Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 61

Thread: The first constitutions

  1. #1

    The first constitutions

    To gain understanding of the nature of constitutions, remember the history of such documents. I will show you two:

    1) Nehemiah, Chapter 10.
    2) Fundamental Orders of 1639.

    The first is very interesting as Nehemiah was a Babylonian marshal imposing the return of Babylon's recent creation, the Jew. If you remember your Bible Story and the Book of Ezra, after seventy years in captivity, the Jews were not considered fit to serve and repair the Temple Mount by the native Israelites. As Darius won the civil war he cause by sending the Jews to invade their former homeland, he appointed Nehemiah as the Marshal of enforcement.

    It would seem from the Bible lesson that this kind of imposition brought with it, the bonding of government officials through Oath of Office. Swearing. This may be developed later in the thread for sure - with Jesus' admonition against swearing and all.

    I want to move on with a succinct opening post to the Fundamental Orders. The FO has a remarkable Preamble, even calling on Jesus Christ by Name:


    Interestingly the capital offenses refer to the Ten Commandments. It calls for honoring of bills and liens, even upon transfer by attorn.

    Through these two early constitutions though, we can begin to understand the fidelity bond ($$$) formed through the Oath of Office today. - That the oath is a curse, to pay for infidelity to the constitution:


    Neh 10:1 Now those that sealed were, Nehemiah, the Tirshatha, the son of Hachaliah, and Zidkijah,
    Neh 10:2 Seraiah, Azariah, Jeremiah...

    Neh 10:28 And the rest of the people, the priests, the Levites, the porters, the singers, the Nethinims, and all they that had separated themselves from the people of the lands unto the law of God, their wives, their sons, and their daughters, every one having knowledge, and having understanding;

    Neh 10:29 They clave to their brethren, their nobles, and entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God's law, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of the LORD our Lord, and his judgments and his statutes;

    Neh 10:30 And that we would not give our daughters unto the people of the land, nor take their daughters for our sons:

    Neh 10:31 And if the people of the land bring ware or any victuals on the sabbath day to sell, that we would not buy it of them on the sabbath...


    Food for thought!

    David Merrill.

  2. #2
    I would like to contribute Anderson's Constitution (1754) of the Freemasons.

  3. #3
    Yes!! I want it!!

    Are you talking hardcopy?





    p.s. Seriously, you would probably want to keep that in you library; but if you can link images from it...
    Last edited by David Merrill; 03-05-11 at 12:49 AM.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Yes!! I want it!!

    Are you talking hardcopy?
    http://www.2be1ask1.com/library/anderson.html

    There seem to be more ....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masonic...of_the_Moderns
    Last edited by shikamaru; 03-05-11 at 12:50 AM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,416
    The New Covenant - adopted internationally 1994. - for those of you who are hung up on the Constitution of the US go and read that document at Art III - international treaties bind the United States of America and all of the other dependent States that are clearly UNDER the United States. Like all 50 today. The claim is clearly in the United States.



    http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/law/Covenant94/index.html

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

    Warren E. ENSMINGER v. THE FARM CREDIT BANK OF WICHITA; First National Bank of Okeene, hereinafter “Ensminger”; and, reference the following decision coming from a three judge panel:



    This action was instigated to determine who has the highest title to property located in [Major and Grady] county, Oklahoma Territory state, of which the United States of America by contract, gave up all right, title or interest in said property, without any conditions set forth; and it is very clear by the defendant's pleadings that it is not that entity that is claiming the property, Mr. Butler for Federal Land Bank clearly stated that the claim is the United States, and that Federal Land Bank and First National Bank in Okeene are not of the United States of America[.] and,.



    Clearly Ensminger recognizes the separation of [the] United States and [the] United States of America as being two separate and distinct entities; and, furthermore at Chisholm v. Georgia the opinions produced the following:



    “To the Constitution of the United States, the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown. There is but one place where it could have been used with propriety. But even in that place, it would not, perhaps, have comported with the delicacy of those who ordained and established that Constitution. They might have announced themselves "SOVEREIGN" people of the United States. But serenely conscious of the fact, they avoided the ostentatious declaration.”; and,



    “No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called), and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.”

