Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: Envoy sent as emissary to secure peace

  1. #11
    Shalom to you too MJ;


    A couple days ago I kept demanding he describe the contents of the magic envelope wrapper:


    He kept directing me to that same post that said there was some verbiage stamped on the Presentment. So I wanted more detail and today I discovered he excluded the verbiage that holds the remedy in his explanation. - Leaving only the Treasury Direct Redemption verbiage, that is dangerous and unproven.

    Had he included the full verbiage in the opening post of this thread, things would have gone much, much differently for him here today. As obnoxious as I have found him, I would have dealt with the Treasury Direct theory like I did when he showed me the verbiage the first time; with debate and discussion.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by David Merrill; 04-07-11 at 01:21 AM.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,424
    well now i see your point. I do not care for writing anything on their presentment. That presentment is Private Property. And here is the thing, to Use it [the presentment] results in a trust forming.

    For instance have you ever noticed the back of a SSN card? Have you ever noticed the back of a "VIC", "Food Lion" or any "Grocery Card". They all say the same thing.

    This card belongs to.....if you find it and it is not yours, then send to: Address. Why do people keep and Use the Card. Thus the resulting Trust. But if one has filled out the App, there is a LEGAL NAME and a DL required, thus it becomes LEGAL within the United States.

    How hard is it to see the same trust law working with a Ticket?

    In regard to Coupons - there is a Stop Gap - the Corporation. But the US has proprietory interest in the Corp, does it not. This one is a bit tricky and i have not figured it out; yet! But Yehovah willing I will.

    Thank you for pointing that out to me.

    Shalom,
    mj


    Now, one might say, but, but I have used r4c according to the LoR for some time now and it works great. Take notice of this FACT. Comes now True Name.......speaking for his ESTATE.......

    The rest is an Agreement. Said Agreement being struck in the Silence of the Trustee [other Trustee]. Therefore the R4C method is acceptable by "a priori" agreement.
    Last edited by Michael Joseph; 04-07-11 at 03:10 AM.
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    https://www.lawfulmoneytrust.com

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Joseph View Post
    well now i see your point. I do not care for writing anything on their presentment. That presentment is Private Property. And here is the thing, to Use it [the presentment] results in a trust forming.

    For instance have you ever noticed the back of a SSN card? Have you ever noticed the back of a "VIC", "Food Lion" or any "Grocery Card". They all say the same thing.

    This card belongs to.....if you find it and it is not yours, then send to: Address. Why do people keep and Use the Card. Thus the resulting Trust. But if one has filled out the App, there is a LEGAL NAME and a DL required, thus it becomes LEGAL within the United States.

    How hard is it to see the same trust law working with a Ticket?

    In regard to Coupons - there is a Stop Gap - the Corporation. But the US has proprietory interest in the Corp, does it not. This one is a bit tricky and i have not figured it out; yet! But Yehovah willing I will.

    Thank you for pointing that out to me.

    Shalom,
    mj


    Now, one might say, but, but I have used r4c according to the LoR for some time now and it works great. Take notice of this FACT. Comes now True Name.......speaking for his ESTATE.......

    The rest is an Agreement. Said Agreement being struck in the Silence of the Trustee [other Trustee]. Therefore the R4C method is acceptable by "a priori" agreement.
    I do not care for writing anything on their presentment. That presentment is Private Property.

    Except of course - Refusal for Cause. That is avoidance by right of refusal.


    And here is the thing, to Use it [the presentment] results in a trust forming.
    Accepting for value should only be to initiate a billing cycle (if you are not paid, form a lien as trustee of the resulting trust).

  4. #14
    Michael Joseph;1691]Don't trust Michael Joseph or any other man. The reason men are spoiled is because they lean on other men. How utterly STUPID!
    I don't know why but this phrase caught my attention. MJ you speak of Trusts so often and eloquently that I was surprised to see you write that. Am I my brother's keeper? I would imagine you were referring to individuals who would expect you to do something for them (kinda like a mooch, goes to far, takes advantage) I let people lean on me and also help them to stand tall once again if I can. If they lean too hard well they are going to fall over. But stupid? I hope not otherwise why be here or anywhere for that matter. Your letting of knowledge is then for no purpose. Does your writings not influence people. I know it has me and I thank you for it!

