Vengeancia (updated Jan. 2015) This page is continued from Part 1. I started it two years ago, so the information may be outdated. Read newer posts for more recent insights! “The Commerce Department also provides effective management and monitoring of our nation’s resources and assets…” Learn more about this Notification of Birth Registration, below, here.
- Document Evidencing the registration of birth with the Dept. of Commerce.
Under the provisions of Executive Order No. 9193, the Alien Property Custodian is authorized to take such action as he deems necessary in the national interest, including but not limited to the power to direct, manage, supervise, control or vest the following classes of property:
A. Property in which foreign nationals have an interest:
1. Business enterprises and interests therein when the Custodian certifies to the Secretary of the Treasury that it is in the national interest for him to take jurisdiction over such property;
2. Patents, patent applications, copyrights, copyright applications, trademarks, or trademark applications or rights;
3. Ships, vessels, or interests therein.
B. Property in which enemy nationals have an interest;
1. Business enterprises and interests therein;
2. Any property in the process of judicial administration;
3- Any other property, not including cash, bank deposits, securities, etc.
Enemy nationals? The Custodian’s first task was to identify foreign property interests located in the United States, and to determine the beneficial ownership of such property.
Check out this info. about common law. An Alien can take on the status of Resident or Nonresident Alien. If you have to “be” something, my personal opinion is, the Freeman on the Land wants to “be” a Nonresident Alien. The FOTL wants to “be” a member of “the public,” and one of “the people.” Perhaps he wants to “be” stateless. Then again, be careful calling yourself a member of the public or one of “the people,” because that could be construed to mean you are a member of a certain collective, a body politic, aka “The People of the State of….” The system can construe it against you. This is why I call myself a people…..a singular people….a woman. More specifically, as Al Barcroft reminds us, a people who ORDAINS THE CONSTITUTION, 1787. Clearly, if you are a member of the protected class, you can’t be a member of the class from whom you are being protected, right?
Roles and Relationships
As already explained, a “person” can be both a ROLE and it can be a THING. It’s never a real man or woman, legally. What is a “municipal corporation?” Be sure to read this article from Texe Marrs about Duality and the Double-Headed Eagle.
“A municipal corporation has a dual character, the one public and the other private, and exercises correspondingly twofold functions and duties-one class consisting of those acts performed by it in exercise of delegated sovereign powers for benefit of people generally, as arm of state, enforcing general laws made in pursuance of general policy of the state, and the other consisting of acts done in exercise of power of the municipal corporation for its own benefit, or for benefit of its citizens alone, or citizens of the municipal corporation and its immediate locality.” Black’s Law 6th Edition
In the graphic below, (my stuff isn’t always correct! Do your own due diligence!) I have attempted to illustrate the public/private nature of the muni corporation. The corporation dba the U.S. is a “Federal Corporation.” It charters the states, which charter your local municipal corporation, the City of Lakewood….City of Arvada, etc. Just like a Walmart, or a McDonald’s, the company is chartered to serve the people, the public, in general. The problem comes when we, the “customers,” think that we are the employees.
Since the corporation has no energy of its own, it has to use OUR real people energy, so that also makes us the creditors of the franchise “they” make for our benefit, allegedly. And since we, the real men and women, ordain the original Constitution, which is a Trust document, we are the ultimate owners of the franchise “they” (public officials) make for our benefit, allegedly, and/or allow to be made for us. We provide the “res”, the rights…..cargo, shipper, ship….The Good Ship Lollipop!
§ 301.7701-6 Definitions; person, fiduciary.
(a) Person. The term person includes an individual, a corporation, a partnership, a trust or estate, a joint-stock company, an association, or a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture, or other unincorporated organization or group……
(b) Fiduciary—(1) In general. Fiduciary is a term that applies to persons who occupy positions of peculiar confidence toward others, such as trustees, executors, and administrators. A fiduciary is a person who holds in trust an estate to which another has a beneficial interest, or receives and controls income of another, as in the case of receivers. A committee or guardian of the property of an incompetent person is a fiduciary. More.
