setting in an account.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Is not money Intangible Property? Property is Right of Use. What then of Money? Reminds me of the back of a SSN card.

This card belongs to the SSA. If found return to Address. See the resulting trust when one keeps it, one lends value to it and the trust results from using another's Property.

Can you now see the operation of law in regard to returning a ticket? The Ticket is Intangible Property. The Charge issued forth by Trustee dejure officer, must be discharged upon the Estate in CESTUI QUE VIE TRUST, or by third party VOLUNTEER.

VOLUNTEER comes in by Reactionary Fiduciary. See implied Trust. But it is much simplier. The Charge is issued upon the Estate and must be discharged from the Estate. Money? What's that? It is Intangible.

------------------------

I once knew a trustee for a banking account. When the banking institution realized they had entered into an agreement that put them on shaky foundation, they decided to close the acct. The Trustee demanded lawful money but instead the banker issued forth a Cashier's Check. This is not certified funds. Upon receiving [problem] the cashier's check, the trustee proceeded to cash the check at the same institution that just issued forth the Check. The banker stared at the Trustee and said "That check is worthless, we will not cash it."

The banker was playing the same game that the Trustee was playing. There is no Value in that check it is just a piece of paper with symbols written upon it. And the banker knows it! So the banker said to the Trustee, but if you would like to deposit that check into a new account we would be glad to do that for you. Now, do you see it? If the Trustee opened up a new account, that would be recognition of value in the paper. Else, why do it.

Plus stop to think about it. There was already an existing account, why the need for a new account? I know, but I cannot share reason in this setting.

-------------------------------------------------

Now, in regard to the Traffic Ticket. How will you pay was the question? And the response is why would you pay? It is not your estate. The Trustee [Officer] issued forth a presentment upon the CESTUI QUE VIE TRUST. Tell me again why I should pay? I am neither and the fact that I would argue with the Trustee or Administrator shows my lack of knowledge concerning the trust operation and may in fact be Trustee de son Tort. And that sin folks usually does not go unpunished.

Therefore, as Envoy for Registered Owner, the Intangible Property is returned to the Trustee - Clerk of Court, or Agent for Trustee. So that the books can be INTERNALLY balanced.

[Rock Anthony]

With regards to the verbiage: "Deposit for Credit on Account or For Non-Negotiable Federal Reserve Notes of Face Value."

I do not want to touch credit! My comprehension is that the Federal Reserve issues credit, and Congress has imposed excises against the use and transfer of that credit.

The demand for lawful money redeems Fed credit into lawful money. As far as I'm concerned, do not deposit credit into any account that I'm authorized to use.

But that's just me.

[David Merrill]

That is an eloquent explanation MJ! And it interleaves well with RA's comment.

With regards to the verbiage: "Deposit for Credit on Account or For Non-Negotiable Federal Reserve Notes of Face Value."

I do not want to touch credit! My comprehension is that the Federal Reserve issues credit, and Congress has imposed excises against the use and transfer of that credit.

The demand for lawful money redeems Fed credit into lawful money. As far as I'm concerned, do not deposit credit into any account that I'm authorized to use.

But that's just me.

The symbols on the cashier's check symbolize credit - good faith and credit.

I am with you Rock; I have not touched credit since the sheriff converted my $26 cash into a check in booking, maybe twelve years ago. I took it to the bank and they refused to cash it back if I was unwilling to sign the back. I returned the check to the sheriff's office requesting they cash it for me but they treated me like MJ's bankers did his friend. I never heard back.