Why saving to suitors is an asine methodology

[MYSTICONE]

your right, and as soon as the human being signs his name on
anything as the authorized representative, he is now metamorphizing
himself from the human to the "office of the person"
authorized representative is a legal term, thus that denotes the end user
of the " Person"--- AND THUS THROUGH THE USER AGREEMENT,
YOU HAVE AGREED TO BECOME SURETY. you can not then
turn around and then SUE THE STATE FOR COMPELLED CONTRACT
UNDER ARTICLE 3, WHEN YOU WERE NOT SIGNATORY TO THE
CONSTITUTION UNDER ARTICLE 3. SO THE HUMAN BEING
HAS NO RIGHT TO CONTRACT UNDER ARTICLE 3 THAT HE WAS
NOT A PARTY TOO.. the citizen has no land benefits, or common law
benefits, when his user agreement is implicity Admirality Article 1 ...

am i correct?

[MYSTICONE]

Who is Anthony Joseph? He cannot "refuse" a True Bill....that is a debt of the United States; and the "debts of the United States shall not be questioned"; period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

A US prosecutor, State prosecutor that swore to the US, or Grand Jury that is sworn in as a public official (see 18 USC section 201) that returns an indictment with a TRUE BILL....has just produced a debt....a military infraction....and IT WILL NOT BE QUESTIONED.



The answer is in wiki

The Eleventh Amendment, the first amendment to the Constitution after the Bill of Rights, was adopted following the Supreme Court's ruling in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793). In Chisholm, the Court ruled that federal courts had the authority to hear cases in law and equity brought by private citizens against states and that states did not enjoy sovereign immunity from suits made by citizens of other states. Thus, the amendment clarified Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which gave diversity jurisdiction to the judiciary to hear cases "between a state and citizens of another state."

This means that the U.S. and all the "states" have sovereign immunity over citizens.

The amendment's text does not mention suits brought against a state by its own citizens. However, in Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment reflects a broader principle of sovereign immunity. As Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a five Justice majority, stated in Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999):

[S]overeign immunity derives not from the Eleventh Amendment but from the structure of the original Constitution itself....Nor can we conclude that the specific Article I powers delegated to Congress necessarily include, by virtue of the Necessary and Proper Clause or otherwise, the incidental authority to subject the States to private suits as a means of achieving objectives otherwise within the scope of the enumerated powers.[1]

They were telling you here that the "Federal Government" controlled the decision as to whether or not the States could be sued by citizens. It was a given that the U.S. (federal) Government could not be sued by citizens or the States...because the States agreed to become Suzerains under the Powers of the President and US Congress, while sitting at the Seat of Government. "While sitting" means "as long as the President allows them to sit".

[motla68]

Yep, representing it is the act of memorializing a document, living man becomes dead man.

MEMORIAL. A petition or representation made by one or more individuals to a legislative or other body. When such instrument is addressed to a court, it is called a petition.
- 1856 Bouviers Dictionary

Now check out Signatory as in Authorized Signatory and see what you come up with?

[Anthony Joseph]

Who is MYSTICONE?

[MYSTICONE]

Are you the "grantor" or beneficiary of the Trust? No. Under Grantor-Grantee Law....take a wild guess as to who is in control. And, since it is "their Posterity" that are the trustees....if you screw with "their best interest"; then you are a bad trustee/grantee and considered by the Grantor and Beneficiaries to be an absconding debtor...and the Grantor will un-Grant your Granted Civil Rights and toss you in for being a bad Trustee/Cow/Slave.

[David Merrill]

Who is MYSTICONE?

I think it safe to presume Mysticone is an associate of sorts with Motla68. For a moment I thought Motla was clowning around with double-registration. The posts, albeit I am only skimming seem rather informative albeit like I posted herein, irrelevant for affecting remedy. This part is revealing:

I AM THE HUMAN BEING, thus im SUING YOU AS A ARTICLE 3, EVEN THOUGH I AM NOT SIGNATORY TO THE CONSTITUTION, yOU WERE NOT ONE OF THE 39 SIGNERS-

To stay on topic first and foremost I just have to say, all seriousness aside, that I do not think the 'saving to suitors' clause is asinine. Which is to say silly like a donkey. I don't think is arsine or even essene.

The whole premise in this thread is the stuff headaches are made out of because there is nothing so asinine as this notion that only the original 39 signors are party to the Constitution in a couple court cases where the courts speak of being party to the Constitution. I should just blurt the obvious - these guys are dead!

How anybody can interpret this to mean those dead guys is beyond me! Read carefully:

How is the Constitution going to hurt me? A nasty papercut?

Here are some parties to the Constitution who can hurt me with it!

