Birth Certificate - What it is

[Michael Joseph]

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

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

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.

[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.

[allodial]

If you are holding the certificate you are deemed to be a trustee. Also another hint is this: the state cannot sue itself therefore there is a system for 'staging' things so that equity can be done but such an equity must follow law or it is not equity.

How about this: press gang.

I was taught that back "in they day" they would literally press a silver coin into someone's hand or drop it into their drink (at a pub, bottoms up --to your lips would slide the consideration) and bind them into service (i.e. impressment). I had a driver license issued by royal/crown prerogative directly but the cop was curious if I had ever applied for a "State issued" license. When it was discovered that I did not, then he asked me about a birth certificate. So imagine the State issued ID or DL or birth certificate taking the place of the coin--as in possession or holding as a kind of self-impressment. Instead of giving you a coin for commencement of services, they give you a birth certificate. Of course, being in their service (as a soldier) they'd be liable for debts that you incur.

From direct experience, I'm far from being speculative. Any one with "two clicks" should be able to figure it out from here. The system is very workable. While some might suggest the miseducation system and the "lamestream" media to be part of the problem--perhaps so many people believing lies and misinformation might be the real problem? (Another aspect of a sorting process?)

So the Canadian government minister might have been honest about a birth certificate not having value--something priceless or indeterminate as to value in a sense has no monetary value (monetary afaik is always sum certain).

Related:
Impressment (wikipedia)

[allodial]

Of course, the Butterworth's Law Dictionary definition of party is worth noting in that one must be "willing" in order to be considered a party to a contract or the like.

[walter]

If you are holding the certificate you are deemed to be a trustee.

Michael Joseph Quote:
real party in interest with standing

major conflict here.

If I hold the BC and walk into court answering to the Name I would have no standing.
A real trustee would have standing.
Holding the BC doesn't make me a holder in due course.
It makes me a surety.

[allodial]

major conflict here.

If I hold the BC and walk into court answering to the Name I would have no standing.
A real trustee would have standing.
Holding the BC doesn't make me a holder in due course.
It makes me a surety.

1. If you answer to the name of the defendant of the case (most always going to have the status of 'resident' (i.e. office of resident)) that could make you a surety or accommodation party for the defendant (has NOTHING to do with the birth certificate).
2. The holding of the birth certificate is a totally separate matter from a case--completely unrelated unless you make it related.
3. The birth certificate itself is evidence ..of ..something.

[Louis Holger]

PERSON as a corporation that can sue or be sued...


Ergo the True Name as a class action.

"To Man. Know thyself and you shall know the Universe"

[allodial]

re: trusts
For clarification, there are regarded to be at least there parties to a trust:

1. Grantor
2. Trustee
3. Beneficiary.

However, there is a key element of a trust that is hardly ever discussed in most forums and that is...

re: trust corpus or trust estate
The trust estate (aka trust corpus). State in Spanish is "Estado". Without a trust estate or trust corpus, it is probably impossible for a trust to exist. Even the right to receive a future production could be an intangible part of a trust estate. (Derivatives...futures trading anyone?) The trust estate or trust corpus can be said to contain property held in trust (i.e. per a trust agreement or a trust declaration). If A gives B a watch for the benefit of C, the trust estate consists of the watch and possibly also of the instructions as to what to do with the watch.

All of the who can sue and cannot sue and who can claim this or that is moot without the trust corpus. Without a trust corpus what is there to sue about? Without something entrusted, how can there be a trustee or a beneficiary?

Related terms: bailment (a species of trust where title does not transfer to the trustee or bailee), trustee, trust estate, possessory interests, future interests, beneficiary, beneficial interest, in rem proceeding, Estados

[Michael Joseph]

If I hold the BC and walk into court answering to the Name I would have no standing.
A real trustee would have standing.
Holding the BC doesn't make me a holder in due course.
It makes me a surety.

It makes you a Constructive Trustee. And therefore you are with the liability of your misdeed.

[Michael Joseph]

"To Man. Know thyself and you shall know the Universe"

The Kingdom of God is WITHIN you - and in another place - the Earth is my footstool and the Heaven's my Throne. Amen brother.

Heaven and hell exist in the mind of man.

[allodial]

It makes you a Constructive Trustee. And therefore you are with the liability of your misdeed.

How would it be constructive if one willingly applies for it? How would it be constructive if one goes to the County Vital Statistics Office and applies for a "birth certificate"? It seems that it would be resulting or actual rather than constructive. Impressment is one thing, self-impressment is another.

The account is therefore the liability of the owner.

If its their account, they probably know it.

[Michael Joseph]

If its their account, they probably know it.

Oh they know it. I was told about five years ago by two separate DAs that the court could do justice upon only matter in that NAME. I just smiled and said I Have no Trust in this system.

I informed one DA that I showed up upon my honor else I would not be compelled to come for justice upon the basis of an inference. She smiled and said have a nice day.

Best regards
MJ