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



    Remember that constitution provides for the United States to enter into International Treaties and said Treaties would by operation of law bind the USA and the fifty STATES. Silence is acceptance. And clearly even as early as Sept 24, 1789 the UNITED STATES was dictating to the STATES. Therefore the more perfect Union was formed UNDER one head. And today the hereinbefore International Treaty applies to each and every CESTUI QUE TRUST. Therefore that treaty in a sense has become part of the law of the land.
    Last edited by Michael Joseph; 03-09-11 at 04:19 PM.
    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!

  6. #6

    statesman

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Joseph View Post
    The New Covenant - adopted internationally 1994. - for those of you who are hung up on the Constitution of the US go and read that document at Art III - international treaties bind the United States of America and all of the other dependent States that are clearly UNDER the United States. Like all 50 today. The claim is clearly in the United States.



    http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/law/Covenant94/index.html

    Warren E. ENSMINGER v. THE FARM CREDIT BANK OF WICHITA; First National Bank of Okeene, hereinafter “Ensminger”; and, reference the following decision coming from a three judge panel:



    This action was instigated to determine who has the highest title to property located in [Major and Grady] county, Oklahoma Territory state, of which the United States of America by contract, gave up all right, title or interest in said property, without any conditions set forth; and it is very clear by the defendant's pleadings that it is not that entity that is claiming the property, Mr. Butler for Federal Land Bank clearly stated that the claim is the United States, and that Federal Land Bank and First National Bank in Okeene are not of the United States of America[.] and,.



    Clearly Ensminger recognizes the separation of [the] United States and [the] United States of America as being two separate and distinct entities; and, furthermore at Chisholm v. Georgia the opinions produced the following:



    “To the Constitution of the United States, the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown. There is but one place where it could have been used with propriety. But even in that place, it would not, perhaps, have comported with the delicacy of those who ordained and established that Constitution. They might have announced themselves "SOVEREIGN" people of the United States. But serenely conscious of the fact, they avoided the ostentatious declaration.”; and,



    “No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called), and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.”

    Remember that constitution provides for the United States to enter into International Treaties and said Treaties would by operation of law bind the USA and the fifty STATES. Silence is acceptance. And clearly even as early as Sept 24, 1789 the UNITED STATES was dictating to the STATES. Therefore the more perfect Union was formed UNDER one head. And today the hereinbefore International Treaty applies to each and every CESTUI QUE TRUST. Therefore that treaty in a sense has become part of the law of the land.

    Thanks for that quote and great post comment!

    The quote brings to my mind a video/audio production I listened to just this morning. This fellow sounds with it, however I differ in some fundamental principles. Rather than presume you will take ten minutes to listen to his presentation I am going to just tell you my opinion. You can compare MJ's post and the audio call as you wish.

    I have a book, Inventing America; Jefferson's Declaration of Independence by Garry WILLS. The introduction recites that Abraham LINCOLN's Fourscore and seven years... (Gettysburg Address) calculates to 1776, not 1789.

    There are 56 Signors party to the 1776 Declaration of Independence. Obviously these are men signing with their legal names as individuals, speaking of risking in a quiet title action (that escalated to war) their lives and estates upon their treacherous signatures. Whereas with the Constitution, the signors are states in ratification. The signatures are of representatives pledging the collective will of the constituencies in social compact to form a body politic. These signatures are not of any individuals risking their estate. The people only make utterance in the Preamble, which is not a part of the Constitution as a statute. The real signors of the Constitution in my opinion are elected and appointed officials who swear or affirm an oath of office. There you have a signature, and a very strong indication of exactly who the Constitution applies to. Government officials. The Constitution regulates the behavior of those who enter into various public trusts (Article VI) generally known as government - for the purpose that those who are sovereign to the government, the people may collect and gather themselves into the higher forms of government; Townships, hundreds, tens, Frank pledges, parishes, counties, home rule cities and towns; most of which can be prefixed unincorporated as if these are incorporated they are corporations instead of jural societies.

    If you want to get into any kind of discussion about the only parties to the Constitution being those in the latter 1700's then I believe the only logical argument would be that you are talking about the signors of the Declaration of Independence. Now suppose there could be any logic to dead men being the only real parties to the Constitution, rather than the States or public officials (bound to by oath we presume is different than being a party) we might want to examine some things about that.

