Usufruct Surrender Remedy

[David Merrill]

It might give the Reader some insight as to why Jesus (almost) always inquired about faith before healing. There are a couple exceptions - where faith was demonstrated - with four friends lowering the quadriplegic through the roof for one. The other is an encryption in my opinion. A blind man keeps shouting, Jesus, Son of David; have mercy on me!... Jesus, Son of David.... The key there is understand the Two Messiah principle behind the First and Second Advent of Jesus CHRIST - that it is Messiah ben Joseph and subsequently Messiah ben David.

Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Does not the transfer/assignment of equitable title to reversionary interest (remainderman) in a res equate to the intention of "gift"?

That is my understanding of it. If an IRS attorney understands you gift the US your Withholdings, they will avoid transferring you interest and Refund your total Withholdings.

[doug555]

...

Does not the transfer/assignment of equitable title to reversionary interest (remainderman) in a res equate to the intention of "gift"?

That is my understanding of it. If an IRS attorney understands you gift the US your Withholdings, they will avoid transferring you interest and Refund your total Withholdings.

OK... then why would not this UCC-3 Assignment, along with the original associated indorsed bill (proposed usufruct indorsement) as the instrument of transfer of equitable title to reversionary interest (remainderman) in a res (credit amount on the bill due to the people who are ultimately the acknowledged source of all credit of the nation), effect a "full acquittance and discharge" of said bill in lawful money of exchange, dollar for dollar, as provided by the INTENT in the terms of the expressed trust known as HJR 192, June 5, 1933, when said instrument is deposited as lawful money in any Federal Reserve bank or member bank ?

Isn't such assignment just a ratification of the "for-giveness" birth pledge?

Mt 6:12
12 'And forgive us our debts, as we also have for-given our debtors

NOTE: UCC-3 Acknowledgement is sent to Office of Alien Property per 50 USC App 7(e), with Stuart F. Delery as current officeholder.

NOTE: The above is for education only - not for execution - no legal advice given.

[Michael Joseph]

Now you are probably thinking that I figured God was giving me a warning and showing me His mercy, sparing me His wrath. Right on! But I never actually felt that way in my heart. I read about Jesus controlling the weather in the Book of Mark and looked into it and what Jesus knew from his travels was that a typhoon on the inland sea would quickly dissipate due to conservation of energy. However, after telling the crew that there was nothing to worry about, knowing they were either going to be destroyed by the twister or it would kill itself off by siphoning up the water the crew, never having seen or even heard of typhoons was not to be dissuaded that Jesus had done it by miracle. But this knowledge had very little effect on my feelings about the hail storm.

I would like to respond briefly with a fresh perspective. I will preface by saying Scripture has many outworkings and I would never belittle another man's conscience. However please consider that the parable concerning Jesus walking on the water might have symbolic meaning as well.

Jesus is the Word made flesh - so when I see Jesus upon the Waters - I am reminded of Genesis 1 where Elohim separated the Waters from the Waters. In Rev 17:15 we read that the earthly waters are "peoples, nations, tongues".

Jesus = The Word
[earthly] Waters = Mankind

Strong Wind = Doctrine
Waves = False Teachers

Boat = This Flesh Age


Notice that Jesus comes walking out to the Boat on the Water in the FOURTH WATCH. That is the last watch before the dawning of the day. Notice too that there is separation. The husbandman has gone on a far journey. He is on land, they are on the water.

So at the End of the Age just before the Dawning of a New Earth and New Heavens we see The Word coming. Now who steps out of the boat? It is Peter!

Peter = the Church.

With eyes on The Word the Church is elevated. However we see that when the Church considers and accommodates strange doctrine [winds] Peter begins to sink into a secular status (501c3?).

=============================

We see in another parable they all get into the Boat together but before they get in Jesus [The Word] tells them [the Disciples] they are going over. The Word has already declared the End from the Beginning! We have The Word in our hands today - and yet men fear for lack of faith. The disciples woke him saying "save us". But if they had faith they would realize he had already given the decree for safe passage.

The Storm in both parables are false doctrines given by false teachers.

=============================

Jud 1:11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

Jud 1:12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

Jud 1:13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

Here we have the KEY.

Jud 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

And now we see the False Pastor in the pulpit wagging his tongue [raging wave] with all sorts of vile doctrine [winds] and we see now how the Ship is tosses to and fro in the midst of the sea [peoples nations and tongues] by such a small helm [the mouth of a false teacher].

