Dishonor Disqualifies the “UST’s” Claims of Authority and Jurisdiction

[Frederick Burrell]

Speaking only for myself. I am saying that I trust the oath of office. I am saying I can trust that if the oath of office is properly formed, subscribed and published - I can trust that the official will abide by the bills of rights enumerated in the constitutions and will accept his oath for value. If he breaks his oath, I will hopefully have already noticed him of the price on menu:

Well David that looks better 2 out of three I could read. The last one still showed up as a frog in an ice cube.

You have a lot more trust then I do David, at least in this system of things. I'm still waiting for the AG to live up to his oath and return what was taken. Not holding my breath. He is the highest law enforcement officer in the state and has not lived up to his oath of office, what can I expect from the rest. He now has the default judgement, knows what the law is and is still refusing to be in honor. Time for the next step. I suppose. fB

[Anthony Joseph]

My question, I believe is still relevant even though we see breaches of oaths.

Who is SUPPOSED to be the governing force/authority when an unlawful seizure on land will take place, or has taken place, by a party who does not utilize the proper venue for such action?

Whether or not that office is being honored and fulfilled is another matter; the question remains, who is it that SHOULD do it according to the law regarding such matters?

There has to be a protective force in place to perform else why even have a law stating that the USDC "...shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land..."

Who or what has been designated as the protecting and governing force to avert the fraudulent and improper process of an acting party who fails to use the proper venue or follow the law it is subject to?

[Frederick Burrell]

My question, I believe is still relevant even though we see breaches of oaths.

Who is SUPPOSED to be the governing force/authority when an unlawful seizure on land will take place, or has taken place, by a party who does not utilize the proper venue for such action?

Whether or not that office is being honored and fulfilled is another matter; the question remains, who is it that SHOULD do it according to the law regarding such matters?

There has to be a protective force in place to perform else why even have a law stating that the USDC "...shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land..."

Who or what has been designated as the protecting and governing force to avert the fraudulent and improper process of an acting party who fails to use the proper venue or follow the law it is subject to?

Great question. In my case the AG of the state of Hawaii was the offender. So I would imagine I would need to take it to a federal level. Who on a federal level, I'm not quite sure yet. I hope someone has the answer. fB

[Frederick Burrell]

My question, I believe is still relevant even though we see breaches of oaths.

Who is SUPPOSED to be the governing force/authority when an unlawful seizure on land will take place, or has taken place, by a party who does not utilize the proper venue for such action?

Whether or not that office is being honored and fulfilled is another matter; the question remains, who is it that SHOULD do it according to the law regarding such matters?

There has to be a protective force in place to perform else why even have a law stating that the USDC "...shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land..."

Who or what has been designated as the protecting and governing force to avert the fraudulent and improper process of an acting party who fails to use the proper venue or follow the law it is subject to?

I'm writing a letter at present that I'm going to send off to a number of federal agencies that are sworn to uphold the constitution. I plan on sending them registered mail. i will let you know what kind of responses I get back. Its a little slow going for me as I'm having to try and find references to laws that are applicable. So it might be a while. I'm slow but I get there. fB

[Axe]

In other words, there exists NO responsible, honorable and willing guardian or governing force who will perform the understood and expected duty-bound obligation of preventing an unlawful seizure on land against a peaceful inhabitant who has declared and demonstrated competence and the absence of being in contract with the Federal Reserve.

It seems to me the answer to your stated question is "the people".

When you put it like that, you have 2 choices:

You live with the injustice, or you bring justice.

Problem is, sheep do not fight. The UST has insured it's perpetuation by making Unics of most.

I'm not crying "revolution", just saying that if your question requires a theoretical answer, there
seems to me to be only two. The two mentioned above.

All the legal wrangling is "hope" that UST will still conform to law. I don't believe they will.
I think if enough sheep stop being Unics, even UST's own rules will be thrown out in order
to maintain power and control.

My basis; the War of 1812.

But in 1812 there were far more "men" around than sheep, so we prevailed. I don't think
now we would have the same outcome.