    One thing to consider is Matthew THORNTON and his return to Philidelphia in November of 1776. Matthew dearly wanted to sign the Declaration and he was really an accomplished statesman if you look at his bio so the Congress voted that it was okay for statesmen to sign after the fact! Sure enough, there is Matthew Thornton at the bottom right - last signature. This opened the door to subsequent trustees who are living men and women to act as parties to the Constitution - which of course means States, Territories and the like. Now we see Ratification as the designator of the parties - the States. [For a numero-linguistic hint; note the author's name on this poem.]

    Spend a moment absorbing this document from fifteen years back. Page 1, Page 2, Page 3. Especially note the use of the Great Seal on my signature. Now note that the backside of this order is endorsed, allegedly by me or my power of attorney. There was no amount (bid amount) on the Order but I had already contacted Kaye when the state sockpuppet psychologist defrauded the court trying to destroy my mind with an indefinite psychotomimetic psychotropic "tutoring" at the State Mental Hospital. She told me she charges $1800 to $2000 for a competency evaluation so I approved the amount on the Order in front of settling my $20M lien. Recall:

    allegedly by me...

    From right above there in the paragraph?

    Let's look at that again:



    Continued...
    Last edited by David Merrill; 03-07-11 at 05:00 AM.

  7. #7
    Continued...


    Look there how the clerk of court assumed I had consented (endorsed) the Order (to Pay Kaye BARON) on the 18th in open court. But here is what actually happened:



    Notice how prosecutor/judge GILBERT (I say that because he was senior prosecutor while I was in my "loudest" soveriegn expression phase) GILBERT tried to push his associate (Bar Association) on me as advisory counsel only "ADC". But I protested:

    DEF STATES ADC CANNOT ANSWER FOR HIM
    So the clerk of court, through whatever conversations occured declined to convey my consent to be fiduciary/trustee (endorsement) and cancelled the 18th as the endorsement date on the transaction. Look closely at that Register of Action's summary around the 18th and 19th! Do you see it there at the bottom? The judge met with the DA in open court, but with my alleged attorney too! - In a secret meeting that I was not invited to! Ergo we find that I gave my consent through my attorney (wink/nod) on the 19th! - the endorsement is right there.

    Well they had to run that up the flagpole to Division 7, to chief district judge SAMELSON - who the lien is against to begin with. He approved it on the 23rd there, which is to say, he said I had properly consented. I have no way to know when this sticky showed up in the case file because it took weeks to go back down that far and notice it myself. It cites (mis-cites) a Colorado case for authority to impose an attorney on me. I say mis-cites because ARGUELLO wanted an attorney at trial. I did not under any circumstances want an attorney - ergo, the secret meeting. I bet that is when that sticky note showed up though - between the 19th and the 23rd. SAMELSON had to cram Arguello into my case's circumstances in order to paint the illusion GILBERT had the authority to compel me to "consent" to power of attorney, for him to endorse the Order for me in the secret meeting of the 19th.

    This gets better than that!

    If you want to spend 90 minutes on it watch these videos for some insight. They are each about 30 minutes so you might just watch the last one to get some idea of the events just before they put me in the Psycho Ward for two weeks for not cooperating with that Order - that I endorsed prior to settling my $20M lien, by the way. (Go figure.) I should show you the transcript but it has been fudged to make it look like a warning but GILBERT actually read me Miranda in the courtroom for using the Great Seal on "his" Order! [Using it without being affiliated with State Business (a statesman) is a Class 5 Felony as you will note later on the $20M lien's finance statement.] Not verbatim but he informed me he noticed I committed a felony forgery and when I explained what I was doing he gleefully informed me that my confession was on the record. Too bad he noticed that as the deputy handcuffed me, I was smiling because I thought I had tricked him into forming a jury for me, to hear about my lien quite nicely - not much of a poker face here. Point being, during the next two weeks he must have figured it out - why the calm smile. There was not another word uttered about felony forgery and the case was dismissed because they never had any witnesses or evidence. [More.]

