"One of the duties of a public trustee is to fully acquit and discharge debt obligations, or other securities, of the United States unless... a man or woman accommodates or undertakes for the obligation. The FIRST MIDDLE LAST may be my property (right-of-use proper to me and exclusive of all others), but title is held by another. Titleholder is legal owner and the liable party obligated and responsible for the 'thing' titled."

Just a quick comment about being consistent. I agree that one of the duties of public trustees is to fully acquit and discharge their "properties" obligations under 12 USC 95a. If a man accommodates or undertakes or CLAIMS that Property or Name or estate, trust, person, etc as his property, therefore , he consents to act as trustee, fiduciary, executor, or administrator of that person, trust, estate, etc. A usufruct complaint certified certificate has been sent to man for his USE, where and if a claim against said property or name should arise, MAN is NOT to intermeddle with such affairs that have no concern to him and should refer the person who has such a claim to contact the correct party to settle the matter.

If man intermeddles with property that does not belong to him, there is a presumption by law that he accepts such fiduciary duties to administrate that entity. If that NAME were my property, I would be able to obtain the original title from the state vital statistics bureau. I can have it, therefore, the state is the legal owner of that property while the US has bought and paid for the interest thereof through the SSA.

We also want to be careful referring to men as creditors. A creditor is a person and a person is a fiction. Men have nothing to do with their system. This does not mean men can not benefit on behalf of the person. This is just indirectly. The US is the beneficiary. Remember fiction for fiction, real for real. Men are real. And remember that a beneficiary has a tax liability [rule of usufruct].

"Compelling performance of a public servant/officer/trustee 'on the offense' proves more difficult than 'on the defense'." I agree with you 100%
We have USE of but not ownership of that estate. I realize this is how you meant what you stated, I just wanted to clarify a bit. They are tricky you know - lol