Birth Certificate - What it is

[xparte]

When a warrant is issued for the accused ? The NAME on that certificate indicates a person only a person arrests a person or paper vs paper. Fighting a warrant for ones arrest is declining any offer to settle a charge that is on paper 72hrs in jail seems to be the only way any man using his true name can properly excuse a person from all charges No one claims it the NAME after 72hrs a Man is resurrected its biblical as hell the book the hook Christ fought tax and trust laws his spirit of fairness with protest to being a DECEDENT was 72hrs rise from the paper birth and death certificates are written on stone visit a grave yard this is what they own?

[walter]

Another point of interest.

The Name on the BC is ...DOE JOHN JR.
But when you order one up it gets sent to ...JOHN DOE
Two different persons. Which one are you?

[Chex]

"Ma'am, you must not understand, I am not MARTIN FISHER and that paper does not have my name on it, I cannot accept it. On and for the record, do you have the right to tell me who I am?"

In any court of law (if there is one) how do you go about telling the judge and you have no jurisdiction over me? Oh you say you do prove it.

[Michael Joseph]

"Ma'am, you must not understand, I am not MARTIN FISHER and that paper does not have my name on it, I cannot accept it. On and for the record, do you have the right to tell me who I am?"

In any court of law (if there is one) how do you go about telling the judge and you have no jurisdiction over me? Oh you say you do prove it.

It seems we keep coming back to this concern. An estate begs an actor in and for it. Look up CHARGE in John Bouvier. Then look up LEGAL. Then observe trustee de son tort - constructive trustee.

If you are not answering in and for that name which you are authorized to answer to, then you are practicing law without license in a private law boundary.

Replace JOHN DOE with the FRIENDLY TRUST COMPANY. If you are trustee then you are authorized to speak for the trust, if not and no trustee has appeared then you had best be a licensed attorney.

[Chex]

I completely agree with you MJ, you had me did up some of my old notesU.S. corporation A,B,Chttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Straw+Man

[Michael Joseph]

The CQT is interesting because you have to look at all the parties of the trust.

Settlor - Not me - Some Lawyer working for principal - State or Kingdom
Trustor/Creator = State or Kingdom which established the Use in some cases the Cestui Que Use
Grantor = State/Kingdom and man or woman

One will ask how does the State/Kingdom grant and what exactly is granted? Rights, Titles, Interests where are established by Contract which preceded the formation of the CQT.

The man/woman or corporation of men and women may grant equity held in trust in the name of the CQT.

Trustee = State and man/woman actually co-trustees
Beneficiary = State and man/woman actually co-beneficiaries

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

The State itself can be placed into Trust to protect the interest of the Settlors and Beneficiaries. The Trustees of that trust act in Corporate status establishing the POLICIES or bylaws acting as a Board of Trustees and its many members. A Board of Directors might be established and the minutes of these two boards are recorded in some Registry.

The Corporate Trust may not be subject to the Contract which preceded its formation and establishment and said trust may effect its own internal policies to govern its own private affairs. Many do not understand this law boundary and as such commit adultery as they try to mix different venues in their ignorance.

A choice simply has to be made concerning the business affairs of an individual. Noone forces me to use a SSN. I can if I desire if I desire the benefits that come within that trust structure but if I receive those benefits I may be with some obligations - so with everything a choice exists. I find that most just want all the benefit and no obligation. Who wants an obligation anyway?

Gold is for international contracts without the private trust boundary which is run by corporate policies [statutes and codes]. Have you ever noticed that the many parts that make up a truck are most likely copy protected thru patent? What then is purchased when I buy a truck? Do I now have full ownership and dominion to do with all of those parts as I please? Can I go now and create a factory and mass produce any of those parts just because I purchased the truck? OR, did I only purchase a LICENSE to USE that truck? In fact it is a conditional license.

I know I am just winning friends here but that is the cold hard fact. I can make a conditional use of that truck. Therefore who will govern the conditions and ensure no trespass occurs upon intellectual copy protected patented parts? Is that not fair? Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot. You create a great widget that gets put in millions of homes. Some clown claiming he paid off his house now owns that widget and begins to mass produce it as your competitor. That is plain and simply theft. That clown did not put in the hours of hard work to develop the widget, he just stole a grand idea and started making that which was patented.

Now the question is begged how does the enforcement arm get the ability to enforce the patent laws? I mean just because I walk into Walmart does not make me subject to its policies. I become subject to those policies when I enjoin myself in trust or employment. And I might do such a thing if it is to my benefit or to the benefit of others, in charitable giving.

Presuming I have enjoined myself to the Corporate Trust, by way of making a Use of the means and methods [statutes and codes], then I have implied trust and perhaps express trust in signature. This means I have placed my TRUST IN the Corporate Scheme. If I have lodged my trust in you and I begin to benefit from your stewardship of my estate, then I am subject to the bylaws and policies of our agreement. I cannot pick and choose that which I do not wish to obey.

Should I choose to revoke that trust I am able to do so and this is made plain upon a candid world by and thru the RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATION. The Corporate Trust may do what it needs to do according to the Law of Necessity in order to protect a higher mandate of Order. Who can't see this happening all around us?

After years of studying codes, statutes, laws, ancient laws and international law, I have come down to a simple premise - it is honorable to keep my word. If I contract, I bind myself freely to that contract. In the end I hope that war does not come to my land. Because I lack an army to defend against the interests of the mass. Therefore the public ruler of the mass defines the policy of the mass and that is the way the world works. At least for my entire life.

