 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Trusts LEGAL CRIME
(iv) At least one Executor of the Trust possessing the highest fiduciary authority and function over the Trust, either appointed by the Owner of the Property conveyed into the Trust, or by the laws of appointment of Executor if a Cestui Que Vie Trust or the Beneficiary of the Trust if the beneficiary is also the Grantor; and
Following that specific thinking, in my opinion, there is a way to connect the intent of deceit, written into law, whereby the power of those stealing power are thereby armed to take power from their targeted victims. The term Cestui Que Vie can be connected to the source of the deception whereby words are used to confuse the targets, as the targets are led to believe that the Label of the Officer, or the Label of the Authority is true, and therefore the Authority is a True Authority, but then the Label of the Authority is switched, and instead of the Label of the Authority being True, a False Label is put in place of the True Label.
That is ROUTINE.
That is a recognizable ROUTINE.
That is an accurately measurable ROUTINE, and it can be explained as such from one person to another.
So the thinking here, that I am following has to do with these things call Papal Bulls.
At some time in history there were these people who inventing a fraud and extortion crime that they would then perpetrate upon all the targeted victims within reach of this "long arm of the law" so to speak.
So these people who invented this fraud and extortion crime created a form of this crime and the form of this crime was then written down, and the form of this crime was written down on the skin of murdered children, and the form of this crime was a Papal Bull.
To be specific to the concept of "ownership," "trust," "authority," "property," "deed," and "title," as forms of Man Made Laws, and Man Enforced Laws, there is the following invention of a FORM of Law in the FORM of a Papal Bull specifically.
This:
Unam Sanctum
Specifically this:
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
The claim there is then done then as being a claim of authority, ownership, control, of all that exists, including all the people who exist, as those people making that claim say that God gave them the right, control, power, whatever to do as they please with everything, and that includes everyone.
It is as if someone had the bright idea to say that God said to me, hey, God says hey, listen you, and I said what, and then God say you have permission to control everything, since I, me, God, I am very busy, me being God, says God, to this person, and this person says OK, God, you are very busy, so I'll mind the store.
God, according to these people who just so happen to find reason to skin children and write things on the skin of murdered children, gave these murderers of children, whatever, the rights to own everything, or control everything, from then on, so help me God, or whatever story they are telling at that time in that place.
Where, sir, do you get your authority over me, one of the victims may ask, and then the person claiming to have this authority over someone asking for the badge, or the license, or the authority, is directed toward the badge, the authority, or the license, on up the food chain, until such time as the target, the victim, the subject, the foreigner, is brought to the fearless leader.
So, get that straight, please, the target/victim/thing/subject/foreigner asks: "Take me to your Leader" when confronted with someone claiming to be an authority over the target/victim/thing/subject/foreigner.
Take me to your leader is a counter claim, seeking agreement.
Person A says, I own you dude.
Person B says, not so fast.
Person A may then beat Person B senseless, and while doing so Person A is claiming to be "beating some sense" into Person B.
Got that?
Two people meet.
Person A says something to the effect of Person A having a claim of some control over Person B.
Person B does not agree with the claim of control or ownership by Person A subjecting Person B to this act of ownership, this claim, at this point at which the two people meet.
Person B asks for evidence of authority.
Person A beats Person B senseless, for daring to question authority, and while Person A beats Person B the Person doing the beating claims further that Person B must have sense beaten into Person B.
Person A chooses to beat Person B senseless.
Person A claims that Person B is gaining the power of knowledge, per se, as this knowledge stuff is being transferred from Person A to Person B in the form of broken bones, severed fingers, and maybe Person B is skinned alive, and Person B may be a defenseless, powerless, child.
Take me to your leader, being a reply, an offer, a request, a response to claims of authority, is answered with the actual fact of deceit, threat, and violence upon the innocent, so, therefore, that proves of what is that claim of authority, as that claim of authority is true in the sense that is is criminal, and the pretense of lawfulness is in fact a lie, demonstrated as a lie, as the criminal perpetrates the measurable definition of crime.
What if Person A does not automatically resort to deceit, threats, and violence once the claim of authority by Person A is answered with a counter claim, an offer, and a request to "take me to your leader" or "by which authority does your claim originate"?
Person A is apt to resort to ignorance, if there is no resort to deception, threat, or aggressive violence.