Jas_3:4 Behold also the ships, which though they be so great, and are driven of fierce winds, yet are they turned about with a very small helm, whithersoever the governor listeth.


Shalom,
Michael Joseph

[Michael Joseph]

Does not the transfer/assignment of equitable title to reversionary interest (remainderman) in a res equate to the intention of "gift"?

In my opinion:

If i am holding both the legal estate and the equitable estate it can be said I have an allodial Fee Simple Estate. I did not say I have allodial property rights. There is a big difference! Now then if the estate in property could ESCHEAT to the Grantor then the Grantor issued a "stings attached - Revocable" grant. Sort of like Liberty.

Check me out concerning Liberty it does not mean what most think - it is a revocable grant. Just check out that "smurf hat".

So then if I receive a grant with possibility of Escheatment, then was that grant by Bargain or Gift? Equity begs a Bargain. Even if the equity is future performance.

The Grantor ALREADY has a reversionary interest! Let me flip it around and re-examine.

I am holding property, I carve out an estate in the property and grant it to you for the uses I established. Now then was the grant in Gift or in Equity? If the former, then you must prove that I made an Irrevocable no strings attached grant. If the latter, what was the consideration of the grant? And if in Equity, I as Grantor might still retain the right of Escheatment should you lack an heir or valid claimant or you make a use in rebellion to the bylaws governing the grant.

The FEE is a QUALIFIED estate in allodial. I did not say it was allodial property. The property remains in the Grantor, the Estate is in the Tenant. This is a Feudal system and I find said system is being used widely today. Even though most deny it. I see American Serfs.

A grant begs a Trust - the Property remains in the Grantor - the Estate in the Grantee. Now did the grantee obtain a gift or an Equity?

Now lets say I am holding an interest in the Res held in Trust.

Question: Do I hold title to the Res?
Answer: No.

For instance if I have a Security Interest in an estate, I do not have title UNLESS it is pledged as collateral for the loan.

A gift MUST be expressly stipulated as such - else a reversionary interest in the grant remains. IF a Birth Certificate denotes citizenry [corporate] can that citizenry be terminated? You know the answer - OF COURSE it can! Therefore since the Grantor [State] has the ability to terminate the Grant what does that tell you?

Shalom,
Michael Joseph

[Michael Joseph]

Let us therefore take this to its logical conclusion. In Rebellion the State or King - becomes Richer! BECAUSE in rebellion the Estates would Escheat back to the Grantor and the Grantor if State or King would be justified to smash such rebellion with force.

Therefore is it in the interest of the State to establish peace or to instill rebellion? I see a BUSINESS PLAN at work. How about you?

Shalom,
Michael Joseph

[David Merrill]

Prison is a strong deterrent.

Redeem Lawful Money by Demand, that is the remedy Congress wrote for you in 1913.

OK... then why would not this UCC-3 Assignment, along with the original associated indorsed bill (proposed usufruct indorsement) as the instrument of transfer of equitable title to reversionary interest (remainderman) in a res (credit amount on the bill due to the people who are ultimately the acknowledged source of all credit of the nation), effect a "full acquittance and discharge" of said bill in lawful money of exchange, dollar for dollar, as provided by the INTENT in the terms of the expressed trust known as HJR 192, June 5, 1933, when said instrument is deposited as lawful money in any Federal Reserve bank or member bank ?

Isn't such assignment just a ratification of the "for-giveness" birth pledge?



NOTE: UCC-3 Acknowledgement is sent to Office of Alien Property per 50 USC App 7(e), with Stuart F. Delery as current officeholder.

NOTE: The above is for education only - not for execution - no legal advice given.

[David Merrill]

Equity begs a Bargain.

Therefore US Notes in the form of Federal Reserve Notes are non-negotiable. - You cannot trade them up for a bargain in equity. It is an irresponsible fiduciary who trades down in value.

[doug555]

Prison is a strong deterrent.

Redeem Lawful Money by Demand, that is the remedy Congress wrote for you in 1913.

... and 12 USC 95a is NOT a remedy Congress wrote in 1917, amended in 1933, and is still in force today, and even has an immunity clause?!

