What's in a NAME?

[Keith Alan]

The trust in question is the Social Security Trust, established by FDR, and into which he placed all the assets of the US government, pledged as collateral for the national debt. The pledge is in favor of the bankers who held the debt, now identified as the IMF. When a child is born, the Labor Department registers the birth certificate as property of the government, Accepts it For Value, and pledges it to the debt by putting the NAME into the trust. The IMF, through the Federal Reserve, can now issue more debt, as they have more collateral. The Trustee (Sec of Treasury, an employee of the IMF, as the US has no Treasury, ie, the US is in bankruptcy receivership) makes the presumption that the child will want to be obligated for the (odious) debt, and thus will later confirm the presumption, or at least will be too ignorant to rebut it. The legal title to the estate belonging to the NAME is held under a security agreement, because of the debt to which it has now become an obligee. You the natural person still 'own' the NAME; actually you are the accommodation agent for the NAME, so you control it, which is the primary feature of ownership. And you can write to the Trustee at any time and tell him to dissolve the trust and return the res to you, except that it has these liens against it due to the debt you agreed to be responsible for. So you have to discharge those liens first, by rebutting the presumption that you wanted to be responsible for the debt, and then demanding that all those transactions which incurred the debt, through endorsing debt securities of the Federal Reserve, should have been transacted in lawful money, which fully discharges all debt. Then you tell the Trustee to dissolve the trust and return the res to you. Now you have no trust in the federal government, no obligations for the debt, and no contract with the Federal Reserve. And now you are not a US citizen, but a free American citizen, with Constitutional rights clearly acknowledged by the government, ie, you are now above the federal government, as it should/must be. Now all the federal rules, codes, and regulations do not apply to you; these codes, rules, and regulations only apply to US citizens, ie, citizens identified as part of the res, subject to the trust (obligees of the debt), and thus 14th Amendment citizens, who have given up their constitutional rights to become wards of the state, as it were. Once your trust is dissolved, by your instructions in writing to the Trustee, you only acknowledge and consent to be governed by common law.

Freed

I very much appreciate the way you presented the information, because upon reading it something clicked, and I feel I have a better understanding, although still a bit cloudy.

For instance, I've been studying all I can about THE NAME, and the birth certificate, and I'm still at a loss in being able to find out exactly what they are.

THE NAME, I've discovered, is the appellation designated (by the parent) on the birth certificate, and not the newborn's given name. The legalese is hard to muddle through, but never is the child given a name.

The statement of facts used to prepare the birth certificate is just that - a statement of facts, otherwise known as an information. That's why the mother is identified as informant.

So anyway, I see an implied trust being formed, but never an expressed trust. That's why I wondered where is the trust indenture. The certificate serves as evidence that an entity was created, and that the baby definitely has an interest in it, but so do the state and the United States. I think that much is made clear on the face of the instrument.

So the Social Security trust is not part of the deal unless the parent elects to apply for a number for the child.

In other words, I do believe a trust exists, and that the living man has an interest in it, but it's up to him to give life to the trust by assuming one of the roles of the trust.

Now I think you must be correct about the Social Security trust, after an SSN is assigned and used by the person. That is where - as I see it - exiting the Fed becomes important, if one wants to come out of the beast system, which I do.

But I think it may be possible to exit the system by designating an attorney - like the Secretary - to represent my interest in THE NAME to the State, while recapturing my inalienable rights and responsibilities.

I did not create THE NAME, but I was given an interest in it which I can accept or reject, now that I know it exists. If I reject it outright by collapsing the trust, that will throw my family into turmoil and hardship.

Or I can find a way to make it work for everyone, and maybe I can do that by accepting it on my terms. It's all a big, silly game, but unfortunately my neighbors all think it's real life.

I used to have a friend who, when he went off his meds, became afflicted with delusions that he was a real life superhero. He actually believed that, without his work, the earth and everyone in it would be destroyed. He saw it as his personal responsibility to save the world from utter destruction.

When he was going through these episodes, I indulged him by going along with his fantasy, because he felt very much alone, and needed a friend. I knew that after a while I could get him back on his meds, or at least I could be there so he wouldn't hurt himself or anyone else.

That's how I see my neighbors in this world. So why not play along, as long as no one gets hurt?