In Black’s, under “trust,” a subsection describes “foreign situs trust” as: “A trust which owes its existence to foreign law. It is treated for tax purposes as a non-resident alien individual.” The important part to note is, this is a two-part phrase. The first part, “non-resident alien,” is exempt. The second part “individual,” is not.
““Person” means an individual, a trust, an estate, a partnership, and a corporation.” 31 USC 9301
A real man is the only “one” who can say “I.” But a natural person is the only “one” who can “appear,” meaning, to be “seen” by magistrates and judges in their legal system, and can respond to a question or statement. A FOTL would make a “special appearance,” and address his speech to the “court of record,” in order to put the Magi (magical?), Judges and Attorneys on notice to his nonconsent to the US private jurisdiction. He speaks only “for the record.” An artificial PERSON, a U.S. Citizen, is the only “one” that can be the proper subject matter of their conversation. It’s the substance, the “res” the essence of the conversation.
Therefore, the legal system is mainly made up of two Trusts, each with three roles. The lawful system is made up of your private Trust that you create by declaration, for the most part. Check out my article featuring Rob Ryder’ video, Accept the Deed and Be the Owner, here.
So, there’s a total of, perhaps, nine combinations, all interacting. Or at least, that’s my premise right now. My math is rusty! At a minimum, you have T-T-T, G-G-G, B-B-B; then you have lots more combinations that can only be properly set out in a table format. The Trustee is at the top, the all-seeing eye, the controller. The left-most position is where the FOTL exercises his/her will to put energy into the Republic first and then into the Democracy. By reversing the process, the FOTL takes energy out of the Democracy and then out of the Republic into the private. Check out this info. from Gilles C H Nullen. Check out King Solomon and the Triple Triangle.
“Unless otherwise expressly provided, trust law governs assignments for the benefit of creditors. The assignee is considered a trustee and his or her duties and responsibilities to the debtor’s creditors are the same as a trustee’s to the beneficiaries of a trust.” Read more about Assignment for Benefit of Creditors.
“The law recognizes that persons are generally entitled to transfer their assets to whomever they wish and for whatever reason. The most common means of transfer are wills, trusts, and gifts. Increasingly, however, persons are transferring property and money in order to qualify for government-funded nursing care or to avoid paying creditors or the Internal Revenue Service. State and federal laws prohibit transfers that defraud creditors, however. If a creditor can show that a transfer was made in bad faith and for the purpose of avoiding a lawful debt, the transfer will be voided.” Read about Transfer of Assets.
When you file a UCC-1, you can become the sole Secured Party Creditor for the Name in Caps, taking the place of the original alleged creditors – FRB, IMF, etc. Then, you can take your property back into your private Trust that you create as its sole Beneficiary. Of course, this is all theoretical and conceptual. I’m not an attorney, and I’m not giving anyone advice! I’m working on this stuff as we speak. For experts, check out Creditors in Commerce.
Keep in mind that there’s a difference between what you call yourself, and what the Matrix calls you. The bureaucrats have three classifications: citizen, national, and alien. Read about the Form 1041 for Trusts. However, note that an alien is also a “person.” So, technically, the real man is not an alien. The real man is a sovereign child of the Creator. The real man ordains the Constitution. The real man wants to be a member of the posterity of the redeemed man, Christ, not a member of the posterity of fallen man, Adam! Since America is founded on Christian principles, a member of the posterity is also a Christian. We do not claim our birthright by the “divine right of kings,” and the royal bloodline of the Queen of England. Christians claim our birthright status spiritually, by our will, by our decision to be saved and to claim our birthright on the land vicariously by the finished work of Christ on the cross and His blood.
- The American legal system: Three trusts, each with three roles.
The FOTL performs the role of Beneficiary for the Natural Person and Executor for the Artificial Person, which is dead.