    I believe the issue of Motla68 being banned is a problem. A slippery slope. I completely understand what David has said and appreciate that he is here keeping individuals in line with the suitors mentality and not confusing this site with commercial processes. With all the gurus and craziness out there it is nice to have a Shepard. That does not make me a sheep. I am here to work hard and learn from individuals such as yourself who have something to contribute. It takes more than a few days to get unconditioned and understand the basis of trusts, please be patient some of us make mistakes. I do think Motla68 meant well but he did seem to push the coresource stuff pretty hard. I will have to trust that there is fair debate before someone is banned though. If not a vote should occur. I would vote for a second chance with a stern warning of conduct. I definitely will be reading the rules again though.
    Regards
    Mark Christopher.

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Christopher View Post
    I don't know why but this phrase caught my attention. MJ you speak of Trusts so often and eloquently that I was surprised to see you write that. Am I my brother's keeper? I would imagine you were referring to individuals who would expect you to do something for them (kinda like a mooch, goes to far, takes advantage) I let people lean on me and also help them to stand tall once again if I can. If they lean too hard well they are going to fall over. But stupid? I hope not otherwise why be here or anywhere for that matter. Your letting of knowledge is then for no purpose. Does your writings not influence people. I know it has me and I thank you for it!

    I believe the issue of Motla68 being banned is a problem. A slippery slope. I completely understand what David has said and appreciate that he is here keeping individuals in line with the suitors mentality and not confusing this site with commercial processes. With all the gurus and craziness out there it is nice to have a Shepard. That does not make me a sheep. I am here to work hard and learn from individuals such as yourself who have something to contribute. It takes more than a few days to get unconditioned and understand the basis of trusts, please be patient some of us make mistakes. I do think Motla68 meant well but he did seem to push the coresource stuff pretty hard. I will have to trust that there is fair debate before someone is banned though. If not a vote should occur. I would vote for a second chance with a stern warning of conduct. I definitely will be reading the rules again though.
    Regards
    Mark Christopher.

    Your vote is noted Mark Christopher;


    Certainly so. There was something that came across in the email broadcasts yesterday:

    GO HERE: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uniform/ucc.html#a9

    SEARCH UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, ARTICLE 9; YOU HAVE THE CHOICE OF THE UCC, WHICH ALL MUST COMPLY WITH, OR BY STATE CC.

    WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR IS: UCC ARTICLE 9-YOU CAN CLICK ON THAT LINK-OR SEARCH BY STATE IN THE BOX BY THAT LINK.

    IF THE STATE DOES NOT HAVE ITS OWN CC VERSION IT HAS TO FOLLOW THE UCC VERSION...WHERE I AM: CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL CODE
    Which section of the Uniform Codes refers directly to UCC-9:

    § 9-101. SHORT TITLE.

    This article may be cited as Uniform Commercial Code-Secured Transactions.
    My initial response, in accord with my experience through the brain trust was:

    SEARCH UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, ARTICLE 9; YOU HAVE THE CHOICE OF THE UCC, WHICH ALL MUST COMPLY WITH, OR BY STATE CC.

    There is something wrong about that statement. How can we have a choice like we are not part of the ALL WHO MUST COMPLY?
    The most direct experience I have with the UCC is through several suitors who noticed a UCC Guru teaching on Wednesdays over lunch at a local church. He had a lien going and I only attended one or two lessons. But that lien was challenged outright and when it came time to defend it in court, a couple suitors were there too. I hear when it came time for the judge to rule he said, I don't see any law there. He summarily directed UCC Guru to pay court costs and the full bill from the "victim" of his bogus lien.

    My point there, in response to your vote and post, is that the UCC is only applicable in certain banking parameters. For example, My lien process started with me sending an In Lieu of UCC plain English proposal/presentment.


    The Secretary of State's office wrote back rejecting my lien for publication because the UCC is the only appropriate way to publish a lien through their office. Therefore I secured the method to be the appropriate binding method for a UCC-1 Finance Statement to be used and that process of binding is still part of the published lien.

    The Quatlosers certainly are nervous (presuming they are not a bunch of infantile jerks) and that is another aspect of Motla68's banishment that I wish to bring forth here. I link readers here to Quatloos regularly so that you all may understand how I use that attorney mentality, that protectionism of debt-based and elastic currency to grow and learn myself.

    The post you wrote here demonstrates that I should have graphically walked the reader more carefully through my explanation why I banished Motla68. I was there. -While the Readers were not.

    Some time back, Motla68 offered that this verbiage was why his process, in the robin egg-blue envelope functions well. Quoting the basics from a couple examples that Motla68 initially provided I paraphrase:

    Deposited for Credit on Account or Exchanged for Non-Negotiable Notes.

    This obligation belongs to the Treasury. If you want to collect on it, forward this coupon to the Treasury.
    I pointed out that the key functional verbiage in those phrases is "Exchanged for Non-Negotiable Notes." We had a productive debate, even with Motla removing his examples (I managed to save the Australian one first) and going on an infantile deletion spree where I accomodated his request to remove permanently, several threads he started. They were an eyesore as the only posts were responses to deleted posts.