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_John_Suthers'_AG_oath.jpg

http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/2062/oathsamelson103.jpg

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/9089/oathsamelson209.jpg

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/8332/hansenoath.jpg

Well, actually they are not parties to the constitutions because they are poor examples. [Am I to be faulted for only collecting faulty oaths?] The first one is obviously to a vacant office because he waited sixty days too late to subscribe and publish. The second one is valid but the last two are swearing without proper form - that is to say you cannot swear unless you state by what punishing authority - like God, a stack of bibles or My Mother's Grave. But I think any thinking person realizes that to consider the original representatives of the twelve states to be parties to the Constitution absurd... no, wait, the key typo here is asinine.

Whereas the 'saving to suitors' clause is still found in the Statutes at Large and is codified at . You might have a little trouble recognizing it because Congress doesn't seem to want to admit that the Constitution itself is originally an international document between twelve independent nation-states.

The “saving to suitors” clause in sections 41 (3) and 371 (3) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., was changed by substituting the words “any other remedy to which he is otherwise entitled” for the words “the right of a common law remedy where the common law is competent to give it.” The substituted language is simpler and more expressive of the original intent of Congress and is in conformity with Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure abolishing the distinction between law and equity.

So to entertain myself I conjure up a seminar lecture where Mysticone is teaching this to a few people and somebody raises their hand and stops his lecture; But... aren't those 39 men all dead by now?

There is a lot of stuff being posted and I watch mainly because it is fascinating that people get drawn into it - and the thread takes off and gets a lot of attention. It is almost like people would rather be confused and then arise out of the abracadabra a pontiff able to recite and belch it just to fascinate others.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Michael Joseph]

Are you the "grantor" or beneficiary of the Trust? No. Under Grantor-Grantee Law....take a wild guess as to who is in control. And, since it is "their Posterity" that are the trustees....if you screw with "their best interest"; then you are a bad trustee/grantee and considered by the Grantor and Beneficiaries to be an absconding debtor...and the Grantor will un-Grant your Granted Civil Rights and toss you in for being a bad Trustee/Cow/Slave.

Comes now Michael Joseph a regenerate man speaking for his estate in the office of Trustee - upon the dominions of Michael Joseph, as Trustee per Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 the original trust agreement; and, recognizing the foreign State, United States as a concurrent jurisdiction and separate overlay upon the land - created and belonging to Yehovah - "go forth and take dominion" and placed into Trust - Yehovah Saves - in Yehoshuah the head of the Commonwealth of Yisra'el - Election of Yehovah - the body Elect - Trustees speaking for the Original Estate - in accord with Laws of Nations, but absent binding; and,

Whereas, I michael joseph, am absent status of Trustee for the United States and/or its persons (artificial or otherwise); and,

Whereas, I michael joseph, am absent status of beneficiary of the United States and/or its persons (artificial or otherwise); and,

the States being held as Dependents of the United States - a sort of International Sovereign to the States; wherein the States being Domestic Sovereigns according to their surveys and boundaries - wherein; said States agreed to the Compact in silence as clearly recognized at Padelford AND the 1st Judiciary Act as the United States tells said States what they can and will do; and said Persons under the shadow of the United States being subject to the :1) Laws of the United States 2) International Treaties and 3)Constitution made by the United States for the United States of America; and,

Whereas, I michael joseph wishing to exercise my right of self determination as codified in the Holy Scriptures AND Laws of Nations form a union with my family; whereupon I exercise rights of Trustee as High Priest and Husbandman in Yisra'el; a member of the Body acting in the Name of Yehoshuah my Sovereign; speaking with the Power [Dynamite] of the Word of Yehovah - Who shall lay any charge upon Yehovah's Elect?; it is Yehovah the justifieth; and, recognizing the trust relationships that exist today in Cestui Que Vie Trust; held in Trust by Military as Trustee AND Civil Government as Trustee in one man - President and Commander in Chief; not wishing to Trespass and sin upon those offices I remain without by CHOICE; a man seeking peace - foraging in the field performing husbandry for my family - speaking in the Name of Yehoshuah ben Yehovah, I remain the loyal servant of my Sovereign.

-------------------------------

According to the United States - that trust is a Testamentary Trust as the Grantors are all dead. The original Settlors [the true Sovereigns] are all dead but the Posterity [and Ourselves] are for whom that trust was made; and, as such, I will not Trespass their Survey.

1. Survey
2. Claim of Use - based on Survey
3. Put Claim of Use into Trust as Trust Corpus = Trust Property; wherein Property = Right of Use
4. Split the Use - Legal manages the Use; Equitable has the Right of Use

But I am Not Trustee or Beneficiary. Now let us go to Charge. Whoever issues a charge must discharge the charge upon His own estate. Laws of Contracts. Who holds the Estate in Trust? - Trustee! Can a Trustee be beneficiary at same time? Absolutely, if there are other beneficiaries at the same time. Therefore Officer is Trustee and Officer issued the Charge based on his Dominions - HIS SURVEY.

Now, therefore the Earth belongs to Yehovah and all that is in it. Man surveys the Earth and places certain Uses into Trust, based on Said Survey, to Control. The TRUST PROPERTY is the USE. Who has the Right of Use? Well that depends on what Survey you are upon?

