Law of Trusts

[shikamaru]

I am not doubting that your knowledge may work for you here, but I have a friend who has done this and explained it to me. He has not paid property taxes on the land in over 4 years. The county overlaying survey has been booted off the land.
He has another piece of land though that he has inquired interest to learn the Coresource Method and get it to work that way too on next years tax bill for that other land.

Good deal

I got the information and mechanics, but have yet to implement. On that point, you have the leg up.

I look forward to my adventure with the State. I should make a lot of happy during its course .

[Frederick Burrell]

First see the attachment #1, I am NOT boasting this as silver bullet methodology or putting this up as a tag for success, but if he were to do it, this is similar to what would be done.

The land is registered in the county, the counties here are chartered by the state, this state is a probate state so property is held in a chartered trust, now here is a clip from Senate Resolution #62 , Doc. 43
[ATTACH=CONFIG]232[/ATTACH]

Next, what is the state responsible for doing? see the following:

Laws of War :
Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II); July 29, 1899
Treaty Series 403
Article 55
The occupying State shall only be regarded as administrator and usufructuary of the public buildings, real property, forests, and agricultural works belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must protect the capital of these properties, and administer it according to the rules of usufruct.

Usufruct/usufructuary just simple means another trust. Next we will find out what particular thing they do to administrate the Usufruct:

Liber Code of 1863 , General Order 100 / Abraham Lincoln
38. Private property, unless forfeited by crimes or by offenses of the owner, can be seized only by way of military necessity, for the support or other benefit of the Army or of the United States. If the owner has not fled, the commanding officer will cause receipts to be given, which may serve the spoliated owner to obtain indemnity.

You might ask "what is the basis of how we linked these together?"
1. Thomas Jefferson was said to been quoted: " the earth is held in usufruct for the living ".
Could Jefferson and others have predicted one day there would be a world government in place?
Lets see the next evidence to what they might have predicted:

The "Lieber Instructions" represent the first attempt to codify the laws of war. They were prepared during the American Civil War by Francis Lieber, then a professor of Columbia College in New York, revised by a board of officers and promulgated by President Lincoln. Although they were binding only on the forces of the United States, they correspond to a great extend to the laws and customs of war existing at that time. The "Lieber Instructions" strongly influenced the further codification of the laws of war and the adoption of similar regulations by other states. They formed the origin of the project of an international convention on the laws of war presented to the Brussels Conference in 1874 and stimulated the adoption of the Hague Conventions on land warfare of 1899 and 1907.

Date of adoption 24.04.1863
Number of articles 157
Authentic text English
Source D.Schindler and J.Toman, The Laws of Armed Conflicts, Martinus Nihjoff Publisher, 1988, pp.3-23.

source: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/73cb71d1...5?OpenDocument

All of this work was not figured out by me and i do not boast to be a know it all, this linkage was put together by a group of men who participated in a study group together for which I was grateful to be a part of. The beginning ideas before finding the Thomas Jefferson quote came from the private group in Canada, not important to know the details of that for this post. So this study group we decided that an American Version had to be nailed down and the first find was what Jefferson quoted. For my part sometimes I read things and later recall certain things in my mind and do not always remember where I picked it up from, so sometimes I would just put the idea out there and then they would go find it, they did not question whether it was true or not.
A lot of that had to do probably me being the first to make something work, BUT I did not want it to be all about me, we are all on this planet together and need to find some way to get along so people must have some pride in their own work to make all this stick in their minds as well otherwise why are we here, even on this forum if we cannot learn as some of the hardcore researchers have what is the point?

related questions?

Thank you for taking the time to post this. So I take it coresource in light of what you posted would be approaching the occupation and one of redeeming your property from with in the trust to be seen as and known as a peaceful inhabitant rather than a enemy combatant?

[shikamaru]

Could trust also refer to the relation between parties with regard to such virtues as:

faith
fidelity
fealty
allegiance

???

[Michael Joseph]

more on Uses, Trust and Equity

Indermaur 1902, 1890 and 1886 1902


1902 pdf link:


Principles of Equity

Page 20 of the PDF has the definition of a trust defined in a double sense.

[shikamaru]

This thread is moving rapidly.
I think it would be a great benefit to all if we clearly define the terms as well as if they descend from Roman Civil or English Common Law.
Both forms of law use similar terms, but the terms possess different meanings and scope.
Use in common law is very much different from use in civil law.

