Birth Certificate - What it is

[Chex]

The man-child is the "naked owner", having the reversionary interest in the usufruct as the holder of the Certificate of Live Birth receipt for the infant, and upon proof of life of the infant not being a decedent. http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/p...ct-merger.html

All one should ever need do is "redeem" the "trust receipt" with the "issuer" (Registrar or Bankruptcy Trustee) because until the living dude shows up with "equitable interest claim" via the "trust receipt", that account is held in trust for use by the Fed Res and Treasury for "care and maintenance" of the "estate" held in "trust" which is just the "usufructuary interest" of the "child" associated with the "event" and "the administrator and "usufructuary" of the "agricultural estate" (BC) have "monetized" the "account receivable" (Live Birth cert) and now need to "service" the "account payable" (Live Birth cert) of the usufruct because usufruct is inherently a "dual bookkeeping system" ... account receivable ("fruit harvested") + account payable ("usufructuary duties") = "usufructuary interest" http://www.iamsomedude.com/equity_set-off.html

What (trust) law made this possible?

Who did this?

Where did it all start for all of us? There has to be a starting point.

What gave them the right? Where is our consent?

And where is the law that said they can do this?

Other than the “Mother Of All Black Ops": What Edward Mandell House said to Woodrow Wilson (President) [1913-1921] http://www.illuminati-news.com/0/House.htm

Where is the contract?

[doug555]

The man-child is the "naked owner", having the reversionary interest in the usufruct as the holder of the Certificate of Live Birth receipt for the infant, and upon proof of life of the infant not being a decedent. http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/p...ct-merger.html

All one should ever need do is "redeem" the "trust receipt" with the "issuer" (Registrar or Bankruptcy Trustee) because until the living dude shows up with "equitable interest claim" via the "trust receipt", that account is held in trust for use by the Fed Res and Treasury for "care and maintenance" of the "estate" held in "trust" which is just the "usufructuary interest" of the "child" associated with the "event" and "the administrator and "usufructuary" of the "agricultural estate" (BC) have "monetized" the "account receivable" (Live Birth cert) and now need to "service" the "account payable" (Live Birth cert) of the usufruct because usufruct is inherently a "dual bookkeeping system" ... account receivable ("fruit harvested") + account payable ("usufructuary duties") = "usufructuary interest" http://www.iamsomedude.com/equity_set-off.html

What (trust) law made this possible?

Who did this?

Where did it all start for all of us? There has to be a starting point.

What gave them the right? Where is our consent?

And where is the law that said they can do this?

Other than the “Mother Of All Black Ops": What Edward Mandell House said to Woodrow Wilson (President) [1913-1921] http://www.illuminati-news.com/0/House.htm

Where is the contract?

Good questions...

Present and actual "Transfer of res" is an essential element of trust.

Does not a "delivery" occur in the "delivery room" when the mother delivers her baby-child from her womb?

Then, does she not "inform" of this event on a piece of paper which she signs, as the "informant"?

Then, is there is no proof of legitimacy of this event by a registered marriage, does not the presumption of illegitimacy stand as fact after 7 years of not being rebutted (no claim made on the child being legitimate, and not a decedent)?

Does the state not rightly assume liability and ownership of such unclaimed property (the estate of the child)?

Yet, does not this property revest when the proper owner appears?

See: http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/p...t-receipt.html

Commentaries on the Laws of England, by William Blackstone
BOOK 2, CHAPTER 7
OF FREEHOLD ESTATES, OF INHERITANCE

... of which Titius is seized in his demesne as of fee. The fee-simple or
inheritance of lands and tenements is generally vested and resides in some
person or other; though diverse inferior estates may be carved out of it. As
if one grants a lease for twenty one years, or for one or two lives, the fee simple
remains vested in him and his heirs; and after the determination of
those years or lives, the land reverts to the grantor or his heirs, who shall
hold it again in fee-simple. Yet sometimes the fee may be in abeyance, that
is (as the word signifies) in expectation, remembrance, and contemplation
of law; there being no person in esse, in whom it can vest and abide;
though the law considers it as always potentially existing, and ready to vest
whenever a proper owner appears.

Now, how can one appear on the record as grantor, or heir thereof, of the property in question?

Would not a record such as this, or one that is similar in substance of form, suffice?

[walter]

What (trust) law made this possible?

Who did this?

Where did it all start for all of us? There has to be a starting point.

What gave them the right? Where is our consent?

And where is the law that said they can do this?

Where is the contract?