--------------------------------------------

Now the question remains - how will we keep the peace? By Agreement! Laws of Nations seems like a good agreement. Moral Person only takes two - Husband and Wife. The Two become ONE.

One says, but you use our Intangible Money; you use the gas provided by our Corporations - Blah, blah, blah....what you now make a claim on God?

Comes now Michael Joseph, as Priest speaking in the Name of Yehoshauh my Savior in whom I trust; absent intent to trespass but to live in peace, if possible, with my neighbor; respecting other venues and jurisdictions but living according to the law of necessity - absent claim upon any Legal Name or Cestui Que Trust within another venue, jurisdiction, overlay or district; and, with full faith and full liability assumed before Yehovah my Elohiym.

What you gonna put you Intangible Money on Me? You gonna now trespass my Estate? Let Yehovah judge this day between me and thee. For Dan-i-el - Yehovah is my Judge.

What shall we do about this? Shall I go and register my Trust at the UN and beg for their justification and recognition? Shall I create my own Intangible Property based on my own Survey [dominion] and await a Soul to "sign up" for benefits handed down by King Michael Joseph?

Believe me I have in me the power in words and knowledge to Settle such a Trust [new State] and I could noticed the OAS and the UN and international banking and then according to established Law [who settled that Law], I could follow the protocols and await the six months so that other States might have a chance to review and comment on my Survey and Claim; perhaps they remain silent and I get agreement or perhaps not.

The CESTUI QUE VIE TRUST [w/ssn] has been made available for one to come aboard and dock to the STATE. TRUST and TRUST. The framers knowing not to commit Adultery; yet man[kind] today is dumb as a box of rocks doing it every day -" that ain't me". Open thou mouth o' fool - and argue against the Trustee - Trustee de son Tort is a sin most times not forgiven.

Yehovah = Settlor of the express Trust - Word of Yehovah
Yehoshuah = Trustee = manifestation of the Word of Yehovah in Flesh
Elect/Priest = Trustee
Yisra'el = Trustee
Commonweath of Yisra'el = Body [State if you like] - in accord with Laws of Nations - a Moral Person
Survey and Claim : Gen 1 and Gen 2
Trust Bylaws = Books of Moses and Prophets

Will you be as Eve and argue and give up your dominion? Or will you be as Yehoshuah and quote your Standing back to the Adversary? - Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Comes now Michael Joseph of the Nomen family speaking for his family and estate, a regenerate man in the faith of Yehoshua H’Mashiach and making a special visitation by absolute ministerial right making a special appearance in the Name of my Sovereign Yehoshauh:

Now, we can match like up to like: Trustee to Trustee - State to State;

Just as Yehovah expressed all into Yehoshuah; and Yehoshuah became all in all; Pharaoh expressed all into Joseph, as Trustee to run his kingdom; giving Joseph the king's Seal and announcing Joseph before the people - 'this is my Son in whom I am well pleased'.

What you think the kingdom of Yehovah is Spiritual ONLY? It is a way of life. It is the essence of life. And I for one am pleased to pick up the Trust - I believe I never dropped it - expressed in a former age - before the foundation of this Age - Who will go for us, was the call - Here am I, send me - was the response.

[MYSTICONE]

IT has a basis in International Law via having the Right via Treaty
YOU are not International..YOU are citizens.
You are a citizen....THEIR CITIZEN....and until you "come out" of that condition; then you are their subject....as Agreed to in International Law
it is not their fault that your mom and/or dad didn't teach you the "laws of the land" or the "rules of the game" or whatever.
the 72 hours is under "THEIR" regulation Z
it is their law....they hold it by copyright
and they will either let you use it or revoke your priviledge to use it....based on whatever they decide is best when someone violates THEIR Copyright without Standing and without Agreement....and/or without "THEIR" license to practice with their copyrights

I have Immunity by agreement...you are still a slave by agreement
I came out
I went to "the source"
I got the peace agreement
I know the International Law, the National Law and the Common Law
I am saying that INTERNATIONAL LAW IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND and that

the Law of Nations is NATURAL LAW


You don't even own your contract rights
the United States owns you and therefore your right to contract is at the "good will and pleasure of your Master"
You are a subject citizen debtor slave

READ PADDLEFORD VERY CAREFULLY, THE LAST PARAGRAPH,
NO PRIVATE PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO COMPLAIN,
YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS OF CONTRACT UNDER THE US, ONLY
THE STATES HAVE OPPORTUNITY OF REDRESS.

if you want sovereign/diplomatic immunity, form your own NATION STATE,
AS PER THE UN CHARTER THE RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATION.

[Michael Joseph]

So to entertain myself I conjure up a seminar lecture where Mysticone is teaching this to a few people and somebody raises their hand and stops his lecture; But... aren't those 39 men all dead by now?