Check out the Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction (SMTJ) defined in this 2012 Homeland Security Training Manual. PDF
What is a state/State? Check out this blurb from Texas V. White:
“…what is the correct idea of a State, apart from any union or confederation with other States. The poverty of language often compels the employment of terms in quite different significations, and of this hardly any example more signal is to be found than in the use of the word we are now considering. It would serve no useful purpose to attempt an enumeration of all the various senses in which it is used. A few only need be noticed.It describes sometimes a people or community of individuals united more or less closely in political relations, inhabiting temporarily or permanently the same country; often it denotes only the country or territorial region, inhabited by such a community; not unfrequently it is applied to the government under which the people live; at other times, it represents the combined idea of people, territory, and government.It is not difficult to see that, in all these senses, the primary conception is that of a people or community. The people, in whatever territory dwelling, either temporarily or permanently, and whether organized under a regular government, or united by looser and less definite relations, constitute the state.” More.
Based on these ideas, it would seem that a “state” is 1.) the people, a fictional entity made up of real men and women 2.) the government, a fictional entity made up of real men and women playing fictional roles, in their “persons,” and 3) all the people plus the govt. together.
So, there are at least three descriptions of “state.” The discussion about “you” is therefore the same discussion we could have about “it.” Who, exactly, are we talking about when we refer to the state as an “it?”
For background, be sure to read this article from Barefoot about Persons. Read this info. on the topic of Alien. “The term ‘alien’ means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.” here. The main distinction is ontological; the difference between reality and fiction. How can a PERSON exist, if the real man or woman that the PERSON is based on and is alleged to represent (or vice versa?), or is alleged to benefit, doesn’t exist? A PERSON is an abstraction of a real man or woman. Jesus made the point that, the law is made for the people, not the people for the law. “And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath….” Mark 2:27.
“The debate over the ontological status of fictions can be summed up with the question of whether fictions are substances or fictions are qualities. A substance is that which exists in and through itself. My cat Tabby is a substance in that she is not a quality of anything else and exists in her own right as an individual entity. By contrast, the black, gray, orange, and brown of Tabby’s fur is a quality in that it doesn’t enjoy independent existence.” Read more
In an issue of the AntiShyster Magazine, Al Adask featured this article, It Ain’t Me by David De Riemer. The author points out that, it’s not the spelling that’s the main deal with the ALL CAPS fictional entity, but the ontological aspect that has to be considered. The name, Joe Smith, sounds just like JOE SMITH. For that matter, Joe: Smith sounds just like JOE SMITH, so those who are intent on using punctuation in their names also miss the mark, perhaps.
In addition to the ontological distinction, the discussion centers around 1) singular and plural and 2) roles and relationships. Be sure to research the extremely important topic of Idemsonans.
Singular and Plural
In your state’s statutes, somewhere you’ll find words that go something like this: “The singular includes the plural and vice versa.” Check out this document from SEDM, “includes.” Also, look at this presentation from Creditors in Commerce (Disclaimer) on Dual Trusts. Read this article and watch videos from Kurt Kallenbach. Also check out Max Igan’s The Crowhouse and Guy Taylor’s Lawful Rebellion.
I agree with this author (who strikes me as Canadian) that, among Americans working to become more free, the word “you” gets more people into trouble than any other word utilized within our modern-day global legal and financial systems. Thus, it’s incredibly important to the sovereign discussion to comprehend the intricacies of the word, “you.” Here’s a beginning. Read Obligee Obligor Life Goes On….Brah! Also read about that ol’ “ball and chain” at Voodoo Dolls of the Elite.
Loosely, the word “you” is a pronoun. When spoken, “you” is commonly heard by a group of men and women, as if it were being addressed to each of them, individually, in a singular sense. We hear a singular inclination of the properly plural expression, as in one speaking to a group and saying; “I’m happy to share this with you.”
