Deviant Oath? - Not a judge!

[allodial]

Well, its just simple trust law, breech of trust results in reversion to the settlor or successors or beneficiaries or any of their respective successors (as applicable) or to remaindermen. The pseudo-trustee is a thief beyond a certain point. Glitzy media freak show to make a lie seem true, well the lie is still a lie. Those who are not legitimate trustees though they claim to be trustees are lying. Again, when a state fails the power reverts to the sovereign people (not to be confused with residents or public citizens) rather than to 'trust outsiders'. The claims of alleged corporate creditors who have more than triple-dipped and who have been paid thrice more are inequitable and moot in a lawful court setting.

The territorial jurisdiction masquerading as de jure: that is what you have been wrestling with (mind games, spiritual warfare de jure).

[David Merrill]

Yes. I think MOTU PROPRIO declared by Pope Francis relates that when an officer of a Ministerial Trust is in breach of said Trust, then said officer does not enjoy protection of the State. Therefore said officer would be subject to action upon his personal estate. The lines get blurred due to presumption that the entire world is operating in the Central Banking Scheme.

Well, its just simple trust law, breech of trust results in reversion to the settlor or successors or beneficiaries or any of their respective successors (as applicable) or to remaindermen. The pseudo-trustee is a thief beyond a certain point. Glitzy media freak show to make a lie seem true, well the lie is still a lie. Those who are not legitimate trustees though they claim to be trustees are lying. Again, when a state fails the power reverts to the sovereign people (not to be confused with residents or public citizens) rather than to 'trust outsiders'. The claims of alleged corporate creditors who have more than triple-dipped and who have been paid thrice more are inequitable and moot in a lawful court setting.

The territorial jurisdiction masquerading as de jure: that is what you have been wrestling with (mind games, spiritual warfare de jure).

Thank you both.

That last sentence, it sounds like an agreeable mental model. But it does not set right with me. The wrestling match began with, By what right to you make this claim? To know MY NAME? Some times it would seem I am the only man who can understand what it is to form MY IDENTITY. You are both brilliant but neither of you FEEL like I AM ME.

My claim is formed legally from 1629 and August 13, 1630 formed Patent upon the Albany/NYSE properties as Estate.






It is not boasting so much as my explaining and reassuring myself that regardless of the outcome, my bond is Life, Estate and Sacred Honor and that this is what I was born to be doing.



P.S. It is there in the Complaint:

Title (Christian or given name) - David Merrill.
Office (family or surname) - VAN PELT

[Michael Joseph]

Well, its just simple trust law, breech of trust results in reversion to the settlor or successors or beneficiaries or any of their respective successors (as applicable) or to remaindermen. The pseudo-trustee is a thief beyond a certain point. Glitzy media freak show to make a lie seem true, well the lie is still a lie. Those who are not legitimate trustees though they claim to be trustees are lying. Again, when a state fails the power reverts to the sovereign people (not to be confused with residents or public citizens) rather than to 'trust outsiders'. The claims of alleged corporate creditors who have more than triple-dipped and who have been paid thrice more are inequitable and moot in a lawful court setting.

The territorial jurisdiction masquerading as de jure: that is what you have been wrestling with (mind games, spiritual warfare de jure).

Yes, I agree. You know in Hebrews chapter 7 it states that "Levi tithed to Melchizedok in the loins of Abraham." Since Levi is an heir of Abraham, we can see that Levi benefits from the DEED of his Father. Therefore, a question begging to be answered is was Levi subject to the obligations of that benefit? I think under Trust Law the answer is yes.

It seems logical then, that an heir is also subject to the debts of his Father. Funny how those who would steal run and hide when that light is shown upon them. For how much more would one be determined to remain without debt if his heirs were burdened with his lack of responsibility.

It is damn hard to control a general public if they are all frugal and responsible. Hmmmm.

And yet consider the ants or the bees - their civilization goes on and on and on - each working everyday in support of the whole - not taking too much but enough for the good of all.


Regarding pseudo-trustee being thief - I am reminded again of psalms 50:

Psa 50:14 Offer unto God thanksgiving; and pay thy vows unto the most High:
Psa 50:15 And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me.
Psa 50:16 But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth?
Psa 50:17 Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind thee.
Psa 50:18 When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers.


allodial you make a very valid point in terms of escheatment upon the Grantors/Creators - that would be White Men - and this is not in any way to mean the Causasian race of men. Hey, I did not build it, I just comprehend how it was built.






Many do gravely err thinking themselves to be "We the People of the United States." Also, in terms of the Federal Reserve districts those trustees while de-facto to the United States districts may very well be de-jure to the Federal Reserve districts.