The first constitutions

[Michael Joseph]

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