[doug555]

In my opinion:

If i am holding both the legal estate and the equitable estate it can be said I have an allodial Fee Simple Estate. I did not say I have allodial property rights. There is a big difference! Now then if the estate in property could ESCHEAT to the Grantor then the Grantor issued a "stings attached - Revocable" grant. Sort of like Liberty.

Check me out concerning Liberty it does not mean what most think - it is a revocable grant. Just check out that "smurf hat".

So then if I receive a grant with possibility of Escheatment, then was that grant by Bargain or Gift? Equity begs a Bargain. Even if the equity is future performance.

The Grantor ALREADY has a reversionary interest! Let me flip it around and re-examine.

I am holding property, I carve out an estate in the property and grant it to you for the uses I established. Now then was the grant in Gift or in Equity? If the former, then you must prove that I made an Irrevocable no strings attached grant. If the latter, what was the consideration of the grant? And if in Equity, I as Grantor might still retain the right of Escheatment should you lack an heir or valid claimant or you make a use in rebellion to the bylaws governing the grant.

The FEE is a QUALIFIED estate in allodial. I did not say it was allodial property. The property remains in the Grantor, the Estate is in the Tenant. This is a Feudal system and I find said system is being used widely today. Even though most deny it. I see American Serfs.

A grant begs a Trust - the Property remains in the Grantor - the Estate in the Grantee. Now did the grantee obtain a gift or an Equity?

Now lets say I am holding an interest in the Res held in Trust.

Question: Do I hold title to the Res?
Answer: No.

For instance if I have a Security Interest in an estate, I do not have title UNLESS it is pledged as collateral for the loan.

A gift MUST be expressly stipulated as such - else a reversionary interest in the grant remains. IF a Birth Certificate denotes citizenry [corporate] can that citizenry be terminated? You know the answer - OF COURSE it can! Therefore since the Grantor [State] has the ability to terminate the Grant what does that tell you?

Shalom,
Michael Joseph

Why even issue a birth certificate and let the man hold it?

What is the man holding?

It certainly is not LEGAL title... that is obvious.

Then it must be some interest in EQUITABLE title.

The pledge of the labor of the child was registered under the INFANT.

The Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) is evidence of that pledge.

When did the man ever make good on that pledge? Ever????

Must not the man, in the name of the INFANT, authorized by being the HOLDER of the COLB, divest the INFANT of all interest in that labor in order to ratify and complete that pledge? Much like making good on a pledge to United Way by writing them a check? Except the man is truly exchanging substance (labor) for substance (goods/services) by demanding lawful money for the exchange transaction.

So, how is that divestiture done?

Does not the method outlined in Post #92 accomplish that divestiture, and make good on the birth pledge by effecting a MERGER of the usufruct? (cf. II. Merger below)

("Divestitive Facts" source link)

[Michael Joseph]

Why even issue a birth certificate and let the man hold it?

What is the man holding?

It certainly is not LEGAL title... that is obvious.

Then it must be some interest in EQUITABLE title.

The pledge of the labor of the child was registered under the INFANT.

The Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) is evidence of that pledge.

When did the man ever make good on that pledge? Ever????

Must not the man, in the name of the INFANT, authorized by being the HOLDER of the COLB, divest the INFANT of all interest in that labor in order to ratify and complete that pledge? Much like making good on a pledge to United Way by writing them a check? Except the man is truly exchanging substance (labor) for substance (goods/services) by demanding lawful money for the exchange transaction.

So, how is that divestiture done?

Does not the method outlined in Post #92 accomplish that divestiture, and make good on the birth pledge?

Okay let me flip the argument - a child born to a man and woman thru the office of a midwife absent a BC - is that child a citizen of the State? Flip it over, a child born in a hospital thru the use of a nurse/doctor is that child a citizen of a State?

When and where did the child or man make a pledge to the State constitution? So this certificate does have value as it is an access easement as it were into the State. I have heard that one can even travel abroad using a BC and DL in the stead of a passport.

I did not say the BC had monetary value - but I said it was valuable in terms of benefit in State. I have traveled all over the world and I can tell you there are places I have been that when I got back home I went into my prayer closet and THANKED GOD I live where I do.

I don't buy assignment of a BC. One lady I know listened to some guru who talked her into "closing the account". She received a letter stating it is a felony for her to use the SSN assigned to that Name. Another young man that I know did this as well before he was 18 and he received the same letter.

