 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
A True Person Trust is formed when a Divine Person grants certain Divine Rights of Use, known as Divinity into the True Person Trust creating the Trust Corpus of the True Trust, also known as the True Body Corporate, also known as the True Person, having legal personality. The mind and brain of the flesh vessel is always the General Executor and Guardian of the flesh. The flesh vessel, also known as the living flesh, also known as the living body of the organic higher order life form is always the Trustee with the True Person as beneficiary.
It is easy for me to get lost in that paragraph.
As Frank has tried to accurately communicate the concept of a Legal Fiction, so is it difficult to apply such a concept in current thinking, for reasons that may be focused upon and overcome.
A person is a fictional device.
See?
See how difficult it is to apply that type of thinking?
What, may I ask, anyone, is the actual point of origin that we all identify as our own power of perception?
When anyone one of us asks our self to define the source of our perceptions, as if asking "what is me?" and asking "were is the me that decides to move my body out of bed in the morning?" and therefore there is this defining of the concept of self awareness, and so what is the accurate answer?
I have mine.
I don't know.
I do not know, exactly, where the real me is, this POWER to will my thoughts, and my actions, where is this POWER, or even what is this POWER, of me, I, my will, my force of decision making, whatever words I use to ask myself, or whatever words I use to ask someone else to help me find the answer, so far, there is no definitive answer, but there are competitive answers.
The competitive answer from Frank O'Collins is that there is a Divine Trust, of some imaginative authority, as that authority places authority into each individual living being, in the form of free will, or will power, or self awareness, or a POWER OF WILL, or a capacity to decide, or a way in which a living being responds, as in response ability, to the other things, other than the individual life form, and so there is this POWER, and that is a competitive way to look at one's own self.
So this Divine Trust idea is this idea whereby each POWER of WILL is no better, and no worse, in authority over each other, since only one individual has authority over one individual, one soul, one power of will, per customer, and each Trustee, is in charge of each living body, naturally, and that is the end of that POWER according to that idea of that Trust.
I am entrusted with the body I call me.
That is the God connecting to the individual human being Trust thing, idea, that is competitive, as that idea can be compared to the idea that some guy in a black robe has claimed that God told that one guy that that one guy owns everyone.
1.
Each individual is trusted only as far as each individual can be responsible, and therefore accountable, for each individual, with possible fine print concerning children.
2.
No individual is trusted with the absolute authority over everyone else.
So which is the more competitive idea of what is or is not a Trust?
Where complications set in, obviously, are areas of trusts, agreements, voluntary associations, or connections between one trusted individual and another trusted individual being.
Now, as it is with the concept of God, an individual, if you will, or many Gods, but all Gods, and then one human being, there is a concept of POWER connecting these entities, these beings.
I, me, this POWER of will, is what it is, connected to no one, at some time, and at some place, such as before I was born into a human body, and then at that moment, there is at least one obvious connection, and that connection is called a placenta.
1.
Before birth
2.
After birth
So there is no connection, and then there is at least one connection, and power flows, and then the cord is cut, and the individual living being is no longer connected.
What is the highest Trust?
Mothers who abort babies, or serial killers who skin babies alive and write Papal Bulls on their skin, if such things do exist, are examples of Trust.
I trust, for example, that disconnecting the POWER of WILL from a little baby, before that baby has a chance to use the POWER of WILL to defend against being murdered, or killed for reasons of self preservation by the mother, whatever, I trust, I trust, that that is not the highest form of trust, rather, that sounds like destructive thoughts and actions accumulating into a no win situation, such as the often repeated phrase "the lesser of two evils," and therefore this is a Trust that evil will be where evil will be, even if I don't want evil to be anywhere.
So Trust in The Government, for another example, is like saying I feel lucky today, so I'm going to trust in my luck, and I'm going to send this group of people in black robes a portion of my POWER OF WILL, like signing away my soul, and I Trust that these guys in black robes, or girls in black robes, will give me back more than I pay them.
That sounds like an inferior trust to me.
Connection to whatever POWER does create my POWER of WILL sounds like a superior Trust to me.
Connection to my mother, such as it was, and is no more, unless there is a spiritual connection existing after the living body that was my mother is no longer living, is what it is, and no longer what it was, and my mother did not abort me, or kill me, so she earned that trust, in that way, but again, that is rational thinking, actual facts, and not having much at all to do with legal fictions.
A parent may have a better idea as to what another parent is doing with a child, one may think that nurturing the child, allowing it to grow, is a good idea, and the other may think that eating the child, after skinning the child, and using the skin of the child for paper, is a good idea.
The child may be defenseless in either case.
What kind of trusts can exist between those two exemplary parents?
That is the basis, the principles, as I see it, behind legal fictions.
