Who gave us the authority to administrate the strawman account, can you prove it?

[David Merrill]

Your buying, selling, signing for swapping of securities owned by a government corporation, I would think all who are even acting in persona of banking and brokerage entities would need to be registered to do this, yes. Unless your the King or Queen of that corporation? But then again we are suppose to be in the world, not of it, so why play in it?

I went a few rounds with Bean about this on SJC;


Basically, by right, I receive cash for my intellectual property.

One of the suitors and I enjoy a few games of chess about every day, at a restaurant of our choosing on the moment. - Any and all of which will accept only FRNs.

I am almost always hungry when I step up to the counter or the waitress takes our order. Once I get that way, there is only one way I have found to solve the problem so I buy some food and eat it. Problem solved.

You seem to be proposing some kind of solution and if it is practicable, I am not understanding you.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[motla68]

Quasi means; Similar but not genuine. As in a previous post when added

" Quasi-Natural " or how about another term with the word used:

Quasi-Corporation ;

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/q/...orporation.asp

Please learn these distinctions, gold and silver with man's stamp on it
is just quasi-gold or quasi-silver.

Are you a genuine natural resource ?

[motla68]

I would say the account or record works on assumption.

The account or record is a benefit or use.

GILBERT'S LAW BOOK ON EQUITY

""But while the Chancery Court regards the beneficiary as the real owner in order more fully to guard his interests and assert his rights, it, also, regards him the real owner as to his liabilities, and, except in cases where the trust is
declared by a will or deed duly registered, will subject his interest in the trust property to the satisfaction of his debts, on a proper bill filed for that purpose, as hereafter shown. In dealing with the beneficiary's interest in the trust property Equity follows the law, and treats such property as descendible, devisable and alienable.


In all cases of trusts, including trust deeds, assignments for the benefit of creditors, and even constructive and resulting trusts, the Chancery Courts are ever ready to lend a helping hand to the beneficiary as against him who holds the legal title. ""

Without a trust to will things into, or a trust where things are already moved into, In their eyes is just a duck in a lone lake somewhere with hunters circling and there is not a no trespassing sign anywhere to protect you. Just ask any elderly native american if the indians had legal trusts before the english came.

Without a trust setup I think the only angle you could take it is the statutory title I posted yesterday in reference to the protection of natural resources held in their
trust. When you trademark something by their government it is the same thing as a ship out in the water with a U.S. Flag attached to it in bond via simple constructive
trust where you have no standing in right to self determination.

[shikamaru]

GILBERT'S LAW BOOK ON EQUITY

""But while the Chancery Court regards the beneficiary as the real owner in order more fully to guard his interests and assert his rights, it, also, regards him the real owner as to his liabilities, and, except in cases where the trust is
declared by a will or deed duly registered, will subject his interest in the trust property to the satisfaction of his debts, on a proper bill filed for that purpose, as hereafter shown. In dealing with the beneficiary's interest in the trust property Equity follows the law, and treats such property as descendible, devisable and alienable.


In all cases of trusts, including trust deeds, assignments for the benefit of creditors, and even constructive and resulting trusts, the Chancery Courts are ever ready to lend a helping hand to the beneficiary as against him who holds the legal title. ""

Without a trust to will things into, or a trust where things are already moved into, In their eyes is just a duck in a lone lake somewhere with hunters circling and there is not a no trespassing sign anywhere to protect you. Just ask any elderly native american if the indians had legal trusts before the english came.

Without a trust setup I think the only angle you could take it is the statutory title I posted yesterday in reference to the protection of natural resources held in their
trust. When you trademark something by their government it is the same thing as a ship out in the water with a U.S. Flag attached to it in bond via simple constructive
trust where you have no standing in right to self determination.

Personally, I'm focusing on unifying the rights and duties of a given res into my tenure only.

Secondly, this all presumes that government as trustee actually has trustees in office. Those offices appear to be vacant. He who assumes that office better have the proof to boot.

The whole operation from birth certificates to offices of trusteeship appears to work on assumpsit.
When you start pressing the matter within any sort of hearing, I expect there to be fleeing .

[David Merrill]

Thank you!


I have been explaining it in terms of classical thermodynamics for a while now. To impose that trusteeship upon the government trustee you have to describe the parameters of the trust. Usually this would require explaining trust law to an attorney. - Futile.

On the other hand, if you can get them to testify about the trust structure and you are adept at record-forming...

[Darkcrusade]

Thank you!


I have been explaining it in terms of classical thermodynamics for a while now. To impose that trusteeship upon the government trustee you have to describe the parameters of the trust. Usually this would require explaining trust law to an attorney. - Futile.

On the other hand, if you can get them to testify about the trust structure and you are adept at record-forming...