To my mind, any discussion related to Trust Law, founded on three basic roles, Settlor/Grantor/Executor, Trustee, and Beneficiary, is caught up with the notion from orthodox Religion of the Trinity and the Godhead. Take, for example, the word, Elohim (אֱלֹהִ֔ים). It’s a grammatically singular or plural noun for “god” or “gods” in both modern and ancient Hebrew language. When used with singular verbs and adjectives elohim is usually singular, “god” or especially, the God. When used with plural verbs and adjectives elohim is usually plural, “gods” or “powers.” Read more. On balance, be sure to research this topic here, here, here, and here. Read more here. Also, here.
A trust also spans Space and Time. i.e., Past, Present, and Future. The idea that I WAS, and that I AM, and that I WILL BE, are all accommodated within the structure of trust. My private trust is established for me by my Creator, as a baby. As I work and accumulate stuff throughout my life, I grant this stuff to myself via the trust. Then, when I am old, I can reap the benefits, In fact, there’s some controversy re: the translation of ancient scriptures. Does the word, Elohim, inclusive of tense as well as number?
Languages typically have person-al pronouns for each of the three grammatical persons:
- first-person pronouns normally refer to the speaker, in the case of the singular (as the English I), or to the speaker and others, in the case of the plural (as the English we).
- second-person pronouns normally refer to the person or persons being addressed (as the English you); in the plural they may also refer to the person or persons being addressed together with third parties.
- third-person pronouns normally refer to third parties other than the speaker or the person being addressed (as the English he, she, it, they).
As noted above, within each person there are often different forms for different grammatical numbers, especially singular and plural. Read more.
The royal “we” (pluralis maiestatis), is a nosism employed by a person of high office, such as a monarch, earl, or pope. It is also used in certain formal contexts by bishops and university rectors. William Longchamp is credited with its introduction to England in the late 12th century, following the practice of the papal chancery. Its first recorded use was in 1169 when King Henry II, hard pressed by his barons over the Investiture Controversy, assumed the common theory of “divine right of kings,” that the monarch acted conjointly with the deity. Hence, he used “we” as “God and I…,” or so the legend goes. In the public, the monarch or other dignitary is typically speaking not only in their person-al capacity but also in their official capacity as leader of a nation or institution. Read more.
Then there is the Master/Slave relationship as it is described in maritime and shipping. The ship’s Master deals with the Bill of Lading for his or her cargo, which, in the old days, was black slaves. Read more.
“Tony Martin has been forced to delve into the relationship between the Jews and Blacks and in the process, he has distilled a work that is informative, fascinating and one which will heighten the consciousness of Black people everywhere.” Carl Wint, The Sunday Gleaner
The real man on the land, as an infant, is the Beneficiary and equitable title holder for his own private rights held in trust, granted to him by the Grantor/Settlor, God. He’s considered incompetent, initially, because he’s an infant. As he grows and becomes an adult within the community, he has the opportunity to exercise his own free will in the administration of his own trust for his own and his family’s benefit, so that makes him the Trustee, too, of his private affairs.
Trust Corpus: The “body” of a trust (corpus is latin for “body”); this is the property that is transferred into the trust. It’s also known as the Trust “Res”. This term refers to all the property transferred to a trust. For example, if a trust is established (funded) with $250,000, that money is the corpus.
The real private man’s “Res” is his right to the “land of his soul,” meaning, his right to be the Master of his own vessel, his own destiny. Jesus taught, we must be “born again,” to “see” the kingdom of our Creator, God.
The first time Americans and people around the world are born, our right to be our own Master is transferred into the natural Person, then into the artificial PERSON, or strawman, by the New World Order. Thus, in the corporate democracy, we are assumed by the PTB to be “unborn, unascertained, or legally incompetent.” Here’s a typical blurb of interest from Rhode Island probate law:
“When before or at the hearing on any proceeding in a probate court it appears to the court that the interest of a person unborn, unascertained, or legally incompetent to act in his or her own behalf, is not fully represented, the court may appoint some competent and disinterested person to act as guardian ad litem, or next friend, for the person unborn, unascertained, or legally incompetent, and to represent his or her interest in the case…” Read more.