There is a lot of stuff being posted and I watch mainly because it is fascinating that people get drawn into it - and the thread takes off and gets a lot of attention. It is almost like people would rather be confused and then arise out of the abracadabra a pontiff able to recite and belch it just to fascinate others.



Regards,

David Merrill.

A testamentary trust is by its name one which the Grantors are now dead. But the Grantors and Settlors established their Survey and made their Claim and the Trust escapes Laws of Perpetuity because Trustee is unnamed and beneficiary is unnamed - Ourselves and our Posterity. As long as there is an Heir alive of the original Settlors/Grantors then the Trust shall survive.

A survey and claim can be made upon a NAME as well. And perhaps that Name shall be placed on a Trust Asset Registry and the Asset might be given a Number and one may come along one day and Use said numbered name and become a Constitutor. Or perhaps not.

What is the converse? If not subjects of the United States, then subjects of the King of England? Fact is Yisra'el wanted a man-king. And today Yisra'el is dealing with that mistake. Chisolm v. Georgia recognizes that fact - the Sovereign's are the Settlors of the Trust - New State - HELLO - these are SOVEREIGN ONLY TO THE EXTENT as defined by boundary and survey WITHIN their TRUST. It is their gig!

What you think you have to use that NAME? There is always a choice.

[Michael Joseph]

IT has a basis in International Law via having the Right via Treaty
YOU are not International..YOU are citizens.
You are a citizen....THEIR CITIZEN....and until you "come out" of that condition; then you are their subject....as Agreed to in International Law
it is not their fault that your mom and/or dad didn't teach you the "laws of the land" or the "rules of the game" or whatever.
the 72 hours is under "THEIR" regulation Z
it is their law....they hold it by copyright
and they will either let you use it or revoke your priviledge to use it....based on whatever they decide is best when someone violates THEIR Copyright without Standing and without Agreement....and/or without "THEIR" license to practice with their copyrights

I have Immunity by agreement...you are still a slave by agreement
I came out
I went to "the source"
I got the peace agreement
I know the International Law, the National Law and the Common Law
I am saying that INTERNATIONAL LAW IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND and that

the Law of Nations is NATURAL LAW


You don't even own your contract rights
the United States owns you and therefore your right to contract is at the "good will and pleasure of your Master"
You are a subject citizen debtor slave

READ PADDLEFORD VERY CAREFULLY, THE LAST PARAGRAPH,
NO PRIVATE PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO COMPLAIN,
YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS OF CONTRACT UNDER THE US, ONLY
THE STATES HAVE OPPORTUNITY OF REDRESS.

if you want sovereign/diplomatic immunity, form your own NATION STATE,
AS PER THE UN CHARTER THE RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATION.

MYSTICONE your presentments express similar ideas expressed by the man David Parker

your presentment is "framed" within a context of one enjoining or engaging a particular Trust/State. I have found in my life that there are only two trusts - trust in God or trust in man. Therefore when man raises up to oppress other men - I raise up with Power and Faith quoting the Word of Yehovah - and I can tell you that without exception - I have been met with smiles and looks on faces - please don't come in here with that.

What you want me to ACT for their creation? The Trustee ONLY has that Power. So I am neither trustee or beneficiary and I am without said trust - noticing the Military to call off the dogs - and you would place me within a particular venue and jurisdiction or district? I think NOT. Will you trespass me now? I promise I shall convene a court and my Sovereign will not let it slide.

Yet, I can see your point. The problem inherently is CHOICE. Because some men choose to not beleive in God - as Pharaoh said "I know not your God." So how to keep the peace? One says by International Agreement. But that presupposes Classes of Peoples. Controllers and the Controlled.

Then I heard another man say but Knowledge will always Rule Ignorance - that is True too. Thus the Scripture "study to show THYSELF approved."

I have the faith to tell that nation [mountain] to cast itself into the Admiralty [sea]. I notice that when Satan tempted Yehoshuah, he could only offer the kingdoms of the Earth - Heaven is not his domain - and Yehoshuah overtook dominion and established again the rightful Kingdom of God on Earth as in Heaven.

I have read the charters, I know all about them. I have also read fully the Laws of Nations. And I know it only takes TWO to form a moral person.

I can guarantee you that I would NEVER complain to any State regarding my Rights. For my Rights are NOT held in Trust within some State! The only thing the State can see is its Persons - therefore no man has standing because HE IS NOT TRUSTEE.

Lets look at that Saving to Suitors clause carefully - Suitors Court a Maiden - She will not make herself available to one of lower estate - She wants one of equal Standing. Trustee or Settlor. And look at those footnotes - that ole boy claimed he was Ambassador to the King of Saxony - and he claimed UNDER the laws of the United States. So while he cannot waive immunity in the FRAMING of STATE, he claimed UNDER a foreign Flag/State - and therefore the United States had Jurisdiction.

My immunity is also by agreement - and I am also a slave by agreement - both given by my Sovereign.

