Is a name property ??

[Freed Gerdes]

I am confused by too many trusts. The PERSON named on the complaint which brings a case to court is the cestui que vie trust granted by the state at the live person's birth. The live person is in fact the decedent whose death gives rise to the trust, which holds title to the assets in the trust for the benefit of the decedent's estate. Now, you come to court as a live person, you make a special limited appearance by absolute ministerial right under the First Judicial Act of 1789 Rule E(8), declaring that you are in fact alive, and sui juris, and you are claiming your estate, as the natural Executor of your estate. Whether the estate contains legal title or equitable title is not relevant; whatever it contains is yours, as, according to the revisions made by Charles II in 1666, the 'dead' could reappear and claim their estate, collapsing the trust. Now, as executor, you would be willing to assign the judge as trustee temporarily, so he can handle the presentment. The court, being an Article I court, and a corporation, cannot contract with you, the live person (which is why you must make a ministerial appearance - you have no standing in an Article I court, only the NAME does).

No fictional entity can have judicial authority over a live person; the Article I court is an administrative agency for a corporation (the state or the federal government), and it can only contract with and administer contracts between corporations. This is why it only administers municipal law which, the SC has ruled: "All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not for humans/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process ... Rodriques vs. Ray Donovan (US Department of Labor) 769 F 2d 1344, 1348 (1985). You as a live person have a right to trial in an Article III court, where the Constitution still matters, you have common law rights, and the judge swears an oath to God (and the case is decided by a jury of live people). For most of these administrative presentments (speeding, running red lights, etc) you could not be brought before an Article III court, because there must be a cause of action, and these 'violations' of municipal codes do not qualify as causes in an Article III court, where for instance you have an inalienable right to travel freely in the country of your birth. And no state may pass a law that makes the pursuit of an inalienable right into a crime.

I understand the concept of God granting the usufruct of his Creation, which supercedes the state's claim that they granted the usufruct. Isn't the better path to simply take the live person out of the jurisdiction of the court, and take the NAME with you? ie, deny them the right to contract with your trust. This is the path to re-establish common law, which is critical to the prosperity of civilization. We must resist political law, which is contrary to God's law. You can still take full liability for your actions; who brings this claim that they have been damaged? How has the King's peace been harmed if I stop for a red light, then drive carefully through it, not impeding the flow of traffic? (happens all the time: I ride a 500cc bike, and it does not weigh enough to trigger those automatic light changers). The state intended to make you a slave, administered by Roman courts through contracts, so they can apply all their trivial and invasive political law to you, when they granted the CQVtrust. This plan is wrecked if you claim your estate and take your rightful place as Executor of the estate identified by NAME, thus taking yourself out of their jurisdiction and re-establishing your common law rights.

[walter]

I am confused by too many trusts.

You got that right, placed on top of each other to hide and confuse.

The "Criminal Code of Canada", has some interesting definitions in it.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...46/page-1.html

“trustee” means a person who is declared by any Act to be a trustee or is, by the law of a province, a trustee, and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a trustee on an express trust created by deed, will or instrument in writing, or by parol;

[Michael Joseph]

I am confused by too many trusts. The PERSON named on the complaint which brings a case to court is the cestui que vie trust granted by the state at the live person's birth. The live person is in fact the decedent whose death gives rise to the trust, which holds title to the assets in the trust for the benefit of the decedent's estate. Now, you come to court as a live person, you make a special limited appearance by absolute ministerial right under the First Judicial Act of 1789 Rule E(8), declaring that you are in fact alive, and sui juris, and you are claiming your estate, as the natural Executor of your estate. Whether the estate contains legal title or equitable title is not relevant; whatever it contains is yours, as, according to the revisions made by Charles II in 1666, the 'dead' could reappear and claim their estate, collapsing the trust. Now, as executor, you would be willing to assign the judge as trustee temporarily, so he can handle the presentment. The court, being an Article I court, and a corporation, cannot contract with you, the live person (which is why you must make a ministerial appearance - you have no standing in an Article I court, only the NAME does).

No fictional entity can have judicial authority over a live person; the Article I court is an administrative agency for a corporation (the state or the federal government), and it can only contract with and administer contracts between corporations. This is why it only administers municipal law which, the SC has ruled: "All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not for humans/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process ... Rodriques vs. Ray Donovan (US Department of Labor) 769 F 2d 1344, 1348 (1985). You as a live person have a right to trial in an Article III court, where the Constitution still matters, you have common law rights, and the judge swears an oath to God (and the case is decided by a jury of live people). For most of these administrative presentments (speeding, running red lights, etc) you could not be brought before an Article III court, because there must be a cause of action, and these 'violations' of municipal codes do not qualify as causes in an Article III court, where for instance you have an inalienable right to travel freely in the country of your birth. And no state may pass a law that makes the pursuit of an inalienable right into a crime.

I understand the concept of God granting the usufruct of his Creation, which supercedes the state's claim that they granted the usufruct. Isn't the better path to simply take the live person out of the jurisdiction of the court, and take the NAME with you? ie, deny them the right to contract with your trust. This is the path to re-establish common law, which is critical to the prosperity of civilization. We must resist political law, which is contrary to God's law. You can still take full liability for your actions; who brings this claim that they have been damaged? How has the King's peace been harmed if I stop for a red light, then drive carefully through it, not impeding the flow of traffic? (happens all the time: I ride a 500cc bike, and it does not weigh enough to trigger those automatic light changers). The state intended to make you a slave, administered by Roman courts through contracts, so they can apply all their trivial and invasive political law to you, when they granted the CQVtrust. This plan is wrecked if you claim your estate and take your rightful place as Executor of the estate identified by NAME, thus taking yourself out of their jurisdiction and re-establishing your common law rights.

If the money is "minus money" which is not money at all, but a KIND OF substitute for money for exchange - then only you can curse you. Therefore, you cannot be compelled to accept Notes. Therefore you give notes value in your acceptance. Therefore the curse is brought VOLUNTARILY.

[Freed Gerdes]

I understand that debt is the money of slaves, and have taken steps to redeem all FRN's tendered to me, thus I do not participate in the fraud of fractional reserve banking. My objective is to take control of my corporate identity, so I can protect in from further intrusion by political law. I do not need or want the Fed/Treasury nexus to be a party to all my contracts. I am not bankrupt, and am not responsible for the Federal (corporate) government's bankruptcy. Thus I do not intend to tolerate the state's lien on all my property, so they can pledge me, my assets, and my future earning power to their debts. I seek legal title as well as equitable title to my estate. Moreover, I seek to establish that I control my corporate PERSON, it does not control me, and may not be used by others to control me; the only authority I accept is common law.

The corporate trust granted by the state is intended to hold title to assets in my estate until such time as I can 'return from the missing/dead' and reclaim my estate. According to the revisions made by Charles II in 1666, upon my return the assets in the trust revert back to me, and I take my natural place as Executor of my estate. From that point on I can control with whom the trust contracts, and can Refuse for Cause any contracts which are not in my interest. The political/bankster cartel which has captured the US government machinery is in the late stages of empire, and is using Roman law (contracts) to control the economy and limit the liberties of the citizenry. Thus the switch from common law to Roman law in the Article I court system in 1933. These courts, which operate outside the Constitution, now rely on the contemporary definition of 'for the common good,' rather than the thousands of years of common law precedents. We now have a nation of men, rather than a nation of laws. We call this tyranny by the majority (democracy) as a marketing meme, but it is really tyranny by the insiders, ie, those who control the money supply.

For the first two hundred years Rome enjoyed the benefits of common law, and became the most prosperous city/nation in the world. But by the time of the crucifixion of Jesus, common law had been replaced by Roman law, that is, laws made by men, not the laws of God. As a result, the nation turned to empire, conquest, slavery, onerous taxes, and greatly reduced liberties for the citizens. Those who could fled, the rest were bankrupted, their estates confiscated by the state, and they were bonded (enslaved) to what had once been their own estates. Moral of the story: the application of common law results in prosperity for citizens and the state, but when men presume that they can write laws to suit temporal preferences, the social contract fails and civilization loses the benefits of peaceful cooperative endeavor. Thus we have a duty to ourselves and our progeny to resist Roman law, and to work tirelessly to restore the common law.

By your strategy of remaining 'in the fog,' and working from within the usufruct, accepting the status of user but not owner, you are confirming the Roman law and accepting the state's claim that they own 'you,' the corporate PERSON established by the trust granted by the state. These trusts were used extensively by the (empire) Romans; they would create a trust in the name of the slave, and put title to the slave's physical body into the trust, then buy and sell these trusts, illegally trafficking in living parts of God's creation, which they clearly did not own, but which laws made by men allowed. The Federal Reserve, through the 1933 bankruptcy action, seeks to re-establish that legal framework. I am merely searching for the best strategy to resist this effort by the cartel to eliminate common law and replace it with corporate law.

Since you have been at this a lot longer than I have, please note that I greatly appreciate your insights, and enjoy exploring these complex issues with knowledgeable others. The users of this site are performing a valuable service in making such a forum available; I don't find people ready to discuss these issues amongst my usual social contacts.

[Michael Joseph]

By your strategy of remaining 'in the fog,' and working from within the usufruct, accepting the status of user but not owner, you are confirming the Roman law and accepting the state's claim that they own 'you,' the corporate PERSON established by the trust granted by the state.

Babylon bores me - I care not for her riches or her thrones - she cannot allure me with her stuff - be it whatever - incorporeal or corporeal. She has nothing to give me and I am at liberty in Yehoshuah my Redeemer, my Savior in whom I trust. I shall only now elaborate as follows:

I am owned by noone. I am a child of El Elyon - The Most High God. However, the Persons of State are the creations of State. I am not a State Person. There is nothing inherently evil concerning Trust. A trust is just a confidence placed in another. I place my Trust in my Elohim [God]. There are two trusts - you can find them at Jeremiah 17:5 and 17:7.

I cannot tell you what to do in regard to your interests. I found my way but only thru great struggle. So now I see the matter as simple I am careful to give my word. I would rather eat my bread in peace than have all that Babylon might offer in strife.

Common Law is nothing but law common to a particular venue. You claim God's Law. Lets see now, God's Law speaks of Trusts.....lets explore an example, shall we?

Lev 6:2 If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour;

Comment: If I deliver property to you to keep for me whilst I am about some other business, that is called a Trust. You are the Trustee, I am the Beneficiary and the Trust Corpus is the property delivered to your possession [keep].

Lev 6:3 Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein:

Comment: If you do not take special care to protect said property and harm comes to the beneficial interest placed in your keep, then you are in breach of trust.

Lev 6:4 Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found,


Comment: Here is God's Judgment for Breach of Trust.


Lev 6:5 Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering.


Comment: Here is God's Judgment for Breach of Trust


Now consider if I deliver five cows to you to keep whilst I go to Hawaii with my wife. You say you will take the cows and put them in your keep for ten ounces of silver. So then we establish a Trust - you Possess the cows as Trustee for my benefit. One night a wolf comes into your field and eats one of the cows. I am now with a lost of the beneficial interest that I once had. And since you agreed to take care the interest I enjoyed in the cows, we are now going to go to God's Law and see that you owe me the cow that was lost and 20%. Since there were five cows - that means you owe me another cow. So now do I own the cows? NO. The cows are God's. I only had the right to use and enjoy the use of those cows and we - you and I - had an agreement in trust that you failed to perform. You argue, but the wolf is out of my control. I return, you should have been more vigilant. You took the consideration and you took the trust. You should have posted a watch.

The lesson I take from the foregoing is BE CAREFUL where I place my Trust. Also, if I take property in Trust as Trustee, then I am duty bound to protect said property for the benefit of the enjoyment of the Beneficiary[ies].


I hope you find your way.


Shalom,
MJ

[shikamaru]

I am confused by too many trusts. The PERSON named on the complaint which brings a case to court is the cestui que vie trust granted by the state at the live person's birth. The live person is in fact the decedent whose death gives rise to the trust, which holds title to the assets in the trust for the benefit of the decedent's estate. Now, you come to court as a live person, you make a special limited appearance by absolute ministerial right under the First Judicial Act of 1789 Rule E(8), declaring that you are in fact alive, and sui juris, and you are claiming your estate, as the natural Executor of your estate. Whether the estate contains legal title or equitable title is not relevant; whatever it contains is yours, as, according to the revisions made by Charles II in 1666, the 'dead' could reappear and claim their estate, collapsing the trust. Now, as executor, you would be willing to assign the judge as trustee temporarily, so he can handle the presentment. The court, being an Article I court, and a corporation, cannot contract with you, the live person (which is why you must make a ministerial appearance - you have no standing in an Article I court, only the NAME does).

No fictional entity can have judicial authority over a live person; the Article I court is an administrative agency for a corporation (the state or the federal government), and it can only contract with and administer contracts between corporations. This is why it only administers municipal law which, the SC has ruled: "All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not for humans/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process ... Rodriques vs. Ray Donovan (US Department of Labor) 769 F 2d 1344, 1348 (1985). You as a live person have a right to trial in an Article III court, where the Constitution still matters, you have common law rights, and the judge swears an oath to God (and the case is decided by a jury of live people). For most of these administrative presentments (speeding, running red lights, etc) you could not be brought before an Article III court, because there must be a cause of action, and these 'violations' of municipal codes do not qualify as causes in an Article III court, where for instance you have an inalienable right to travel freely in the country of your birth. And no state may pass a law that makes the pursuit of an inalienable right into a crime.

I understand the concept of God granting the usufruct of his Creation, which supercedes the state's claim that they granted the usufruct. Isn't the better path to simply take the live person out of the jurisdiction of the court, and take the NAME with you? ie, deny them the right to contract with your trust. This is the path to re-establish common law, which is critical to the prosperity of civilization. We must resist political law, which is contrary to God's law. You can still take full liability for your actions; who brings this claim that they have been damaged? How has the King's peace been harmed if I stop for a red light, then drive carefully through it, not impeding the flow of traffic? (happens all the time: I ride a 500cc bike, and it does not weigh enough to trigger those automatic light changers). The state intended to make you a slave, administered by Roman courts through contracts, so they can apply all their trivial and invasive political law to you, when they granted the CQVtrust. This plan is wrecked if you claim your estate and take your rightful place as Executor of the estate identified by NAME, thus taking yourself out of their jurisdiction and re-establishing your common law rights.

My interpretation of your writings and the interpretations therein:

Aside from any court case, a trust is ultimately about property and who has what interests therein. The name of the trust is less important.
The remainder of your post mixes estate law, the birth record, and appearances where it should not be mixed.
Again, I contend the name is an account (Common Law: chose in action). An executor is the nominee for the administration of an estate upon death of the elector.
Now if you are speaking in the context of executor as person authorized to act on behalf of another, that context may work.

[shikamaru]

For the first two hundred years Rome enjoyed the benefits of common law, and became the most prosperous city/nation in the world. But by the time of the crucifixion of Jesus, common law had been replaced by Roman law, that is, laws made by men, not the laws of God. As a result, the nation turned to empire, conquest, slavery, onerous taxes, and greatly reduced liberties for the citizens. Those who could fled, the rest were bankrupted, their estates confiscated by the state, and they were bonded (enslaved) to what had once been their own estates. Moral of the story: the application of common law results in prosperity for citizens and the state, but when men presume that they can write laws to suit temporal preferences, the social contract fails and civilization loses the benefits of peaceful cooperative endeavor. Thus we have a duty to ourselves and our progeny to resist Roman law, and to work tirelessly to restore the common law.

Rome never had Common Law.
Common Law was the law system of England that came to be about 400 years after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

The word common can also mean uniform. Common Law = Uniform Law .... throughout a territory.
It could also mean uniformity of application of the law.

[Michael Joseph]

Trust and Property - The TERMS are Connected:

Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's. - Look for CEASAR's IMAGE.

Clearly United States Notes belong to the United States. Meaning it is the United States Treasury that is insuring those Notes in Circulation. So then making a demand for lawful money is in a sense a way of giving unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's.

Notes are used for INTERNAL circulation. Gold can be used for external payment. So then making a demand for lawful money IN ACCORD WITH AND PER 12USC411 conforms perfectly with 12USC95a(2). The property remains in the United States.

Now recently I had to negotiate the sale of an easement. And in doing so, I came to see the simplicity of Trust. The USE in the LAND is what is sold. The land will never be sold and cannot be sold - else that would be a violation of The Word of God and that ain't gonna happen.

Now then if the Use in the Land is being sold, then the Uses must be bounded by Survey to describe the Land but the Survey only describes the Land and NOT the Uses in the Land. Does not my argument hinge on what the term Land means? So what is Land and what is Earth?

Lev 25:23 The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me.


LAND. This term comprehends any found, soil or earth whatsoever, as meadows, pastures, woods, waters, marshes, furze and heath. It has an indefinite extent upwards as well as downwards; therefore land, legally includes all houses and other buildings standing or built on it; and whatever is in a direct line between the surface and the centre of the earth, such as mines of metals and fossils. 1 Inst. 4 a; Wood's Inst. 120; 2 B1. Com. 18; 1 Cruise on Real Prop. 58. In a more confined sense, the word land is said to denote "frank tenement at the least." Shepp. Touch. 92. In this sense, then, leaseholds cannot be said to be included under the word lands. 8 Madd. Rep. 635. The technical sense of the word land is farther explained by Sheppard, in his Touch. p. 88, thus: "if one be seised of some lands in fee, and possessed of other lands for years, all in one parish, and he grant all his lands in that parish (without naming them) in fee simple or for life; by this grant shall pass no, more but the lands he hath in fee simple." It is also said that land in its legal acceptation means arable land. 11 Co. 55 a. See also Cro. Car. 293; 2 P. Wms. 458, n.; 5 Ves. 476; 20 Vin. Ab. 203.

2. Land, as above observed, includes in general all the buildings erected upon it; 9 Day, R. 374; but to this general rule there are some exceptions. It is true, that if a stranger voluntarily erect buildings on another's land, they will belong to the owner of the land, and will become a part of it; 16 Mass. R. 449; yet cases are, not wanting where it has been decided that such an erection, under peculiar circumstances, would be considered as personal property. 4 Mass. R. 514; 8 Pick. R. 283, 402; 5 Pick, R. 487; 6 N. H. Rep. 555; 2 Fairf. R. 371; 1 Dana, R. 591; 1 Burr. 144.

Comment: Wow, look at that Land means the USES in or on the Earth. If the Earth is Surveyed, then the USES can be claimed and placed into Trust. If the inhabitants are made to submit by force of military rule, then those uses might be placed in Abeyance until the Military Occupation is completed.

So then making a demand for lawful money is in fact, returning by express deed, property to its rightful owner - the United States Treasury. If one claims ownership, then that one is in Tort and a CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST issues upon the Trustee de son Tort.

So then what is Property? Because we are talking about property being held in Trust. Breaking it down -

PROPERTY. The right and interest which a man has in lands and chattels to the exclusion of others. 6 Binn. 98; 4 Pet. 511; 17 Johns. 283; 14 East, 370; 11 East, 290, 518. It is the right to enjoy and to dispose of certain things in the most absolute manner as he pleases, provided he makes no use of them prohibited by law. See Things.

Comment: Wow property is a RIGHT or INTEREST in a Thing. Go check out THING.

2. All things are not the subject of property the sea, the air, and the like, cannot be appropriated; every one may enjoy them, but he has no exclusive right in them. When things are fully our own, or when all others are excluded from meddling with them, or from interfering about them, it is plain that no person besides the proprietor, who has this exclusive right, can have any, claim either to use them, or to hinder him from disposing of them as, he pleases; so that property, considered as an exclusive right to things, contains not only a right to use those things, but a right to dispose of them, either by exchanging them for other things, or by giving them away to any other person, without any consideration, or even throwing them away. Rutherf. Inst. 20; Domat, liv. prel. tit. 3; Poth. Des Choses; 18 Vin. Ab. 63; 7 Com. Dig. 175; Com. Dig. Biens. See also 2 B. & C. 281; S. C. 9 E. C. L. R. 87; 3 D. & R. 394; 9 B. & C. 396; S. C. 17 E. C. L. R. 404; 1 C. & M. 39; 4 Call, 472; 18 Ves. 193; 6 Bing. 630.

Comment: Wow, the proprietor has the Rights IN property. And property is a Right or Interest IN a Thing. So then who, pray tell was the Proprietor of The United States of America? That would be in a King. Look to Ephraim - a Commonwealth of Nations.


3. Property is divided into real property, (q. v.) and personal property. (q. v.) Vide Estate; Things.

Comment: interesting.

4. Property is also divided, when it consists of goods and chattels, into absolute and qualified. Absolute property is that which is our own, without any qualification whatever; as when a man is the owner of a watch, a book, or other inanimate thing: or of a horse, a sheep, or other animal, which never had its natural liberty in a wild state.

Comment: Is a Fee Simple Estate property? YES it is. It is a Qualified Estate too. Only the King can hold an Absolute Title, or Right or Interest in Property.

5. Qualified property consists in the right which men have over wild animals which they have reduced to their own possession, and which are kept subject to their power; as a deer, a buffalo, and the like, which are his own while he has possession of them, but as soon as his possession is lost, his property is gone, unless the animals, go animo revertendi. 2 Bl. Com. 396; 3 Binn. 546.

Comment: Are you a wild animal? Are you possessed by another - rather said - are you a slave? No but you can submit yourself to slavery in your ignorance. Trustee de son Tort. Remember Balaam? Israel must curse Israel. No outside curses.

6. But property in personal goods may be absolute or qualified without any relation to the nature of the subject-matter, but simply because more persons than one have an interest in it, or because the right of property is separated from the possession. A bailee of goods, though not the owner, has a qualified property in them; while the owner has the absolute property. Vide, Bailee; Bailment.

Comment: Are you the Owner? Do you have your own Treasury? Answer the latter and you will have your answer for the former.

7. Personal property is further divided into property in possession, and property or choses in action. (q. v.)

Comment: A french term: CHOSE IN ACTION. What does it mean?

[Michael Joseph]

CHOSE, property. This is a French word, signifying thing. In law, it is applied to personal property; as choses in possession, are such personal things of which one has possession; choses in action, are such as the owner has not the possession, but merely a right of action for their possession. 2 Bl. Com. 889, 397; 1 Chit. Pract. 99; 1 Supp. to Ves. Jr. 26, 59. Chitty defines choses in actions to be rights to receive or recover a debt, or money, or damages for breach of contract, or for a tort connected with contract, but which cannot be enforced without action, and therefore termed choses, or things in action. Com. Dig. Biens; Harr. Dig. Chose in ActionChitty's Eq. Dig. b. t. Vide 1 Ch. Pr. 140.

2. It is one of the qualities of a chose in action, that, at common law, it is not assignable. 2 John. 1; 15 Mass. 388; 1 Crancb, 367. But bills of exchange and promissory notes, though choses in action, may be assigned by indorsement, when payable to order, or by delivery when payable to bearer. See Bills of Exchange.


Comment: Wow a Check is a Choose in Action by Indorsement. Isn't that Interesting? A Chose in Action is PROPERTY. I ask again, are you with your own Treasury?

8. Property is again divided into corporeal and incorporeal. The former comprehends such property as is perceptible to the senses, as lands, houses, goods, merchandise and the like; the latter consists in legal rights, as choses in action, easements, and the like.

Comment: If I undertake for you, is that PROPERTY that you hold? Yes.

9. Property is lost, in general, in three ways, by the act of man, by the act of law, and by the act of God.

Comment: I wonder what the term LOST means? I'll wager it is tied into POSSESSION which is tied to Property. Lets see shall we?

LOST. What was once possessed and cannot now be found.

2. When a bond or other deed was lost, formerly the obligee or plaintiff was compelled to go into equity to seek relief, because there was no remedy a law, the plaintiff being required to make profert in his declaration. 1 Chan. c. 7T. But in process of time courts of law dispensed with profert in such cases, and thereby obtained concurrent jurisdiction with the courts of chancery, so that now the loss of any paper, other than a negotiable note, will not prevent the plaintiff from recovering at law as well as in equity. 3 Atk. 214; 1 Ves. 341; 5 Ves. 235; 6 Ves. 812, 7 Ves. 19; 3 V. & B. 54.

3. When a negotiable note has been lost, equity will grant relief. In such case the claimant must tender an indemnity to the debtor, and file a bill in chancery to compel payment. 7 B. & C. 90; Ryan & Mo. 90; 4 Taunt. 602; 2 Ves. sen. 327; 16 Ves. 430.


Comment: Ever argue a Promissory Note being Lost? Ever wonder why the Judge just steamrolls over that argument? He goes to Equity. Did you agree to pay? If you didn't then why are you arguing over the Note? You testify against yourself. So you argue, therefore the Note Existed, but now what should be done it is lost. Well what is fair and equitable under the Note? You pay that is what is fair. Why, because you agreed to pay. And God cannot lie and therefore to lie is an offense against God and Nature.


10. - 1. It is lost by the act of man by, 1st. Alienation; but in order to do this, the owner must have a legal capacity to make a contract. 2d. By the voluntary abandonment of the thing; but unless the abandonment be purely voluntary, the title to the property is not lost; as, if things be thrown into the sea to save the ship, the right is not lost. Poth. h. t., n. 270; 3 Toull. ii. 346. But even a voluntary abandonment does not deprive the former owner from taking possession of the thing abandoned, at any time before another takes possession of it.


Comment: Wow you cannot alienate a property unless you have the legal capacity to contract. What is the basis of the contract? Since FRN's are not valuable - the attorner's have a work around - a play on words "and OTHER VALUABLE consideration". There must be consideration and it MUST be valuable. Is your WORD valuable? How about your promises?


11. - 2. The title to property is lost by operation of law. 1st. By the forced sale, under a lawful process, of the property of a debtor to satisfy a judgment, sentence, or decree rendered against him, to compel him to fulfil his obligations. 2d. By confiscation, or sentence of a criminal court. 3d. By prescription. 4th. By civil death. 6th. By capture of a public enemy.

Comment: A debtor - interesting, yes? BORROWER is TRUSTOR.....ever read those words on a Deed of Trust? Self Indictment. Sign here and here and here.

12. - 3. The title to property is lost by the act of God, as in the case of the death of slaves or animals, or in the total destruction of a thing; for example, if a house be swallowed up by an opening in the earth during an earthquake.

Comment:

Num 16:1 Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men:

Num 16:2 And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown:

Num 16:3 And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD?

Num 16:20 And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying,

Num 16:21 Separate yourselves from among this congregation, that I may consume them in a moment.

Num 16:22 And they fell upon their faces, and said, O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and wilt thou be wroth with all the congregation?

Num 16:23 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Num 16:24 Speak unto the congregation, saying, Get you up from about the tabernacle of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.

Num 16:25 And Moses rose up and went unto Dathan and Abiram; and the elders of Israel followed him.

Num 16:26 And he spake unto the congregation, saying, Depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest ye be consumed in all their sins.

Num 16:27 So they gat up from the tabernacle of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, on every side: and Dathan and Abiram came out, and stood in the door of their tents, and their wives, and their sons, and their little children.

Num 16:28 And Moses said, Hereby ye shall know that the LORD hath sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind.

Num 16:29 If these men die the common death of all men, or if they be visited after the visitation of all men; then the LORD hath not sent me.

Num 16:30 But if the LORD make a new thing, and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them, and they go down quick into the pit; then ye shall understand that these men have provoked the LORD.

Num 16:31 And it came to pass, as he had made an end of speaking all these words, that the ground clave asunder that was under them:

Num 16:32 And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods.

Num 16:33 They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation.

Num 16:34 And all Israel that were round about them fled at the cry of them: for they said, Lest the earth swallow us up also.

Num 16:35 And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense.


13. It is proper to observe that in some cases, the moment that the owner loses his possession, he also loses his property or right in the thing: animals ferae naturae, as mentioned above, belong to the owner only while he retains the possession of them. But, in general,' the loss of possession does not impair the right of property, for the owner may recover it within a certain time allowed by law. Vide, generally, Bouv. Inst. Index, b. t.

Comment: Does a debtor possess? No. Under a Mortgage the Lender ALLOWS the Debtor to possess the use by the Lender's good will and agreement in covenant - I have proved this before and I shall not be upon that proof again. Therefore the Lender is in Possession and can Enter upon the Property at any time - unless a prior agreement is made in limitation. The Loss of possession impairs the Right IN property but not OF property. The right of redemption is an excellent example.


So then again, I ask about Property - If you make a USE of Notes do you gain any Ownership IN Property? Who is the Owner? Is it not the Proprietor? Do you see now why Padelford was so clear? You are NOT a party to the Covenant called Constitution. Therefore you are without Property INTEREST under or in said Constitution.

So if you make a use IN notes, and you make a demand for United States Notes and you make a Use of United States Notes to gain a Purchase [temporary possession or hold] upon a Thing, then you have interest IN the Use, but the Property is in the United States. See now why Gold is against Public Policy? Ounces allow for ALIENATION OF PROPERTY.

Images - look it up - its in the Top Ten. Thou shall not make any graven images.....

Shalom,
MJ

My twelve year old knows that everything in our house belongs to my wife and I [in relation to her] - she only gets to use the Things within the house by grant or permission or license given by Mom or Dad. Her use in no way alienates our interest in said Property.

[David Merrill]

Thank you for your inspired teachings Michael Joseph!