I John 4:7: “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.”
I John 5:1: “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him.”
I John 5:4: “ For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world– our faith.”
I John 3:9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. ”
I John 5:18: “We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him.”
I John 2:29: “If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him.”
Turning to the discipline of object-oriented programming, ideas about inheritance as well as the Master/Slave and Parent/ Child relationship are important and relevant to any discussion about Trusts. “If you have a master (A) and a slave (B) and you would like to reverse their roles, follow this procedure. The procedure assumes A is healthy, up-to-date and available.” Read more.
Also, in OO programming, an important distinction is made between One-to-One, One-to-Many, and Many-to-Many. Perhaps the sovereign community needs to develop a chart along the lines of the following one to explain the real man’s role(s) relative to his person, property and/or estate(s).
- Object oriented programming discriminates the relationship between “one” and “many.”
Properly, “you” is indeed “plural”, yet the word “you” is often spoken out loud, orally, as if it were in reference to a singular man or woman. In such instances, the word “you” induces a natural inclination for everyone in an audience to hear it as being addressed singularly to a specific individual within that audience, particularly if the word “you” follows an antecedent noun; as in one speaking to that same group, and saying; “Yes George, I’m happy to share this with you.”
Click on the graphic below to link to the article at Wikipedia, which provides the full table and discusses more fully the topic of “you.”
In “law”, this word “you”, is properly utilized in all ordinary legal discourse when addressing the singular mind (or the single party with volition) within the construct of a “PERSON,” being comprised of, and encompassing, 1) a real flesh and blood, living, man or woman that answers for, or is liable for that PERSON, and 2) the corporate entity that is, in fact, that PERSON.
In this sense, addressing a PERSON, as “you”, is actually as close to a proper use of the word “you”, as anyone could imagine. Thus the person-al pronoun “you”, being both singular and plural, properly addresses the essential plural nature of the single PERSON entity.
- “You” properly addresses the essential plural nature of the single PERSON entity.
The key to benefiting from this, is to grasp who the correct (plural) components are within that single PERSON entity.
So here are some thought-provoking examples:
A judge might say; “Mr. John Smith, I find “you” guilty.” The question arises, then; “who” is this particular “you”, considering “you” is plural?
The answer may well be found in the judge’s next question; “Mr. Smith, do “you” have anything to say?” Notice, the judge is not properly asking if Mr. John Smith has anything to say, he is rather improperly asking John Smith, if “you” has/have anything to say. Thus, whoever answers, voluntarily defines himself as being in joinder with “you”, and concurrently accepts the verdict, for the PERSON, Mr. Smith.
Likewise, find someone high up in the banking system that alleges that “you” owe their bank money. You will NEVER get them to say “John Smith owes $XXXX to this bank and therefore John Smith must pay $XXXX to this bank.” Rather they will say something like; “You owe $XXXX to this bank, therefore you must pay $XXXX to this bank.”
Even a judge’s order will say something like; “John Smith, I order “you” to pay”. Even when asked directly to just repeat, “John Smith owes $XXXX to their bank”, they will either terminate the conversation, or continue to ask; “are you John Smith?”, and when you respond with “yes”, they repeat that “then you owe $XXX to their bank.”
When asked directly while on a telephone conversation, if they intend to continue to refuse to say, “John Smith owes $XXXX to their bank”, they generally just get angry and hang up. I guess we all should be looking for “you”, since “you” is the one, and apparently the only one, that can be found guilty, or that must pay whatever is owed. Check out collection notices. Again, it is always “you” that must pay, or action will be taken against “you”.
This is not just silly grammar, and there is good reason to explain it this way. “You”, in legal and financial discourse, which differs from otherwise “normal” language, refers to the duality inherent within, and of, the party that is liable for the essential plural nature of the single PERSON-corporate-entity, or who at least is prepared to volunteer to accept responsibility and or liability thereto.