Person A may answer the counterclaim with an accurate statement such as "I don't really know." followed by a action that is intended to answer the question accurately, such as "let me ask for help, I will call my fearless leader, who has authority over me, so as to answer your question as to why my authority over you is my authority over you."
Where does the buck stop?
If the buck stops at The Constitution then I say forget about The Constitution, it is a lie, but go ahead and find those things called The Bill of Rights, and since The Bill of Rights are attached to The Constitution, then that claim, if that is the claim, that Authority is The Constitution, with the Bill of Rights, that being the authority, then in that case, Person A has no authority beyond the Bill of Rights.
I have the right as Person B to question that Authority, so if that Authority claims to have the right to beat sense into me, then that is no authority.
On the other hand, if the buck is passed, and passed, and passed on up the food chain, and bypasses The Bill of Rights, then where does it stop at that point?
Does the authority stop at Cestui Que Vie and the bait and switch routine of God being the authority one second and then some guy who murders children for fun and profit, for skin, to write things down, because that murderer of children has a bad memory, and can't be trusted for his, or her, memory?
So these black robed employees of Devil Worshipers get their authority to lie, cheat, steal, rob, rape, sell child sex slaves, push destructive drug addiction upon their targets, serial kill, mass murder, and other crimes, their authority to do as they please, to commit all those crimes, does their authority actually come from The Devil, or is The Devil just another False Front they use as another diversion from themselves, so as to misdirect any defensive power that the targets, and the victims, may command, to then waste that defensive power hunting down a fabricated being of complete nonsense?
How does the sense of the devil, the actual authority of the devil, transfer from one person to the next? How does this power of the devil, this sense of the devil, travel from someone who has it to someone who may yet get it?
How does someone invent a way to help someone get the reality of the devil? Does Person A have to beat the sense of The Devil into Person B, or are there less violent ways to make sure that Person B understands the true meaning of The Devil?
Will lies work alone?
I don't think so.
Will lies combined with threats alone?
I don't think so.
Do devilish, evil, people have to combine lies, threats, with aggressive violence so as to ensure that the reality of The Devil is understood by those who have yet to understand the true meaning of The Devil?
I think that crime is the medium of exchange required to teach someone who had no power to know what evil is, and once a criminal does target an innocent person, the medium of exchange, or crime, or lies, threats, and aggressive violence, does, in fact beat into the victim that realization of exactly what is evil.
Can a targeted victim remain innocent if a criminal teaches the victim the meaning of evil?
I think the answer is yes.
I went a long way away from lessons in Legal Crime, as to how the Legal Criminals actually do what they do, when they do it. But I think I nailed down the basic principles.
if the beneficiary is also the Grantor
I think that complication can be reasoned and one reason is to confuse. Complication can be an effort to cause confusion. If a Grantor has something beneficial then what is the need of granting something already granted?
Equitable Title
The word equity may be a word that was made duplicitous because the idea of a world without criminals gaining the power to make victims can be a world described with the word equity.
Such as:
Equitable Commerce
Moving now to:
Positive Law (tm?)
A Deceased Trust, also known as a Testamentary Trust, also known as a Deceased Estate and simply a State is the lowest form of Trust and the lowest form of rights of ownership of any possible form of Trust. Deceased Trusts are exclusively an invention of inferior Roman law whereby property is conveyed into a Testamentary Trust upon the death of the testator. Inferior Roman law has a hybrid Deceased Trust called a Cestui Que Vie Trust which uses false and extraordinarily illogical presumptions to create Deceased Estates for the living on the presumption they are “dead”.
That is where the rubber meets the road in any case where a voluntary association becomes an involuntary one in time and place, apparently, as the resort to deceit so as to create a victim, so as to gain power from the victim, is defined by the criminal upon the targeted victim, or in the case where the players involve are merely actors acting out the routine, having no actual, individual, power of will, the event is understandable in that context.
A victim plays the victim, being told to be a victim, obeying the order, and failing to question the order as being in any way wrong, or judged, by the victim; while the extractor or the power from the victim, in the same boat, is merely following orders, without question, going along to get along, and collecting the power, or benefit, because that is the way things are done, as they say: When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
As soon as someone prefers not to be a victim, or a criminal, then that moment begins the process that has become known as "waking up" and from then onward there will be valid questions asked and competitively accurate answers can be discovered, and used.