For the Reader that is having trouble - MYSTICONE is indeed correct in regard to established International Protocols concerning Trust Formations and International Law. MYSTICONE frames his presentments within these constructs and indeed if you will read and study Trust Law you will be head and shoulders above your peers - see Scripture for that required reading.


-----------------
continuing...

[Michael Joseph]

The RIGHT of Self Determination - granted within what frame? Any one familiar with NLP is familiar with framing a reference. Therefore, that Right is equivalent to Property. And Property is a Right of Use. Therefore Right implies a Trust. Therefore, one must ask who settled this word of art termed "The Right of Self Determination". This term is magick.

And if one were to Claim said Right [Property] is that one Benefiting from the Use of a Law? or Bylaw? Whose Trust was that Law settled? In other words who is the higher power? If we are talking about man's law then there must be a singularity a beginning. And the question begging to be answered is Who was the Creator? Or said another way, who first performed the first Trust Deed? Was it the Pope in 1302 - Unam Sanctum?

If the Pope in 1302 forms the basis of Trust law with the Trust Deed of Unam Sanctum, if I claim the "Right of Self Determination" do I come under the Popes Shadow?

Yet, my Scripture and my heart tells me there seems to be two trusts here. One in the Creator God - the Self Existing One - YHVH and man's creation. My heart tells me that to trust in man is to be cursed. To trust in God is to be blessed. Yet, societies form for the good of man and man enters into business relationships. How to do so is based on agreements. And effectively Trust. Therefore, will one be competent and Stand in and for his estate - Trustee; on behalf of his Posterity? In peace absent trespass beside or abutting or adjacent to other concurrent jurisdictions and venues?

Yet prior to Self Determination one must be able to effectively identify the Self, yes? Please with specificity identify the self? In reality it cannot be done. Therefore Trusts are created and sub-trusts are created and it is the sub-trust that is identified because it is absolutely Impossible to identify a living soul. The Self - the true me - with my Intellect [spirit] intact - is impossible to identify.

You say, absurdity, yes? Then please tell me how you will identify the Flesh? Everything about the Flesh can be manipulated. And if you consider the Thought process even that too can be erased. So now, I await the one who will step forward and solve the argument that has been the "CONTEMPT OF GENERATIONS" - how to identify the Self. Because before the Right of "Self" Determination can be Claimed one must be able to determine the identity of the Self.

Remember Right is equivalent to Property and Property goes to Trust and Trust goes to Uses and the Uses are Split into two titles in the Trust. And Property has nothing to do with the Form of Matter or Form of Thought. Property goes to Right of Use of the Form of Matter and Form of Thought.


If a living soul should DECIDE to lower himself [masculine = femine for the purposes of this writing] into a lower estate by claiming UNDER a deficient status or estate, then that is the self realization or aware choice that has been made. But to be fully with the cognizance of choice one with the awareness would be sure to know the obligations of his choice, yes?

Is it the duty of an other man to make another aware? I say emphatically No. If one chooses to be ignorant, then let him be ignorant. Let him complain and writhe in the mire. When he stops complaining and pointing outward, then perhaps he can be helped to look inward to resolve his issues. Until then, let him eat the food with the hogs. Yet, if he will return to the Father's house he will be received with great joy.

If one with the aware condition decides to enjoin or engage a lower condition, then, yes, that one should be with the cognizance of the higher powers of that condition. This conversation of course goes to man wants a leader that he can see. A leader that will go before him and fight his battles for him and do all of the dirty repugnant work for him. That way man will be with a clean conscious and the dirty work is left to mans representative.

Man wants his delicious chicken sandwich, yet he does not want to engage his mind to realize the manner in which that sandwich is made ready for his consumption - to see the chicken farms where they are bred by the hundreds of thousands in horrific conditions - is not expedient to enjoying the delicious sandwich. Therefore, we shall leave that task to our representative, yes? So that we with the choice can enjoy the byproduct of our intention - the delicious sandwich - and our conscious remains clear. Is that being aware?

Yet, this model is impossible in a society because the so called representative comes "out of" the Society to lead a repugnant ignorant public. Therefore the representative lies to the Public feeding back to the Public the impossibility of solving all of their problems. An irrational game, yet the public has been controlled for a little over a Century with Irrational Thought patterns. Feed the Self whatever it wants is the irrational thought of this day - it promotes peace. What then when the candy store runs out of candy?

Aware of what? My being? Do my thoughts ripple thru your mind like the waves on a pond caused by a singular pebble dropped within it? No, then don't respond. Yes, then engage and prove my point. We are ALL aware and we all are like little pebbles being dropped into a pond and our actions are as the waves and those waves "interact" with each other to change the pre-existing condition.

So what then of choice? Choice framed when and where? Of course you and I are both aware beings. With the Choice to decide - how will we shape our destinies. We shape our destinies by our singular choice. Our Choice to do or not to do a thing impacts others.