The PERSON, a.k.a., the Cestui Que Trust/Estate, is at a minimum, comprised of a Decedent (Artificial PERSON), and an Executor (Natural Person), hence the duality/plurality of its nature, which justifies correctly addressing it with the inherent plurality of the word, “you”. You see, a PERSON, without its Executor, has no volition, and thus cannot answer to anyone, judge or banker included. Only a real man can answer. Be sure to watch all of the videos for Bill Foust, RIP. Here’s one.
As Barack Obama observed in January 2011, “all governments must maintain power through consent, not coercion.” The problem arises in that God-created men are outside, or above, the man-created jurisdiction of judges and bankers, but only a PERSON or Person may commit an offence. Hence a judge will not ask a real man or woman, nor will he ask the PERSON; he will only ask “you” to answer, in hopes that a real man will volunteer to respond as and for the plural “you” – the PERSON. He knows very well that he cannot ask directly the PERSON to answer, because a PERSON is a fictional entity without will/volition, and will NEVER answer!
Judges and banksters also know that all natural Persons are domiciled offshore, corporate bodies registered in foreign jurisdictions, hence they have no domestic control over those Persons. Therefore it would be futile to find a Person guilty, or to attempt to force a Person to pay a debt, or to pay taxes.
Who paid the tax in the Messiah’s day? Well, not the sons, or the domestic ones, but rather the strangers and the foreigners. Thus, the CRA, like the IRS, when these entities collect taxes, must actually re-venue it, from a Person domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction. This is why the IRS is called the internal REVENUE service.
“The master brought his slave before the magistratus, and stated the grounds (causa) of the intended manumission… and after he had pronounced the words “hunc hominem liberum volo,” he … let him go… The magistratus then declared him to be free…” Read about Libertas. What does Mancipatio mean?” “The word bona is sometimes used to express the whole of a man’s property.”
Hence it is not futile to find a man to volunteer to be “you”, because “you” can indeed, be found guilty, and “you” can be ordered to pay debts and taxes, and in most cases, historically at least, “you” has very obediently served the criminal sentences and paid the debts and taxes for, and as, the foreign Persons. And besides, only a “you”, meaning a real man acting concurrently as both a natural Person and as the Decedent, within the construct of a PERSON, can answer a question, or pay a debt or taxes, or cause them to be paid, for, as, or on behalf of that foreign Person.
- Excerpt from Jurisprudence: Or Theory of the Law By Sir John William Salmond
Many have heard that “sometimes” when a man informs the judge that the judge has been appointed as “Trustee”, the judge will dismiss the case, but not always. “You” is also directly related to the reason for this seemingly inconsistent behavior. In truth, the natural Person is legally considered an Estate for a Decedent, which is an Artificial PERSON. This Decedent, (or dead woe-man, Phi-male?) constitutes the basis, or claim of right to the Estate property, which is the Foreign Situs Trust.
Only an Executor of an Estate can make appointments, such as those of Trustee or Beneficiary. If a man appoints a judge as the Trustee, then initially, the judge will correctly presume that you, the man (not “you” the PERSON), has assumed your rightful role as Executor of the subject matter Estate. And unless the judge can trick you, the man, into admitting that you, the man, is not the Executor, without asking you, the man, directly, the judge will continue on this presumption, and dismiss the case against the plural “you”, the PERSON.
The judge knows that if you, the man, is the Executor, then you, the man, can indeed appoint him as Trustee, and concurrently hold him liable, as a Trustee. However, if “you”, the mistaken and confused man, claims to be, or lets himself be tricked by the judge, into being something like a Grantor or a Beneficiary of an undefined, or undisclosed, or implied Trust (as opposed to Executor of THE Trust, which is the subject matter of the action), then the judge will rapidly find “you” the PERSON, guilty, because he will then re-place himself as de facto Executor. Oh, and get over the false and silly idea that it matters, or that the court even cares whether or not you, the man write the name of the PERSON’s Estate in all capital letters, a combination of upper and lower case letters, or Chinese symbols.