    After I completed the billing cycle I attempted to publish my lien. I sent it in with a notice in lieu of UCC-1 common law venue, just to get my protest to that body of law on the record, without recourse to me. It was rejected instructing me to use the UCC-1 Form so I of course used the Great Seal on it. The secretary of state rejected that twice for various reasons but I was warned in ALL CAPS on both instructions that using the Great Seal of Authority for the State of Colorado without being affiliated with state business was a Class 5 felony! Now remember GILBERT charging me (prosecutor/judge) in his courtroom for a felony - and pay attention to the word affiliated. [This rendition without the bleed-through Certification is better to learn about the Resulting Trust.] You will need a correct definition for affiliated to understand how I convinced the SoS I am the statesman I proclaim through acceptance of fiduciary/trustee of the resulting trust; the Colorado Republic. [That's right! RAP/RuSA is coming up soon!!]

    First though, look where this guy is from! - The Colorado Republic. The Secretary of State could not address Articles of Incorporation back to him, so they included his Articles, putting them in my custody, with the second Rejection - no explanation included. You must carefully read the Notice on Page 2 to get the reason why. By approving the Articles, the SoS also acknowledged they knew that the territorial republic still exists! By adopting the bastard (non-patroned, no father; which... don't get me started yet about my Patroon heritage!) STATE I became affiliated with state business and so that justified the use of the Great Seal without committing a felony.

    Take a look at this rule about befriending the court:

    Rule 29(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure:
    The United States or its officer or agency, or a State, Territory, Commonwealth, or the District of Columbia may file an amicus-curiae brief without the consent of the parties or leave of court. Any other amicus curiae may file a brief only by leave of court or if the brief states that all parties have consented to its filing.
    In plain English that means this document would not be filed in the Circuit Court. Yet there it is - "Filed". Look at the signature page. The clerk of court knows the rule don't you suppose? I had no consent from any of the parties or the court, and did not even pretend to in the amicus curiae. Filing the paper means I am an amicus; as State, Territory, Commonwealth or Washington DC.


    Regards,

    David Merrill.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 03-06-11 at 11:38 PM.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,416
    David, I have known about this for a while and yet I had to read and re-read this post a couple of times. This is an excellent presentment.

    Let us however keep the focus and realize that the Constitutions are not grants of Rights. But prior to that realize that a Right within a Trust is really just a Right of Use. And a Right of Use is Property. But before we go too far down that road; realize that those Constitutions and Declarations RECOGNIZE the existence of Rights given by a Creator. Said Creator being with the Act of Creation of man[kind].

    Therefore recognize that the so called Territory, at least in my mind, is the Land and the Water, hereinafter "The Earth", that was Created by the Ancient of Days - the Self Existing One. Now realize that all of man[kind] has been granted the ability to Use The Earth by the Creator. As such, it is blasphemy for any Person [artificial or otherwise] to claim The Earth belongs to any other but the Creator. As such, the "work around" is made thru words and terms.

    1a. A new State = Trust is Settled.

    1. A survey is made for the Form of Matter. [the Survey is NOT the Form of Matter.]

    2. A claim is made upon the Survey. [in other words a Person creates the Survey on the Form of Matter]

    2a. Notice a claim can also be made on names. Therefore the actual object or concept can be corporeal or incorporeal.

    3. Forms of Matter and Forms of Thought are referenced back to the Original Survey. Remember the Form of Matter is not the Actual Matter but it is the Survey – what it looks like or appears to be.

    This new formation or construct is convenient because this formation allows for Control and Possession while recognizing that all matter belongs to the Creator of the Universe.

    4. The Trust has an estate – which is made known by and thru an Asset Registry.

    5. Forms of Matter can be Granted into the Asset Registry which effectively gives the State Property Rights to manage the Forms of Matter.

    Hello, Property is Rights of Use. The Form of Matter is based on Survey it is NOT the object or concept. Therefore the Survey of the Form of Matter is what is Registered upon the Asset Registry – and the Titles are created. Legal Title and Equitable Title. The Legal Title manages the Rights of Use or manages the Property. And the Equitable Title Uses the Right of Use or Uses the Property.

    The Equitable Title is in the Registered Owner. And the State, as Trustee issues a Certificate of Title upon the Registered Owner. Now the Registered Owner may transfer the Right of Use into another Trust; yet the management of the Right of Use never leaves the State!


    6. Therefore under this condition, the State receives the Grant for a small fee and issues forth a Cert. of Title to the Owner and recognizes the Owner’s Right of Use of the Form of Matter.