I choose, therefore I am aware. I choose, therefore I am with the responsibility and obligation.

I reject the notion that the frame is conditional to ones awareness. Is a 16 year old aware of the ramifications of endorsing the Federal Reserve System? Yet he chooses to work and get a paycheck and have a banking account and endorse the Federal Reserve System and thusly he is with the Responsibility and the Obligation of that Choice - even though said choice was made in ignorance. The boy Acted and implied his trust. The boy is aware that he is getting some increase; yet, he is unaware of the nature of the trust he has enjoined.

We are informed that the Kingdom of Heaven is within and without. I change myself by my choice and I impact others by my change. Self awareness of the realization that I indeed need to change. Where said change is realized within the construct of my conscious thought.

I now await all of the gainsayers to report back to me according to Plato, I am asleep. I await your proof. Yet please undergird my position and respond to this open door. I'm waiting....


I do not think we can discuss the Self without going to Philosophy. And inevitably we are going to end up at Origins. What is the Self and who Created it? Those questions beg for something greater than Us and someone that is without us; yet, perhaps that one, is also within us. Or said another way dwells with us in our Intellect - Spirit. The Self being the True me - Nephesh as the Hebrews say [crossing over].

Yet the Self also goes to Identity. And Identity goes to construct. Identity where and per whose terms. Shall I use a name to identify my Self? That name is an operation of mathematics / law = model - that lowers my True Self - Soul. If I use a name to "help" me with relationships, then my name is amongst other names. Is not a name a claim? Of course it is. Yet, we live in Society so we need a way of dealing with each other and names seem to be a practical solution. Yet see that a name is a persona and as such a means to belittle man - a mask. I heard a clerk say more than once - "Can I have your name, Sir?" Will I grant an agency over my Self to another?

Then I heard another speak of a Legal Name. Is that the Self? Or is this just a choice to further degrade the Self? Legal to what construct? Legal goes to Trust. So then who holds the titles in and for that Legal Name?

Now man has lowered his Self with a name and now there is a further Choice to use a Legal Name. The Self is without the naming convention - the name is just a label to belittle - the Self is Supreme and Divine. All Souls are Mine sayeth YHVH. Yet if the choice is made to belittle one's self, then the idea of diversity comes into play. All souls belong to YHVH as Creator - then vested in Yehoshua, as Trustee - we as Owners - owners of what - Owner goes to who has the Right of Use - we do with Choice. Yet, if the Creator decides to Act against his creation - He hardened Pharoah's heart - The Creator is with that Ability as Creator.


Diversity goes to Construct. Diversity from what?

Exploring the so called Right of Self Determination.....Who granted that Right? Was it a man or are man's conventions just reflecting the greater light. Sort of like the moon reflects the light of the sun - said another way - are man's writings just reflecting the idea that the Right of Self Determination is a grant from the Creator we are with Choice to choose ye this day. Life or Death - Jeremiah 17:5 or 17:7.

Therefore man is without the ability to grant Divine Rights, yet man can recognize that those Rights = Property = Ability to Use exist. As such, do I require a Society to recognize my path? Yes and No.

The question remains, what are your express intentions and how will you live at peace with your neighbor absent trespass? Mistakes happen; yet, will you express your willingness to come to the table with Standing to show your Responsibility and Accountability?

I heard one say - nonsense. Why must I be compelled to do such a thing? Do you live alone on an island? Or do you interact with others daily? I'll wager the latter. Now the question only remains how will you express this Self Determination? And tell me how do you plan on identifying your Self?

[motla68]

Comes now Michael Joseph a regenerate man speaking for his estate in the office of Trustee - upon the dominions of Michael Joseph, as Trustee per Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 the original trust agreement; and, recognizing the foreign State, United States as a concurrent jurisdiction and separate overlay upon the land - created and belonging to Yehovah - "go forth and take dominion" and placed into Trust - Yehovah Saves - in Yehoshuah the head of the Commonwealth of Yisra'el - Election of Yehovah - the body Elect - Trustees speaking for the Original Estate - in accord with Laws of Nations, but absent binding; and,

Whereas, I michael joseph, am absent status of Trustee for the United States and/or its persons (artificial or otherwise); and,

Whereas, I michael joseph, am absent status of beneficiary of the United States and/or its persons (artificial or otherwise); and,

the States being held as Dependents of the United States - a sort of International Sovereign to the States; wherein the States being Domestic Sovereigns according to their surveys and boundaries - wherein; said States agreed to the Compact in silence as clearly recognized at Padelford AND the 1st Judiciary Act as the United States tells said States what they can and will do; and said Persons under the shadow of the United States being subject to the :1) Laws of the United States 2) International Treaties and 3)Constitution made by the United States for the United States of America; and,

Whereas, I michael joseph wishing to exercise my right of self determination as codified in the Holy Scriptures AND Laws of Nations form a union with my family; whereupon I exercise rights of Trustee as High Priest and Husbandman in Yisra'el; a member of the Body acting in the Name of Yehoshuah my Sovereign; speaking with the Power [Dynamite] of the Word of Yehovah - Who shall lay any charge upon Yehovah's Elect?; it is Yehovah the justifieth; and, recognizing the trust relationships that exist today in Cestui Que Vie Trust; held in Trust by Military as Trustee AND Civil Government as Trustee in one man - President and Commander in Chief; not wishing to Trespass and sin upon those offices I remain without by CHOICE; a man seeking peace - foraging in the field performing husbandry for my family - speaking in the Name of Yehoshuah ben Yehovah, I remain the loyal servant of my Sovereign.