It seems to me that everything works by contract. There are of course levels as states or kingdoms contract with each other. But don't be fooled - no Ruler ever ruled absent the power of the Church! The two swords are really in the hands of the Church but the temporal sword is placed in the hand by GRANT of the Church to a King [as Beneficiary] who then undertakes upon the grant as GRANTEE/TRUSTEE. Polices are made to govern the grant and all of its many uses. Each use is subdivided and polices are then developed to govern its subdivisions according to agencies and departments. And all of the foregoing is supposedly set up by the Shepherd of this World [look hard to see if you can spot them] in Corporation Sole acting in benevolence to keep the Peace and Order.

Unfortunately the Shepherds are mostly fundamentalist religionists who maintain they are on a mission from God. And it is okay to kill all of those heathen who don't agree. All of this is interconnected. Don't think you can separate from this worldwide network of Finance, Politics, Education and Religion absent any persecution. For even family, friends, neighbors, assocations, affiliations, bystanders will hate you for taking a stand against the common will of the ignorant mass. ESPECIALLY if you challenge their meager view of Salvation.

Whist the mass has their hands out - like lame beggars at the gate - they lack any "vow" there is no "pledge" and therefore "no honor". Society is a fickle bird. There are no easy answers. For even if you obey the codes and statutes to a tee - the Law of Necessity may still overrule.

Like I said, it is simple in reality keep my word in contract. Contracts exist which govern the CQT which we are not even aware of and yet they nevertheless exist. So then a global ignorance exists of the Law. And yet the masters of war will say "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Seeing that I can never have enough insurance and I do not have enough time to know the Law - I like to keep it simple - "I have no trust in you" - and I am trying damn hard not to trespass upon you and yours.

Back to Jurisdiction: Say that deed you did for another, did you receive any money for that? Bingo - Jurisdiction solved.

Regarding a strawman it is a DUMMY and what do you think that makes the one acting in and for it? I think Blacks 5th or 6th has the meaning of DUMMY.



Shalom,
Michael Joseph

P.S. What is very interesting is that we see Canon Law governing the worlds estates and the so called Shepherd supposedly overseeing the worlds estates in benevolence and yet Jesus Christ said the Kingdom of God which the fundamentalists will agree with one voice is in our midst - is it now? - Jesus said the Kingdom is found WITHIN us individually - personally. Yet again to reiterate the fundamentalists rule with their iron rod with their perception of being on a mission from God.

Hag 1:8 Go up to the mountain, and bring wood, and build the house; and I will take pleasure in it, and I will be glorified, saith the LORD.

Hag 1:9 Ye looked for much, and, lo, it came to little; and when ye brought it home, I did blow upon it. Why? saith the LORD of hosts. Because of mine house that is waste, and ye run every man unto his own house.

Everyman indeed runs into his own house - of State of Religion of Education etc. And look around you what do you see? Looks like a drought to me! And this war is an internal war within each man - but that which is internal plays out in society and it is the rulers of the mass which manipulate the Beast - which is to say the carnal minds of the human species - these perpetuate Hell on Earth and in Earth.

Jonah Ch 1 Commentary.pdf

Commentary Jonah Chapter 2.pdf

[xparte]

a warrant being administrated bye A peace officer or sheriffs deputy is one with discretion as the True Name is upper lower case and family NAME is always upper its a offer to come to court as the NAMED very polite and civilized. with a warrant from a clerk 72 hrs is the time your holders have to identify you Police bring you in front of clerk within 24hrs to answer for the NAME if you refuse that NAME sent back until no claim for that NAME has been established in assuming the true name one cant be identified as a person or has identified himself as a Man with courts seizing persons and property Identity is a Man,s trust and cant be breeched remaining silent or silenced is exactly what happens in a court that cant see or hear a Man. any and all witlessness need to identify a Man not a name

[Chex]

The CQT is interesting because you have to look at all the parties of the trust.

Settlor - Not me - Some Lawyer working for principal - State or Kingdom
Trustor/Creator = State or Kingdom which established the Use in some cases the Cestui Que Use
Grantor = State/Kingdom and man or woman

[Michael Joseph]

The form of the trust you describe is a SIMPLE TRUST by name and is revocable and therefore is part of the Grantor's Estate unless specifically expressed to be in charity to another corporation of men and women [heirs] or a singular man or woman.

There are many, many other trust formations whereof the Trustee holds BOTH the legal and the equitable titles in allodium fee simple - and the beneficial interest holders have only interest in the promises made in the contract. The ownership, management and dominion of the property and therefore estate is in the Board of Trustees. That is an irrevocable trust.

Now pray tell look around treating of government which do you suppose exists?

In the latter formation the beneficiary has claim in breach of trust or a tort in defamation which is to say libel or slander. But the beneficiary has no say in how the estates are managed and for the beneficiary to claim against that Will is "trustee de son tort" - and a Constructive Trustee is created. Meaning - "if he wants the liability, then give it to him."

In the latter formation, a beneficiary does not even have the ability to require the Board of Trustee to give account of the Trust Affairs UNLESS that requirement is written into the bylaws or trust minutes. In regard to government trust minutes are kept carefully in what is called the Congressional Record.

I can think of hundreds of examples whereof an irrevocable trust such as the foregoing is very advantageous. We are only limited by our own thinking. An interest in estate or an estate in property or a right in property or dominion over property are all legal formations and are subject to trust.

The entire universe runs on trust law.

[doug555]

In a grantor trust if the trustee breaches the principles of domestic tranquility the grantor may revoke legal title from the trustee and revest it in the grantor.

Well, if the grantor already holds equitable title (co-beneficiary or not) the trust collapses because now the trust assets are held by the same party, hence there is no one left to trust.

Thanks for your post, Chex.

It matches what I have at http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/p...ct-merger.html about "merger".

See "Divestiture Facts" section excerpt, page 407, item III, about when a usufruct ends, and revests to naked owner.

[QUOTE]"... III. And by not using it in a proper way and time"[/QUOTE]

[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.htmlhttp://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.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