Parent A, or POWER of WILL A, has the nurturing idea, and Parent B, or POWER of WILL B, has the skin, eat, and use the skin as paper idea.
Which POWER wins in the POWER struggle between competitive examples of creations of living beings in any case?
What is the form in which the POWER struggle takes? What does the battle field look like?
Does Parent A do with children as Parent B pleases while Parent B does with children as Parent B pleases?
No, the answer is categorically no, since Parent B runs out of children when Parent B uses that idea, it is an idea that runs into the law of diminishing returns, so, obviously, Parent B with the baby skinning business, that idea, those actions driven by that idea, runs out of work to do, runs out of customers, runs out of business, and is beset with a scarcity of other living beings from which to offer connections according to that idea. Where does Parent B with the baby murdering business go to drum up more business once all the babies are murdered, skinned alive, and used as books?
As it turns out the Parent A idea ends up being one Parent turning into more Parents, and more babies.
Obviously there is a new source of things to do for Parent B with the baby murdering idea.
Parent B endeavors to connect to Parent A, to offer baby murder business to Parent A, but there is a problem, Parent A does not sign onto the idea, and at that moment there is Trust, in the form of disagreement.
Parent B, with the baby murder idea, baby skinning idea, cannibalism idea, human sacrifice idea, devil worship idea, crime idea, legal crime idea, all that in that one idea, is bound to trust that Person A is not going to accept the offer to Person A to have babies shipped over to Person B so that Person B can feed on the steady stream of babies flowing from Person A to Person B.
Person B Trusts that Person A is not going to accept that offer.
Enter stage left, or right, as Person B pulls something out of his, or her, posterior.
Before there is no deceit, and now there is deceit, as Person B finds a need to cover up the baby murder business idea.
So, the question here, as obvious as my big nose on my face, why would Person A ever Trust anything that Person B says, and again, what can be found, is an inferior Trust, by any measure, so long as the measure is not measured by Person B, since Person B can be trusted to cook the books, or lie, or deceive, or falsify, and now there are 2 inferior Trusts.
Baby murder for fun and profit is Trust B?
How about this idea?
Since I have managed to confuse A with B above, can it be easier for the sake of accuracy, for the sake of avoiding confusion, to categorize the competitive ideas, the competitive Trusts, this way:
Liberty = Trust in such things as equitable commerce, the golden rule, morality, productivity, honestly, justice, reason, wisdom, agreement, voluntary association, and parents nurturing babies also known as reproduction.
That can be L
L
Parent L has this idea, this Trust, that nurturing babies is worth the effort.
LC = Legal Crime = resort to deception, resort to threats of violence, resort to aggressive violence upon the innocent, so as to consume the power of innocence, so as to then have more power to then consume more power of innocence, until such time as there is no life left on earth, and make that a business model, and sell that business model to anyone who might sign their souls away in that way, to take up the job of making a living at the expense of the innocent, to get "something for nothing," to make might right, or other such lies, just so long as the innocent victim supply holds out, and then all the rats can feed on each other once all the innocent victims are used up, and, of course, make that into a legal monopoly, so that all the targeted victims seeking defense will find only this devilish evil as the only thing offered by anyone with any power of any kind.
So there is a way to get around confusing Parent A with Parent B.
Parent L is for Liberty.
Parent LC is for Crime made Legal.
Liberty is a Trust that is absolutely agreed upon by all those who Trust in that Trust, without exception.
If there is an exception then that exception, in each case of an exception, is a volunteer who volunteers to leave that Trust and join the other Trust.
Legal Crime is also a Trust, and in that Trust all the volunteers join that Trust by their Power of Will, by their thoughts, by their actions, as they resort to deception, threats, and violence upon the innocent people in the other Trust.
Honor among thieves?
That must be understood, it seems to me, because failure to understand how the criminals manage to cooperate among their own number is a grave error.
Frank is on that trail.
I'm not doing my studies so much as I'm offering a competitive viewpoint.
Liberty is not a pipe dream, it works, it always works, as advertized. There are examples of Liberty working on small scales and larger scales, from a parent trusting another parent to avoid eating and skinning alive their children during a trip to the library, up to that time period between 1776 and 1788 when a Democratic Federated Republic worked as Free Market, Open Source, government, in this place now called America.
Liberty does work, so failure to know is not the same thing as Liberty not working.
Ignorance is ignorance, and it is individual. Just because one person is ignorant of one thing does not automatically make everyone ignorant of that same thing.
What can happen when accurate information is allowed to flow from those who have competitive viewpoints to those who are ignorant of those competitive viewpoints?
I can try to read onward, looking for specific things worth knowing, things I can use, in the words offered by Frank O'Collins.
Eventually I will find and no longer be ignorant of a competitive method of recording a Testament of Will, or something along those lines.