    The actual object is without this entire setup. This entire doctrine is based on USE. The Control aspect is the management of the Use. This allows the State to manage Rights of Use = Property.

    Yet my two feet stand upon the Earth that was Created by the Self Existing One and that Earth is outside of the Entire foregoing construct.

    7. Again Property is a Right of Use. Therefore the one who Uses Property is an Owner holding Equitable Title. The one who manages the Property is the Trustee holding Legal Title.

    If you can be shown to Trust in a System – State, then its Agents and Officers within its construct act effectively as Trustee to manage the Property and since Rights are Property, the Trustee manage the Rights.

    There are many trusts today. See man in office in D.C. is both President and Commander in Chief. See UNITED STATES TRUST and LEIBER CODE. The man in those offices is Trustee. Yet, that office is bound by even higher authority.

    And that discussion is for another thread.

    According to the meaning of the term Legal:

    LEGAL. That which is according to law. It is used in opposition to equitable, as the legal estate is, in the trustee, the equitable estate in the cestui que trust. Vide Powell on Mortg. Index, h. t.

    2. The party who has the legal title, has alone the right to seek a remedy for a wrong to his estate, in a court of law, though he may have no beneficial interest in it. The equitable owner, is he who has not the legal estate, but is entitled to the beneficial interest.

    3. The person who holds the legal estate for the benefit of another, is called a trustee; he who has the beneficiary interest and does not hold the legal title, is called the beneficiary, or more technically, the cestui que trust.

    4. When the trustee has a claim, he must enforce his right in a court of equity, for he cannot sue any one at law, in his own name; 1 East, 497; 8 T. R. 332; 1 Saund. 158, n. 1; 2 Bing. 20; still less can he in such court sue his own trustee. 1 East, 497.

    Look at definition Number Two. Read it carefully. And recognize the State apparently does not recognize the man. It cannot recognize a man.

    Unequal things should not mix. That violates the Creator's Law - Thou shall not commit Adultery!


    Therefore the man must grant something into Trust and then the man can then Stand in the Office of Trustee and now, well that is Much different.

    Yet the foregoing construct has an underlying construct in LEGAL NAME. And said LEGAL NAME is also Registered in an Asset Registry before the fact.
    Last edited by Michael Joseph; 03-07-11 at 03:14 PM.
    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. #9
    Let us however keep the focus and realize that the Constitutions are not grants of Rights.

    That agrees with my post. The constitutions restrict, they do not grant. They restrict the behavior of government officials - especially judicial officers in context of my experiences.

    The trust is IN GOD WE TRUST. That was implemented in 1863, maybe 1864.

    Thanks for bringing that up. The step that really stands out, in relation to my experience anyway, is:

    4. The Trust has an estate – which is made known by and thru an Asset Registry.

    That asset registry is the county clerk and recorder. If you look at about every document linked in this afternoon's post, it is published through the same. I will have to go through your post again slowly tomorrow to find more that means something to trusts as I understand the terms. I believe we agree though, at first glance.

    I should show something about the IN GOD WE TRUST trust. That is the chief district judge Kirk Stewart SAMELSON constructed it per form in his bond, accepted for value - Oath of Office - at the time of our security agreement. Remember that Finance Statement? Look at the date of publication in the upper right hand corner - 1/7/09. Within hours look at SAMELSON's new oath of office!

    No mention of God!


    How do you figure that works into the trust?

  10. #10
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post

    4. The Trust has an estate – which is made known by and thru an Asset Registry.

    That asset registry is the county clerk and recorder. If you look at about every document linked in this afternoon's post, it is published through the same. I will have to go through your post again slowly tomorrow to find more that means something to trusts as I understand the terms. I believe we agree though, at first glance.

    I should show something about the IN GOD WE TRUST trust. That is the chief district judge Kirk Stewart SAMELSON constructed it per form in his bond, accepted for value - Oath of Office - at the time of our security agreement. Remember that Finance Statement? Look at the date of publication in the upper right hand corner - 1/7/09. Within hours look at SAMELSON's new oath of office!

    No mention of God!