In order to have a trust there must be first something of value placed in an account.
The right they use is international law, law of the nations.
Since we have not made a compact we jump onto the governments and claim theirs.
We all have the ability to self determinate like the nation did but we don't want to bother moving our lazy ass's.
The right and consent is we are holding and using their property for financial gain.
We place value into their creation and call it ours.
We are not the holders in due course on the BC.
But we act as if we are.
The BC is the contract.
We are transferring it for the government.
Because it is in transfer we are in a commercial venue until we fulfill our obligation.

[Michael Joseph]

In order to have a trust there must be first something of value placed in an account.
The right they use is international law, law of the nations.
Since we have not made a compact we jump onto the governments and claim theirs.
We all have the ability to self determinate like the nation did but we don't want to bother moving our lazy ass's.

My promise and obligation to perform my promise has value. Therefore for the consideration of promises herein....and upon the uses established....

Excellent walter - right on.

This game has been in place for a long long time. Most folks are just unaware of it and think they were born into disney land and all the rides are free. Therefore they claim against the usufruct which are the rights in the land held by another but they have yet to make a claim of dominion over certain uses of the land in order to establish such rights for themselves. The next question is how - but that takes many words.

Choices remain therefore the system is voluntary.

[walter]

My promise and obligation to perform my promise has value. Therefore for the consideration of promises herein....and upon the uses established....

https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-103#Promise

§ 3-103. DEFINITIONS.
(12) "Promise" means a written undertaking to pay money signed by the person undertaking to pay. An acknowledgment of an obligation by the obligor is not a promise unless the obligor also undertakes to pay the obligation.

[Michael Joseph]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-103#Promise

§ 3-103. DEFINITIONS.
(12) "Promise" means a written undertaking to pay money signed by the person undertaking to pay. An acknowledgment of an obligation by the obligor is not a promise unless the obligor also undertakes to pay the obligation.

Thank you and as you are aware that meaning you provided of promise is framed within the construct of negotiable instruments. I can think of other frameworks wherein promise carries a different meaning other than that concerning money.

Promise and equity walk together.

Shalom
Mj

[allodial]

(As I've made clear ---- times) A master is said to be liable for the debts his servant(s) incur. Evidence of that relationship might have value.

[Michael Joseph]

Thank you and as you are aware that meaning you provided of promise is framed within the construct of negotiable instruments. I can think of other frameworks wherein promise carries a different meaning other than that concerning money.

Promise and equity walk together.

Shalom
Mj

If the servant usurps the Masters obligations then the servant takes the liability upon his own head. But instead of Master/Servant I think Trustee/Beneficiary. There are primary beneficiary and 3rd party beneficiaries. If a 3rd party beneficiary does the deed of a trustee then the obligation of discharge is left with the usurper in Tort - "Trustee de son Tort"

Explained the court, “a trustee de son tort [is] a person who is treated as a trustee because of his wrongdoing with respect to property entrusted to him or over which he exercised authority which he lacked.” - King v. Johnson, 2009 DJDAR 15871 (Nov. 9, 2009)

The appellate court explained that, “As a general rule, the trustee is the real party in interest with standing to sue and defend on the trust’s behalf. Conversely, a trust beneficiary cannot sue in the name of the trust.”

“A trust beneficiary can bring a proceeding against a trustee for breach of trust. Moreover, it is well established that a trust beneficiary can pursue a cause of action against a third party who actively participates in or knowingly benefits from a trustee’s breach of trust.”

A trustee de son tort is a CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTEE - with the liability of his/her mis-deed.

[allodial]

Your post tends to cloud the truthful point (no offense intended). The entity named on the birth certificate (John Henry Doe) is not the resident (John H. Doe). The resident is the one that can be regarded to be executor de son tort or overstep, the birth certificate person is not presumed party by them to proceedings against the resident. That is your post doesn't reveal that the baby and the babysitter aren't the same person. You are speaking of the babysitter's potential liability which is a wholly separate matter. Post # 165 is a huge hint.

[Michael Joseph]

Your post tends to cloud the truthful point. The entity named on the birth certificate (John Henry Doe) is not the resident (John H. Doe). The resident is the one that can be regarded to be executor de son tort or overstep, the birth certificate person is not presumed party by them to proceedings against the resident. That is your post doesn't reveal that the baby and the babysitter aren't the same person. You are speaking of the babysitter's potential liability which is a wholly separate matter.

I see your point. I like to think as the NAME as a party to a Trust Organization. That name can hold interests and those interests may be granted into that estate by a man or woman who most times is operating conveniently or inconveniently, depending on perspective, in that same name. So if you like to model as an numbered account that gets it done too. I may have an interest in an account but the account does not belong to me. I may grant and may even inherit from that account - still it is not my account. It may be held by another for my benefit. The account is therefore the liability of the owner.

With that in mind - is the account mine? No. But I have interests in that account subject to the Trust Bylaws that govern its existence.

There is no reason to fish out of that boat.