    I assure you that as annoying as I found Motla, he would still be here if I found his presence here useful to the Readers.

    After prodding in many posts and many days of demanding Motla explain what exactly in the Envelope was so effective that the DA would delete the case, without so much as one word from Motla, he finally relented, deferring back to his original examples of the verbiage on the Presentment but excluded the verbiage that can be found in the law (Fed Act §16 and 12 U.S.C. §411).

    Deposited for Credit...


    This obligation belongs to the Treasury. If you want to collect on it, forward this coupon to the Treasury.
    Motla68 deliberately excluded remedy from his explanation about remedy! That is why he is banished. Not for promoting commercial processes that I strongly feel are faulty.



    Regards,

    David Merrill.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by David Merrill; 04-07-11 at 02:48 PM.

  6. #16
    P.S. Trying to defraud us (by his omission) under a banner of peace, declaring himself envoy (and therefore me the potential enemy) was just plain impolite, in my opinion.


    Maybe that just goes to show you; you should stick to the remedy written into the law and make sure the religious stuff is only accepted scientifically. - That you must describe the factors and parameters accurately. If you try two things at once (shotgunning) accept that only one might be effective in law.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 04-07-11 at 03:15 PM.

  7. #17
    Yes I see that now. Good point. One of the reasons I love this place is that thru careful record forming and production of examples we can see much clearer the follies of our ways. Scientific method works well here and I see the consistent reproducibility of the methods. I guess one side of me is sad to see him go because I followed commercial methods too and always felt something was wrong. The comments he posted and the pointed responses to them allowed me to see how to deconstruct those thoughts and move forward to greener pastures. (great learning material/exercises in proper working of remedy)
    Thanks again David, your wisdom is much appreciated.
    Mark Christopher.

  8. #18
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,424
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Christopher View Post
    I don't know why but this phrase caught my attention. MJ you speak of Trusts so often and eloquently that I was surprised to see you write that. Am I my brother's keeper? I would imagine you were referring to individuals who would expect you to do something for them (kinda like a mooch, goes to far, takes advantage) I let people lean on me and also help them to stand tall once again if I can. If they lean too hard well they are going to fall over. But stupid? I hope not otherwise why be here or anywhere for that matter. Your letting of knowledge is then for no purpose. Does your writings not influence people. I know it has me and I thank you for it!

    I believe the issue of Motla68 being banned is a problem. A slippery slope. I completely understand what David has said and appreciate that he is here keeping individuals in line with the suitors mentality and not confusing this site with commercial processes. With all the gurus and craziness out there it is nice to have a Shepard. That does not make me a sheep. I am here to work hard and learn from individuals such as yourself who have something to contribute. It takes more than a few days to get unconditioned and understand the basis of trusts, please be patient some of us make mistakes. I do think Motla68 meant well but he did seem to push the coresource stuff pretty hard. I will have to trust that there is fair debate before someone is banned though. If not a vote should occur. I would vote for a second chance with a stern warning of conduct. I definitely will be reading the rules again though.
    Regards
    Mark Christopher.
    I would not intentionally lead any man astray. My point is that men need to stop leaning on other men. If someone tells you a thing, then you can conditionally accept it or reject it. But to wholesale accept a teaching is downright stupid. Remember those ones in the Book of Acts that were thought righteous because not only did they hear the word, they then went to the the word to see if what they heard was Truth.

    One man says, but I tried this man's process and another man says, I tried that man's process..........these are fools.

    Make things your own. As such, a wise teacher has no problem with that advisement. Do not trust my words, if you do, and I turn out to be the fool, then who is the bigger fool, you or I?

    So a wise teacher is going to tell you; check behind me. And then a good teacher is going to follow up with: and here is how. Now if you decide to blindly trust said teacher, then well, there you go. Many do just that and go to their ruin.



    shalom,
    mj

    P.S. Thank you for your report. It is good to be appreciated.
    Last edited by Michael Joseph; 04-08-11 at 12:35 AM.
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    https://www.lawfulmoneytrust.com

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  9. #19
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,424
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Joseph
    And here is the thing, to Use it [the presentment] results in a trust forming.
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Except of course - Refusal for Cause. That is avoidance by right of refusal.

    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.
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    https://www.lawfulmoneytrust.com

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Joseph View Post
    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by motla68 View Post
    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.

    Attachment 267

    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.
    Attached Images Attached Images     
    Last edited by David Merrill; 04-11-11 at 10:33 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •