Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29

Thread: Deconstruction of the 14th Amendment

  1. #1
    Senior Member motla68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Within the confines of my own skin.
    Posts
    752

    Lightbulb -

    This document was written up by one of the original Coresource Solution member when we started in Jan 2009.

    See attachment
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by motla68; 03-15-11 at 08:15 PM.

  2. #2
    Great topic!


    I picked this up somewhere.


  3. #3
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,595
    motla68 this is an excellent post and I encourage all who see this reply to re-read the foregoing post. Thank you.


    The public debt in question is NOT about “money owed” but of a debt obligation in exchange for the spoliation of the owner of private property taken for use by the United States as per the Lieber Code part 38 (usufruct clause) which states “Private property, unless forfeited by crimes or by offenses of the owner, can be seized only by way of military necessity, for the support or other benefit of the Army or of the United States. If the owner has not fled, the commanding officer will cause receipts to be given, which may serve the spoliated owner to obtain indemnity.” [The act of making someone "whole" (give equal to what they have lost) or protected from (insured against) any losses which have occurred or will occur.] [he who receives the benefit should also bear the disadvantage – maxim of law]
    I was reading a WARRANTY DEED TO TRUSTEE just this morning and look what I found:


    Quoting Deed:

    "TOGETHER with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining, to have and to hold in fee simple forever."


    Notice that: fee simple is allodial title; allodial to the estate - as in Real Estate - and it is to be held within the estate "FOREVER". And the Register has logged the Event. Fee Simple is not in Real Property - as the Grantor/Grantee relationship is not of the Parent Trust.

    Quoting Deed:

    "The Grantor hereby covenants with said Grantee that the Grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; has good, right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land, hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever, and that said land is free of all encumbrances...."
    Last edited by Michael Joseph; 03-11-11 at 02:37 PM.
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    Lawful Money Trust Website

    Divine Mind Community Call - Sundays 8pm EST

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  4. #4
    MKnDave
    Guest

    Hey people

    Hello everybody! Great forum!Does anyone know more good forums or other resources on this topic?

  5. #5
    My father acquired REAL ESTATE within CALIFORNIA(paid in full with non redeemed FRN's) with a "fee simple" title. I have not reviewed it however i believe he is still subjugated to taxes on said property. That to me me would signify the fee simple title is not unencumbered. I am not for sure on this. I can ask him when he returns if i may aquire a copy of the "Fee Simple" title for review if anyone is interested.

    Excellent Post Motla68. I will refer back to this a few times.

    David, i'll be printing your attachment as well to refer back to. Thanks for the post

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Arik Alan View Post
    My father acquired REAL ESTATE within CALIFORNIA(paid in full with non redeemed FRN's) with a "fee simple" title. I have not reviewed it however i believe he is still subjugated to taxes on said property. That to me me would signify the fee simple title is not unencumbered. I am not for sure on this. I can ask him when he returns if i may aquire a copy of the "Fee Simple" title for review if anyone is interested.

    Excellent Post Motla68. I will refer back to this a few times.

    David, i'll be printing your attachment as well to refer back to. Thanks for the post
    I was about to say that Motla68 and I had definitely shared forums in the past. I still have not put it together entirely though - except that where there is truth, there is certainly going to be more than one truth-seeker dabbling in it. I am trying to digest "deconstruct" as "dissect" though. Maybe he means to dissolve these words and works of legal "art", to destroy the constructive trusts built around them?

    I am enjoying too, the speed at which StSC has grown so fast that I already cannot keep up with all the reading, and I do not want to blurt off-topic or simply annoying facts. I do however have a lot of factual material, accurate history to add, supposing it is interesting enough that readers and members might be able to look into it for verification.

    Fourtheenth Amendment a Sham.

    I am starting to appreciate how much time it takes to learn things. Especially now that I am having the tables turned by some of the members here.



    Regards,

    David Merrill.


    P.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by motla68 View Post
    lol, we must have some of the same connections. The author is the same for both documents. He was on our original group that we started back in January 2009.

    If appropriate, can you tell me the author's name and the name of the Group?

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by motla68 View Post
    “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” (Mathew 5:17)
    Just calling a spade a spade, defining what makes the clock tick.

    Jesus, being a Jew was speaking of the Laws of Moses. The next passage is just as interesting.

    Mat 5:33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
    Mat 5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
    Mat 5:35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
    Mat 5:36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
    Mat 5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

    Here we find that something has changed. With the advent of the Messiah, there shall be no more swearing. I have attached an anonymously written treatise that has always caught my attention.
    Attached Files Attached Files

  8. #8
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Jesus, being a Jew was speaking of the Laws of Moses. The next passage is just as interesting.




    Here we find that something has changed. With the advent of the Messiah, there shall be no more swearing. I have attached an anonymously written treatise that has always caught my attention.
    For clarity only; I assume you use the modern era term "jew" loosely as being defined as "judean" in describing Jesus' character, and not as the real and modern era "jew" which is distinct from and mostly unrelated to judeans, hebrews, isrealites or semites of any kind.

    That distinction is obviously a lesson in and of itself.

  9. #9
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by motla68 View Post
    Lieber Code Part 44 states “All wanton violence committed against persons in the invaded country, all destruction of property not commanded by the authorized officer, all robbery, all pillage or sacking, even after taking a place by main force, all rape [forced intercourse, commercial or otherwise], wounding, maiming, or killing of such inhabitants, are prohibited under the penalty of death, or such other severe punishment as may seem adequate for the gravity of the offense. “

    So all “actions” where military authority is exercised, as identified by display of the executive military flag, must have commencement under authority of the “general officer to the command of each district” and without such command all public, civil, and military officers and officials who make such claims or engage in such actions are acting in adversity to part 46 which states “neither officers nor soldiers are allowed to make use of their position or power in the hostile country for private gain, not even for commercial transactions otherwise legitimate. Offenses to the contrary committed by commissioned officers will be punished with cashiering or such other punishment as the nature of the offense may require; if by soldiers, they shall be punished according to the nature of the offense” because “all interference, under color of State authority, with the exercise of military authority under this act, shall be null and void.” [12 U.S. Op Atty. Gen. 182] (it is sedition to make claim against vested US interests)

    Even if these officers receive orders to enforce certain acts or orders given by authorized officers, all under command of the military enforcing the martial law must still do so in the spirit of part 4 or the Lieber Code which states "Martial law is simply military authority exercised in accordance with the laws and usages of war. Military oppression is not martial law; it is the abuse of the power which that law confers. As martial law is executed by military force, it is incumbent upon those who administer it to be strictly guided by the principles of justice, honor, and humanity--virtues adorning a soldier even more than other men, for the very reason that he possesses the power of his arms against the unarmed”.

    All “officers and officials” are still ….”not clothed with authority under the laws of the State, but constituted by the military authority. As the representative of this military authority [the district commander], this act forbids interference, 'under color of State authority,' with the exercise of his functions” and only “to be exercised in the special emergencies” and only at the discretion of the district commander [12 U.S. Op Atty. Gen. 182].

    The military commander is bound to protect, not authorized to destroy, rights such as a speedy trial of the offender, forbids the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment, and requires that sentences of these military courts, which involve the liberty or life of the accused, shall have the approval of the commanding general. [12 U.S. Op Atty. Gen. 182]

    The military commander is made a conservator of the peace, not legislator and as such, those in service under him in their provisional capacity are also conservators of the peace. [12 U.S. Op Atty. Gen. 182] [The greatest enemies to peace are force and wrong - maxim of law]

    Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

    See titles 18 and 50 of the United States code.

    So in essence, you have right of first possession and unless the one making the claim against that State owned property (evidenced by your posssession of the certificate of title) can show a superior claim of possession and use, the one making a claim opposite yours is committing sedition by placing a lien/levy/charge upon a vested interest of the United States.

    Some additional Maxims

    A l impossible nul n est tenu. No one is bound to do what is impossible

    Consensus facit legem. Consent makes the law. A contract is a law between the parties, which can acquire force only by consent.

    Consensus tollit errorem. Consent removes or obviates a mistake.

    Disparata non debent jungi. Unequal things ought not to be joined.

    Consentientes et agentes pari poenÉ plectentur. Those consenting and those perpetrating are embraced in the same punishment.

    Expressum facit cessare tacitum. What is expressed renders what is implied silent.

    Cessante causa, cessat effectus. The cause ceasing, the effect must cease.

    Actore non probante reus absolvitur. When the plaintiff does not prove his case, the defendant is absolved.

    Culpa est immiscere se rei ad se non pertinenti. It is a fault to meddle with what does not belong to or does not concern you.

    Once all this sinks in with you all, will share with you some artifacts referenced here in the post. The attachment is the back of an old Canadian birth certificate signifying the receipt for indemnification mentioned earlier in this post.

    2 of 2
    It seems I recall seeing this image presented by someone in Canada as proof of a "treasury direct account" of some kind of which can be tapped into for funds. As I remember, the presenter offered ZERO proof and evidence of this assertion. This was related to Robert Arthur MENARD's version of "security of the person" and other of his flawed and failed teachings.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Joseph View Post
    For clarity only; I assume you use the modern era term "jew" loosely as being defined as "judean" in describing Jesus' character, and not as the real and modern era "jew" which is distinct from and mostly unrelated to judeans, hebrews, isrealites or semites of any kind.

    That distinction is obviously a lesson in and of itself.
    That is a deserving Topic for its own Thread; but I am saying so only because I refuse to let the 14th Amendment get buried along with:

    Quote Originally Posted by Arik Alan View Post
    My father acquired REAL ESTATE within CALIFORNIA(paid in full with non redeemed FRN's) with a "fee simple" title. I have not reviewed it however i believe he is still subjugated to taxes on said property. That to me me would signify the fee simple title is not unencumbered. I am not for sure on this. I can ask him when he returns if i may aquire a copy of the "Fee Simple" title for review if anyone is interested.

    Excellent Post Motla68. I will refer back to this a few times.

    David, i'll be printing your attachment as well to refer back to. Thanks for the post
    What I mean by that is that Jesus' ethnicity as a Babylonian Jew is a hot button and will carry this thread off its Topic without a doubt, so I have to describe the Law as Jesus would know it pragmatically. As any Jew of his time. That would be to say that the US citizen, is bound by a natural re-statement of the Ten Commands called the Seven Noachide Laws. Paul ran to Felix, the Roman marshal for his life - protective custody - a benefit of the same Roman Welfare State that Paul created in that action. Paul was not in trouble for teaching Grace to the pagans in Asia Minor; Paul admitted to the Sanhedrin trying him that he was teaching the Seven Noachide Laws there:

    Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood...

    Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
    Neusner 1; Neusner 2.

    For now I want to leave it there because the real hot button is What Would Jesus Not Have Done. The truth being that because Jesus was a law-abiding Jew, he would not have entered your home, even to save your servant's life. If for some reason he physically touched a gentile, he was bound to perform a ritual bath (mikva) before he could go attend synagogue. He was such an elitist that he even considered a northern Jew a dog unfit to lick up crumbs from the King's table.

    What we should stick to in my opinion is this fealty system created by Paul and expressed in Romans 13. - For the sake of keeping on Arik Alan's point about the 14th Amendment.



    Regards,

    David Merrill.

Posting Permissions

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