From > http://ecclesia.org/

Posted - 07 Apr 2011 : 19:49:52 by Robert-James
Lewis Hughes was incarcerated by the Fed. Beast government for near 16 months. He and Ed Whaler were concluded to be not guilty by a jury trial. Both Lewis and Ed stood up and were without attorney's. Ed is hear near Asheville. Lewis? Why do you care? They both suffered major loss while in solitary at a Carolina FED prison. But they won their freedom...by their Faithfullness.
Lewish could come by here and contact you, rest assured. He was one of those left coaster's, Washington state area. Plus he and we are growing older everyday now. They have a couple actions and one is for the supremes to decide if State Citizenship is still real. The other is for $$$'s for their abusive treatment by Fed. slugs.
Those who defeat the BEAST and it is possible, suffer in the process.


Lewis was a west coaster, Washington State.

Lewish, is a Beast-slayer!!! Sorry for this quick aside,Is their any more intel on his most interesting case?

[Anthony Joseph]

Thank you!


I have been explaining it in terms of classical thermodynamics for a while now. To impose that trusteeship upon the government trustee you have to describe the parameters of the trust. Usually this would require explaining trust law to an attorney. - Futile.

On the other hand, if you can get them to testify about the trust structure and you are adept at record-forming...

I find this exerpt from the walker case most telling regarding the inherent protectionism of the nexus to taxation/enslavement...

page 13

4 So what is the backing for these Federal Reserve
5 Notes, the legal tender paper? And the backing is the taxing
6 power of the United States. Federal Reserve Notes under the
7 Federal Reserve Act are defined as a full faith and credit
8 obligation of the United States. So that means that should
9 there be a default in payment of Federal Reserve Notes, the
10 government has the right to raise taxes to fully back the
11 notes and their -- I won't get into the technicality of how
12 that backing is done, but there is still a residual form of
13 backing of Federal Reserve Notes in the Fed's accounting

14 system today.


Signature endorsement, it seems, is a "technicality" not worthy of "getting into" on the record; I wonder why.

[Richard Earl]

I like that transcript. It tells alot. Thank you for the link, David!

[David Merrill]

I find this exerpt from the walker case most telling regarding the inherent protectionism of the nexus to taxation/enslavement...

page 13

4 So what is the backing for these Federal Reserve
5 Notes, the legal tender paper? And the backing is the taxing
6 power of the United States. Federal Reserve Notes under the
7 Federal Reserve Act are defined as a full faith and credit
8 obligation of the United States. So that means that should
9 there be a default in payment of Federal Reserve Notes, the
10 government has the right to raise taxes to fully back the
11 notes and their -- I won't get into the technicality of how
12 that backing is done, but there is still a residual form of
13 backing of Federal Reserve Notes in the Fed's accounting

14 system today.


Signature endorsement, it seems, is a "technicality" not worthy of "getting into" on the record; I wonder why.

Thank you for dissecting that with insight!

Lewish, is a Beast-slayer!!! Sorry for this quick aside,Is their any more intel on his most interesting case?

Yes, the case itself. A lot of the docs are pretty big though, from the looks of it so if you have a few bucks, grab it off PACER and put it in the Downloads area please.

I like that transcript. It tells alot. Thank you for the link, David!

You are welcome! Lewis Vincent is an early era Suitor. He is kind of a bulldog (tenacious) and we were talking just as I was considering putting together the brain trust. Well, Lewis caught wind of it and called me insisting I let him in; which did not set right at that moment on the phone with him and I suppose we could call it Personality Conflict but we parted ways... which is something I regret now that the brain trust is mature enough to handle forceful personalities with conflicting views. I think that Lewis might have destroyed it when it was fledgling, or steered it into a dangerous place without remedy written into the law.

Like Anthony Joseph points out in the Transcript, albeit acquitted that would seem to be where Lewis Vincent is at to this day; to get Walker Fowler so close to forming a complete Record of redemption and failing to seal the deal!

I am enjoying a lot of facets of what got on the record though; especially with the Quatlosers. They are totally bent out of shape about that transcript. Here is another facet worth considering. Think about the shock testing in Canada preparing the USA for fractional lending between 1863 and 1913. Look at the Footnotes. Then take in this passage:

[Chex]

A contract implied in law (or quasi-contract), unlike a true contract based upon the express or apparent intention of the parties, is not based on a promissory agreement or the apparent intention of the parties to undertake the performance in question.

Quasi-contracts or contracts implied in law are obligations imposed by law to prevent unjust enrichment. The essential elements for an action under this theory are a benefit conferred upon a defendant by the plaintiff, the defendant’s appreciation of the benefit, and the defendant’s acceptance and retention of the benefit under circumstances that make it inequitable for him to retain it without paying the value thereof.

Quasi-contracts, therefore, are obligations created by the law for reasons of justice, not by the express or apparent intent of the parties. Thus, it may be said that obligations of this type should not properly be considered contracts at all, but a form of the remedy of restitution.

SOURCE Rabon v. Inn of Lake City, Inc., 693 So.2d 1126, 1131-32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)