[Don Hamis]

Many USTs were removed without replacement during the 10-year program and many thousands of old underground tanks were replaced with newer tanks made of corrosion resistant materials (such as fiberglass) and constructed as double walled tanks to catch leaks from the inner tanks and to give an interstitial space to accommodate leak detection sensors. Piping was replaced during the same period with much of the new piping being double wall construction and made of fiberglass or plastic materials. Tank monitoring systems capable of detecting leaks as small as 0.1 gallons-per-hour were installed and other methods were adopted to alert the tank operator of leaks and potential leaks.

[David Merrill]

Many USTs were removed without replacement during the 10-year program and many thousands of old underground tanks were replaced with newer tanks made of corrosion resistant materials (such as fiberglass) and constructed as double walled tanks to catch leaks from the inner tanks and to give an interstitial space to accommodate leak detection sensors. Piping was replaced during the same period with much of the new piping being double wall construction and made of fiberglass or plastic materials. Tank monitoring systems capable of detecting leaks as small as 0.1 gallons-per-hour were installed and other methods were adopted to alert the tank operator of leaks and potential leaks.

This is an interesting bot. Underground Storage Tanks are imposed upon United States Trust - UST.

[Treefarmer]

Many USTs were removed without replacement during the 10-year program and many thousands of old underground tanks were replaced with newer tanks made of corrosion resistant materials (such as fiberglass) and constructed as double walled tanks to catch leaks from the inner tanks and to give an interstitial space to accommodate leak detection sensors. Piping was replaced during the same period with much of the new piping being double wall construction and made of fiberglass or plastic materials. Tank monitoring systems capable of detecting leaks as small as 0.1 gallons-per-hour were installed and other methods were adopted to alert the tank operator of leaks and potential leaks.

The bot's purpose seems to be the promotion of the link in the signature line which links to a website called shadeschandelier dot com.
Don Hamis is doing the same thing over here and here and here and a bunch of other forums.
Looks like he only posts once into each forum though.

[fishnet]

In what forum do we reclaim the Cestui Qui Vie Trust and establish the record? How do we address the True Name in reference to the Cestui Qui Vie Trust? Are we agent/operator, Authorized Agent, trustee? Will we be trespassing on the UST when we reclaim the Cestui Qui Vie Trust?

[Frederick Burrell]

You are the grantor/beneficiary and can appoint yourself as administrator. Which in turn can appoint public servants as trustees as they are sworn under Oath to uphold the laws of the Trust, ie the constitution. As the administrator the trustee must follow your orders and policies. fB

[motla68]

You are the grantor/beneficiary and can appoint yourself as administrator. Which in turn can appoint public servants as trustees as they are sworn under Oath to uphold the laws of the Trust, ie the constitution. As the administrator the trustee must follow your orders and policies. fB

Do you have a Oath of office or appointment of duty to act as administrator ?

[motla68]

It is in my opinion that the democracy in place is a government corporation, why else would they be listed in Dunn and Bradstreet, we get called "customer" whenever requesting records and even at the DMV, there is shareholder investors, rumors of some instruments we ask for records on are actually bonded and put on the open market and the list goes on. It is time to start calling things for what they are rather then what they are not. Which position do you want, if you want to be an officer of corporation then you must have oath of office or appointment of duty to do so, if you want to be a citizen then be a good citizen and help out the investors and shareholders build the economy, if you want to be investor/shareholder then treat your servants well even if they do not know who they are. If nothing else and you just want to walk away from it all and not want to deal with any part of the system then go get your own island out in the ocean somewhere because their survey is extensive.

[Frederick Burrell]

Do you have a Oath of office or appointment of duty to act as administrator ?

grantor can appoint the administrator of choice. In a corporation the the investors(grantors) vote for an administrator who then set policies and implements them the employees/trustees carry out the orders of the administrator.

Who has full liability, you do. As grantor/investor you put up the capitol/sweat equity. fB

The creation cannot be greater then the creator.

[motla68]

grantor can appoint the administrator of choice. In a corporation the the investors(grantors) vote for an administrator who then set policies and implements them the employees/trustees carry out the orders of the administrator.

Who has full liability, you do. As grantor/investor you put up the capitol/sweat equity. fB

The creation cannot be greater then the creator.

You personally created that corporation?

[Frederick Burrell]

would the trust exist if you were not born?