 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
I can ask again, what is the true authority.
It might help, in any case, to be specific as to what is, or is not, authority in that specific case.
I can assume that you think that you offered to me an answer to my question, and then I can assume that I can find what might be your answer in the words that you offer.
Example:
That is true authority.
Previous to that is this:
If there is nobody to complain to, there is a breach of trust by the wayward "judiciary". If one understands trust law, then they can become the trustee of the resulting trust.
That appears to suggest that you know something about the authority that is the authority when the subject matter (the case) involved something you call trust law.
That means, as far as your answer is concerned, as far as I can understand, that you are the authority in this case.
So...what authority gave you authority in this case?
Then you offer this:
The authority de jure is found by publication. If an Executive Order is not to be found in the publication service, the Federal Register then it has no force in law. But look...
Apparently the answer is once again that you are the authority in this case, as your words appear to suggest that all you have to do is say something, and that act by you creates authority.
Again, I am forced to assume, since the information offered is lacking specific answers to a specific question.
What is the true authority?
What is the true authority in any case, including any case you can offer, such as the cases you do offer, whereby the case is a specific case, concerning specific subject matter, and if all you do is claim authority, then what am I supposed to do, other than assume, that you claim that you are the authority in that case?
A case that can serve as an example:
TRUMP had best not ignore the trustee.
As far as I know TRUMP is the individual who presides over an organized crime cabal that began in 1789.
The claim of authority in that case is a false claim, the false claim of authority is documented within the official record of those who publicized their criminal take-over of the federation that operated under the Articles of Confederation.
Who, or what, is the "trustee" in the example offered in the previous quote, and is that "trustee" another criminal authority that is dealing with the criminal authority presided over by TRUMP, or is it the same criminal authority?