Book: A Manual of Roman Law by Daniel Chamier 1893

Pg.77 -78

CHAPTER IX.
THE LAW OF THINGS.
RIGHTS IN REM.

1. Unlimited: Dominium. - A right in rem is a right which a person may have to and over and to the enjoyment of a particular thing as against the world. It is usefully contrasted with a right in personam, which is a right against a particular person for a definite performance or forebearance. And a right in rem could be so extensive as to amount to a complete ownership over a thing - which was called Dominium; or it could be limited - when it was called a servitus.

2. Limited: Servitudes. - A right in rem could be limited so that the person entitled was restricted in his enjoyment of it. These fragments of ownership were called servitudes; ....

We are drawing from the pools of English Common Law and Roman Civil Law, in my opinion.

[David Merrill]

Look at the territorial laws where I stand - here on Colorado (last page).

[Michael Joseph]

Trusts are at International Law. If you want to create an International Trust = New State, then you can by exercising your right of Self Determination. Or you can create a domestic trust whereby it shall be a Person Domestic to another Trust. Or said another way, another trust shall adjudicate it and/or exercise control over the newly created Trust. To say that Trusts are subject to some law form over another depends on the Settlor and it depends on the Grantor. As the Rights of Use held in trust are subject to the Rights of Use that the Grantor was able to transfer.

[shikamaru]

Using a birth certificate as example:

Would the:

Settlor be the parents?
Trustee be you?
Beneficiary would be government?

Would a birth certificate be a franchise? The grantor is obviously government with the recipient as grantee.

[Anthony Joseph]

If the birth certificate is, in essence, proof of the formation/registration of a trust "vessel" (CQVT), then the questions are:

By what right and assumption did the STATE-creating entity decide to form this "vessel"?

For what specific purpose was this formation/registration created?

For whom was it created?

[Richard Earl]

Well, I know in Canada the mother "voluntarily?" completes a statement of live birth which is then mailed or sent to whatever vital statistics office and the "account" is created and a certificate (receipt) is sent back. The act of the mother creates the trust vessel -- maybe she is the grantor?

[Anthony Joseph]

Well, I know in Canada the mother "voluntarily?" completes a statement of live birth which is then mailed or sent to whatever vital statistics office and the "account" is created and a certificate (receipt) is sent back. The act of the mother creates the trust vessel -- maybe she is the grantor?

Yes, "voluntarily?". Think of the emotional stress and physical strain of the mother at the time; that is when the vultures of the STATE come in for their prey. Both mother and father are unsuspecting, unwitting and uninformed as to the mechanism that has just usurped the innocent nativity of their newly born baby. And, if the mother or father should question in any way whether or not to do this "normal" act of giving information, then the coercion, bully tactics and fear mongering ensue.

Yep, sounds like a knowing and willing agreement between two parties to me.

[Richard Earl]

Interesting, I was talking to my mother on MSN when I read this so I asked her.

Richard Earl says
did you fill out the statement of live birth while still at the hospital?
Raymonde says
yes I did
Raymonde says
for all 3 of you's
Richard Earl says
was it required before we could leave?
Raymonde says
nope...had papers given to me by hospital and filled it out and mailed it...had the time

In my situation, I believe her to be simply conditioned. I have yet to find anyone that has declined or questioned the statement of live birth.

[shikamaru]

Well, I know in Canada the mother "voluntarily?" completes a statement of live birth which is then mailed or sent to whatever vital statistics office and the "account" is created and a certificate (receipt) is sent back. The act of the mother creates the trust vessel -- maybe she is the grantor?

The mother filled an application to petition (beg, pray) the State for a birth certificate.
The grantor is the State.
The mother, in this case, is the settlor.

Now that I think upon it more, the State is the trustee.
You use the certificate to establish that you are a beneficiary for other services such as Social Security, driver's license, etc.

Except in this case, the beneficiary pays for the the maintenance of services provided by the trustee.

Government officials supposedly occupy offices of trust rather than of profit through their oath of office to their respective Constitutions.

Offices of trust is trusteeship.

[Michael Joseph]

Using a birth certificate as example:

Would the:

Settlor be the parents?
Trustee be you?
Beneficiary would be government?

Would a birth certificate be a franchise? The grantor is obviously government with the recipient as grantee.