-------------------------------

According to the United States - that trust is a Testamentary Trust as the Grantors are all dead. The original Settlors [the true Sovereigns] are all dead but the Posterity [and Ourselves] are for whom that trust was made; and, as such, I will not Trespass their Survey.

1. Survey
2. Claim of Use - based on Survey
3. Put Claim of Use into Trust as Trust Corpus = Trust Property; wherein Property = Right of Use
4. Split the Use - Legal manages the Use; Equitable has the Right of Use

But I am Not Trustee or Beneficiary. Now let us go to Charge. Whoever issues a charge must discharge the charge upon His own estate. Laws of Contracts. Who holds the Estate in Trust? - Trustee! Can a Trustee be beneficiary at same time? Absolutely, if there are other beneficiaries at the same time. Therefore Officer is Trustee and Officer issued the Charge based on his Dominions - HIS SURVEY.

Now, therefore the Earth belongs to Yehovah and all that is in it. Man surveys the Earth and places certain Uses into Trust, based on Said Survey, to Control. The TRUST PROPERTY is the USE. Who has the Right of Use? Well that depends on what Survey you are upon?

--------------------------------------------

Now the question remains - how will we keep the peace? By Agreement! Laws of Nations seems like a good agreement. Moral Person only takes two - Husband and Wife. The Two become ONE.

One says, but you use our Intangible Money; you use the gas provided by our Corporations - Blah, blah, blah....what you now make a claim on God?

Comes now Michael Joseph, as Priest speaking in the Name of Yehoshauh my Savior in whom I trust; absent intent to trespass but to live in peace, if possible, with my neighbor; respecting other venues and jurisdictions but living according to the law of necessity - absent claim upon any Legal Name or Cestui Que Trust within another venue, jurisdiction, overlay or district; and, with full faith and full liability assumed before Yehovah my Elohiym.

What you gonna put you Intangible Money on Me? You gonna now trespass my Estate? Let Yehovah judge this day between me and thee. For Dan-i-el - Yehovah is my Judge.

What shall we do about this? Shall I go and register my Trust at the UN and beg for their justification and recognition? Shall I create my own Intangible Property based on my own Survey [dominion] and await a Soul to "sign up" for benefits handed down by King Michael Joseph?

Believe me I have in me the power in words and knowledge to Settle such a Trust [new State] and I could noticed the OAS and the UN and international banking and then according to established Law [who settled that Law], I could follow the protocols and await the six months so that other States might have a chance to review and comment on my Survey and Claim; perhaps they remain silent and I get agreement or perhaps not.

The CESTUI QUE VIE TRUST [w/ssn] has been made available for one to come aboard and dock to the STATE. TRUST and TRUST. The framers knowing not to commit Adultery; yet man[kind] today is dumb as a box of rocks doing it every day -" that ain't me". Open thou mouth o' fool - and argue against the Trustee - Trustee de son Tort is a sin most times not forgiven.

Yehovah = Settlor of the express Trust - Word of Yehovah
Yehoshuah = Trustee = manifestation of the Word of Yehovah in Flesh
Elect/Priest = Trustee
Yisra'el = Trustee
Commonweath of Yisra'el = Body [State if you like] - in accord with Laws of Nations - a Moral Person
Survey and Claim : Gen 1 and Gen 2
Trust Bylaws = Books of Moses and Prophets

Will you be as Eve and argue and give up your dominion? Or will you be as Yehoshuah and quote your Standing back to the Adversary? - Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Comes now Michael Joseph of the Nomen family speaking for his family and estate absolute ministerial right making a special appearance in the Name of my Sovereign Yehoshauh:

Now, we can match like up to like: Trustee to Trustee - State to State;

Just as Yehovah expressed all into Yehoshuah; and Yehoshuah became all in all; Pharaoh expressed all into Joseph, as Trustee to run his kingdom; giving Joseph the king's Seal and announcing Joseph before the people - 'this is my Son in whom I am well pleased'.

What you think the kingdom of Yehovah is Spiritual ONLY? It is a way of life. It is the essence of life. And I for one am pleased to pick up the Trust - I believe I never dropped it - expressed in a former age - before the foundation of this Age - Who will go for us, was the call - Here am I, send me - was the response.

Good post, I like it.