While I do agree an Interest IN an estate is assignable I wonder why? I suppose that under common law the father would have the right to pledge his child. We see this in Samuel, yes? He was pledged to God's service. Did anyone ask Samuel? No.

What INFANT are you talking of - the heir or the child that received the BC? Of course you realize this is all being done under PERSOPHONE - Queen of the dead! Her arms pointing east to Rome. For she stands upon the Image.

Birth Cert.pdf

So let me see if I have this right. The government sells bonds to foreignors - that would be me and you - and then they tell us that the bond represents a claim upon the Treasury. Now then IF I am subject to that government then if I buy a bond does not that make me a Lender? And what does the Scripture say? Does it not say the borrower is slave to the lender?

I find peace in simplicity.

Now then I have a friend who listened to a "guru" who told him to ASSIGN all of his interests in the SSN account to the SSA. So my dear friend wrote the SSA as he was "under the influence" if you get what I mean and he tried to assign his interest. Well years went by and recently he called me and showed me what he had done. Laughing I asked him if he thought he could assign something that did not belong to him. Puzzled I asked him if he made a copy of both sides of the SSN card - the guru told him to do so which was good. Turning it over I read the card was PROPERTY - but dear Reader - Property is NOT Estate and it is NOT interest in Estate.

So we just called up the SSA and because he had worked 40 Quarters, we asked for a written agreement, we made the demand for lawful money and BAM the check was in the mail.

Doug you have studied the Bible. Do the sons of Cain strike you as ones who might share the wealth? Slavery is their way of doing business. Let me rephrase. Only a few can truly buy and sell - BECAUSE they have the Mark.

Please would someone tell me what is the goal?

You keep mentioning the INFANT - this must be the heir. So I think it is pretty safe to say that it is assumed that everything I do for gain is to enrich my estate for the benefit of MYSELF and MY HEIRS. So in that framing [in regard to the Estate in Name] - I would be Trustee as I undertake in the Public and Grantor in regard to the Cestui Que Trust. As my heir has an interest. Beneficiaries are my heirs and/or assigns.

I am reminded at once of the Prodigal Son who told his dad - I wish you were dead! Give me my inheritance now - I don't want to wait. Perhaps that son is disinherited by his dad. Under Roman Civil Law I might assign my estate to a stranger without my posterity.

Where did I gain access to Property? I lack a claim. Do you suppose I pledge the entire Estate to the Treasury? For what cause? And what assurances do you have for me such that I might perform the office of husband and father to my wife and family?

Wherein is the Agreement? Where are the terms made known? All I see for the past eight years is men grasping at straws. In the hope of a utopian society. I wonder who might be compelled to farm [grow food] in this society? I am reminded instantly of Rome.

The guru's that say a Trust ALWAYS splits titles are not correct. I can think of many Trust Agreements that do not split titles. In fact in many cases the Trustee holds BOTH the Legal and Equitable Titles and the Beneficiary is left with Personalty by Contract/Covenant. The trustee will issue a Certificate to the Beneficiary to indicate interest in the Trust but it is up to the discretion of the Trustee to make any disbursements if any.

I will read that post. If it is a long one give me some time to comment - this is a busy week.

Shalom,
Michael Joseph

P.S. I believe Cain understood blood atonement. And he was discouraged when he brought his very best - but it was absent blood. Don't you think it strange that Cain was not put to death for Murder? I will put it to you - I think Cain thought he would kill Abel as the ultimate sacrifice - shedding of blood. I think this is so because we don't see Cain in any way showing himself as guilty in regard to his conscience. I think he believed he was righteous in his slaying of Abel.

Clearly the Law was explained in Eden so why wasn't Cain guilty of Murder? He planned it, he lied in wait and he executed the killing of his brother Abel. Yet he, Cain was not sentenced to death. Seems strange, yes? For God's Law is the same, yesterday, today and tomorrow. So was Cain's conscience clear? I think so. I believe Cain thought he was pleasing to God in the slaying of Abel.

What else about Cain - Eve certainly noticed something DIFFERENT about Cain for she did not have the same report concerning his twin - Abel.

Consider now where you place your trust. Those who are "led by the Spirit of God may call themselves the sons of God". The engineer in me sees that name as a Check Valve. Information flows in one direction only. I think a day comes when the controllers will back flush the line and open up the valve and prosperity will be poured out on the people - but this too is a snare.