    How do you figure that works into the trust?
    If you consider the Legal Title in relation to the 2nd meaning of Legal as codified hereinbefore, then it appears that that trust you mention is in regard to the Registry Entries - VAN PELT is a Registry Entry, yes? COLB is at the Registrar's office, yes? And the Survey was taken - and mom and dad helped with the survey - as First Grantors in a way - and the Survey included foot prints and finger prints, and name and all sorts of interesting information. And a new Name was Settled and Granted and Registered - VAN PELT.

    We cannot know what goes thru another man's mind - especially if he is bent to a certain end - any means will do. Yet, this Judge certainly ran from his oath Under God in a speedy fashion. Perhaps he realized what a fine line he was walking - they were trying to make a Claim upon VAN PELT at first but that failed - you would not trespass the office of trustee - trustee de son tort - and you would not be fiduciary for said office. The Judge Forced you to plead against your will - your express will as I remember - and so you informed him of your actors fee.

    VAN PELT failed. So they constructed a new Trust. DAVID MERRILL - I think this trust has less restrictions than VAN PELT. Question is who settled this new Trust? And again, Judge I still have questions. I love that you would not bow a knee to this deceit and trickery. They were coming for you, a man, in effort to throw you in jail and the quatlosers were downright giddy.

    Back on Point: The evidence that they wanted you was the construction of a new Trust. Even in the face of NO evidence and 5 years after the fact. These guys claimed, I think putative jurisdiction - you stand before the judge. Yet, you were not there seeking judgment. You were forced to be there. So the Judge's previous Oath had been accepted binding him to the Constitutions and other international treaties by default, and in fact, the Judge admitted his binds in open court. Yet he attempts to throw off his bands before the Ever Living God by filing a new Oath in repugnance to IN GOD WE TRUST. Vengeance is mine sayeth the Self Existing One.

    Yet he has a heck of a problem. In what capacity do you "appear" - remember the Survey on those tiny little feet - before the court. You are a living soul - it is your appearance and your speaking that cures the trust. But, are you speaking for your estate - or, are you speaking as a living soul - the latter gives great problems to a Trust - because a trust only deals with Uses - Never the Actual being.

    So in the end, I do not know why he switched his Oaths. Perhaps to cover his butt before the Ever Living. You do not trust in him or his mates. And you have his number and he knows it. And one day you might consider placing your God established rights in Trust and make special visitation upon Him with Summons to your Court and you as Trustee - speak for your Estate - as Priest - making special ministerial visitation - calling on the Ever Living to Judge righteously.

    O' Dan - i - el. At that point you have matched up Like Things - and now you have standing to state a claim upon your estate - God owns Everything! Will you pick up the mantle. I know you can handle the Sword. I have seen it. You have spoken the Truth to me when I needed it. There will be no 12(b)6 there. There is clearly a harm and there was clearly an injury.

    Yet you ask a Trustee of the State to pick up your cause against a Judge?

    Why don't you pick up the cause. And speak for your estate, as Priest before the Ever Living.

    "Comes now True Name speaking for his dominions and estate, a regenerate man in the faith of Yehoshua H’Mashiach and making a special visitation by absolute ministerial right to...."

    You have a righteous cause of action. I do not think anyone with 1/2 a brain would think you to trespass upon the UNITED STATES when clearly these officers are in breach of trust. They may claim Necessity; yet, a trial 5 years after the fact with no witnesses and no evidence and they throw you in the Psycho Ward for two weeks. This is an uphill battle for any Judge. And if this ever came before a Jury there would be big problems.

    So there is always a higher power. Question is do you have standing?

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

    by the way: Notice that the UNITED STATES signed this International Treaty on behalf of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and the 50 States. That is because those other States are Dependent States UNDER the UNITED STATES or said another way, they are held in Trust. Therefore that old Constitution itself is placed into Trust UNDER the UNITED STATES and in fact if you read very carefully you will see that We the People of the United States did the thing for the United States of America and the States falling silent long before 1789 - in acceptance - took orders from the UNITED STATES.

    The formation of a more perfect Union.

    Please go to the US DEPARTMENT OF STATE and show me the fifty Independent States - I'll wait. I will also wait for you to show me the United States of America as Independent. These are ALL dependent and as such are barred from entering into international treaties.

    such as this one: http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/law/Covenant94/index.html
    Last edited by Michael Joseph; 03-07-11 at 06:08 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!

Posting Permissions

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