Hosea 4:6 " because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. "

Rom 13:14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

But what about Providence, how does that play into your post or not?

Interestingly though I only find Providence once and that is in Acts 24:2, also concordance for speech says: feminine noun. This seems similar to mother earth / statute of liberty, call it her in their pledges e.t.c.

[Michael Joseph]

Good post, I like it.

Hosea 4:6 " because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. "

Rom 13:14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

But what about Providence, how does that play into your post or not?

Interestingly though I only find Providence once and that is in Acts 24:2, also concordance for speech says: feminine noun. This seems similar to mother earth / statute of liberty, call it her in their pledges e.t.c.

Providence is where Yehovah established the Throne of David and said it is an Eternal Kingdom. Regarding your mother earth and statues - I can go to Mystery Babylon but I choose not to.

MYSTICONE makes a good point. And in fact his points are shown time and again in the movies - remember the one who was shot in the head for denying the Codex - Pirates of the Carribean.

Cain has been building the city for a long time now. Look at the roots of his name they are interesting. Trafficker. A constitution is for only one goal - Traffick.

Yehovah gave his people a national identity in Him. See Acts 17:28. When you talk TRUST LAW there is always a "higher power".

Man's survey, then Claim, then Use, then Split Title - manage/Use and Right of Use - lead one back to Man - who Created Man?

But Man will say - but since Yisra'el is in BREACH OF TRUST - remember what they said at 1st Sam 8: "we want a man king" - that Yehovah's GRANTED the Deed - in Saul. The Divine Right of Kings. I can tell you Reader there are some who will NEVER drop the Trust of Yehovah - Election. Not in this Age, the Former Age or the Age to Come.

[motla68]

So far as Mysticone goes, no I really have not idea who it is, could be anyone. Our study groups have spread so far and wide with same theme but they have different names as encouraged to make their new founded knowledge their own. There is study groups even stretching out to Australia, New Zealand, UK and of course Canada.

[David Merrill]

A testamentary trust is by its name one which the Grantors are now dead. But the Grantors and Settlors established their Survey and made their Claim and the Trust escapes Laws of Perpetuity because Trustee is unnamed and beneficiary is unnamed - Ourselves and our Posterity. As long as there is an Heir alive of the original Settlors/Grantors then the Trust shall survive.

That in context means that the bloodline of the Representatives of the Twelve States are the only Parties to the Constitution in Padelford. - Absurd; Asenine.

The parties to the Constitution are the Signatories. The Signatories are Offices validated by the Officials seated. The original 39 Signers were not men, they were States. The men signing were signing for the States.

Neh 10:28 And the rest of the people, the priests, the Levites, the porters, the singers, the Nethinims, and all they that had separated themselves from the people of the lands unto the law of God, their wives, their sons, and their daughters, every one having knowledge, and having understanding;

Neh 10:29 They clave to their brethren, their nobles, and entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God's law, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of the LORD our Lord, and his judgments and his statutes;

That is where it began to be so. As the Babylonian Jews captured the Israelites of Jerusalem. Conquest. They were signing the first Constitution.

Neh 10:1 Now those that sealed were, Nehemiah, the Tirshatha, the son of Hachaliah, and Zidkijah, Neh 10:2 Seraiah, Azariah, Jeremiah...

Nehemiah was an Official. That oath made him party to the Laws of Moses.

They clave to their brethren, their nobles, and entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God's law...

Tirshatha was a Babylonian Marshal;

Of foreign derivation; the title of a Persian deputy or governor: - Tirshatha.

Even looking at the Original 13th Amendment exposes this revelation.

You read that and you have to wonder, Why would they deport you for accepting a gift from a foreign king or government? Of course they wouldn't! If you were a citizen of the US you were a government employee or official. You would lose your position as an official (citizen) because now you had accepted a gift from a foreign king or government.

The Israelites were the citizens (officials) because they had been captured. They were under the seige of a foreign occupation - the (Babylonian) Jews. So they had to stand there all morning and get their Notice of the Law - the Laws of Moses. Some people think it was the Torah (Pentateuch) but that would take way too long for an oral reading.

At a gist, that is the entire thread topic - about the Lieber Code and such. The Trading with the Enemy Act (1917) was utilized for the War of 1933 (against the Great Depression) and it stood heavily on the Emergency of 1861 for its foundation. But that was lifted in 1976. You can try to explain it in trust structures all you like, the Emergency is still alive simply by virtue that lawful money in America is fiat - the US Note - 1863. The remedy available is to redeem FRNs in lawful money. If you try asserting the Lieber Code it will make no sense outside the scope of the fiat. Read some outdated doctrine:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...8&d=1303519007

Then look at its modern counterpart:

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attac...7&d=1303519005

You can tell that in the current state of peace, there is required to be some form of riot or insurrection that exceeds judicial power to suppress.

It manifests today in lack of an Enabling Clause. - In the term Necessity.



Regards,

David Merrill.