No.

The Settlor is the STATE by way of the Estate. Cestui Que Trust.
Mom and Dad did use Cestui Que Vie Trust to witness on behalf of the STATE? Isn't that right?


The Trustee is Military and Civil Government.
The Beneficiary is Cestui Que Trust.

And you remain without as Usufruct.

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

Consider have you ever filled out an IRS form for a new EIN. Notice that the Grantor must also have either an EIN or a SSN. Why? Because the new creation is ALSO cestui que in nature and like must beget like. Or said another way - Unequal things should not Mix.

Disparata non debent jungi


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


Now what Motla68 was trying desperately to tell you folks is that the Military and the Civil Government are in fact Trustees holding the Rights of Use in Trust - specifically in the CESTUI QUE VIE TRUST. Why because men and women are to damn stupid to run their own affairs. I know, I make friends, who cares. If that stung well then perhaps that is for you. When a man[kind] becomes competent in his affairs, then he can step up, as Trustee, for his Estate. The Military as Trustee can now SEE the man as Trustee because like things match up. Other wise get used to 12(b)6.

Now if you comprehend trust law the Charge is issued against the Estate. But dear Reader what is being held in Estate? Rights of Use in the CESTUI QUE TRUST. That is why the Birth Cert. is also included or a copy anyways back to the Trustee because unless you commit a sin in Trustee de son Tort, the Trustee must discharge the Charge on HIS estate. And the Trustee holds the CQVT in estate.

Are the lights coming on yet? I hope so.

Can a man without the Trust remove the CQVT? NO. It does not belong to the man without the Trust. What you gonna now tell the Trustee what to do? Not to smart. Unless you to are Trustee or even higher than trustee - co-Signatory as Settlor, then you got no business Administrating the trust affairs.

[David Merrill]

No.

The Settlor is the STATE by way of the Estate. Cestui Que Trust.
Mom and Dad did use Cestui Que Vie Trust to witness on behalf of the STATE? Isn't that right?


The Trustee is Military and Civil Government.
The Beneficiary is Cestui Que Trust.

And you remain without as Usufruct.

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

Consider have you ever filled out an IRS form for a new EIN. Notice that the Grantor must also have either an EIN or a SSN. Why? Because the new creation is ALSO cestui que in nature and like must beget like. Or said another way - Unequal things should not Mix.

Disparata non debent jungi


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


Now what Motla68 was trying desperately to tell you folks is that the Military and the Civil Government are in fact Trustees holding the Rights of Use in Trust - specifically in the CESTUI QUE VIE TRUST. Why because men and women are to damn stupid to run their own affairs. I know, I make friends, who cares. If that stung well then perhaps that is for you. When a man[kind] becomes competent in his affairs, then he can step up, as Trustee, for his Estate. The Military as Trustee can now SEE the man as Trustee because like things match up. Other wise get used to 12(b)6.

Now if you comprehend trust law the Charge is issued against the Estate. But dear Reader what is being held in Estate? Rights of Use in the CESTUI QUE TRUST. That is why the Birth Cert. is also included or a copy anyways back to the Trustee because unless you commit a sin in Trustee de son Tort, the Trustee must discharge the Charge on HIS estate. And the Trustee holds the CQVT in estate.

Are the lights coming on yet? I hope so.

Can a man without the Trust remove the CQVT? NO. It does not belong to the man without the Trust. What you gonna now tell the Trustee what to do? Not to smart. Unless you to are Trustee or even higher than trustee - co-Signatory as Settlor, then you got no business Administrating the trust affairs.

Ergo, my excitement as Friday night marked the end of the Third Jubilee. And the filing was put off for three days too. Thirty days from friday night we have the scheduled Default and now it looks like there is no choice - raising the Debt Ceiling will do nothing to save confidence and security building measures in the US Dollar. - Presuming this report is correct.

I know how difficult it must get to see the beauty in the timing here - so just bear with me and accept that the timeline is correct. You can see that for yourself as fact that April 15th 1861 was exactly 150 years ago. I am not telling you exactly what it means because I don't know. The things you speak of though MJ about the trust structure being military - that began 150 years ago to the day Friday. I believe we are going to be watching some major restructuring next month.

I also believe that with Government stepping down as the responsible party - default - that those endorsing the national debt through endorsement will be left holding the bag.



Regards,

David Merrill.